Re: MQN
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:44 pm
No, MQn should be developed to be a neutral and detailed player, to be the best a player can be.wushuliu wrote:So MQN should be developed to satisfy 3 or 4 people (if that) with 'highly tuned' machines? Especially as the designer himself does not own any such machine?Aleg wrote:I think you should, if you aim for the best sound quality.wushuliu wrote:
Sorry but as much as I respect what those guys are doing as a fellow DIY'er it should not be a must for me to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on Paul Pang Products, clocks, whatever flavor of the month cable/usb/card/SSD, power supply. etc. There is not enough consensus IMO on a lot of those items when it comes to MQN or even jplay. I need more than just a couple of guys' opinions on that stuff before I invest that kind of time and money. There are just too many variables.
If you don't want to spend time and/or money (and it doesn't have to be big bucks, as Nigel is keeping it low cost afaik), you will have to accept that it will be less than best. And that will become apparent on revealing software and hifi gear.
You can't have it all for nothing.
Cheers
Aleg
I am all for the pursuit of low noise, improved audio performance via pc but I believe that constitutes a separate journey than determining how MQN should 'sound'.
As for your earlier snarky comment about my contribution to mqn that reminds I have not donated which I certainly should have done by now. So thanks.
This means on lesser hardware it will show flaws of that hardware. But in my opinion that doesn't mean the player should be dumbed down to hide those flaws.
MQn was on the track to be THE best software player, beating £ multi-k streamers on sound quality.
I hope it will keep following that track.
Cheers
Aleg