Tír Na HiFi

Aleg wrote:

erin wrote:

erin wrote:
Anyway, I have been listening to MQN 3.92 and found it to be very pleasant. Music should be relaxing and enjoyable and musical. 3.92 ticks those boxes. - A step in the right direction. Keep up the good work Gordon.

But, 3.92 is not as good as my favorite version because it does not have much bass detail. The leading edge is lost. So, very relaxing, but not audiophile....

Erin

3.96 and 3.95 are uploaded with the same timestamp, the 3.95 is actually more recent.
I always order the details list on date modified which will put the most recent at the top.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3vvH5W ... =drive_web


BTW what is your most favourite version you refered to?


Cheers

Aleg

Hello Aleg,

Sorry that I cant be specific. It is the same version I have used since about October 2013. I don't know the version number. 2.5 something perhaps??

I try other versions. They don't cut the mustard. I go back to my favorite version.

I can upload my folder if you want to try.

Regards,
Erin

tony wrote:That's what you get for posting unflattering video's of 61yr olds still trying to be their arty best.

Jrling no fear of abuse on that post sure most of us would agree with it all.

I am about to be 65! All claims to artiness lost long ago.

Whilst I am pleased that most seem to agree with my sentiment and statements, it is rather a negative position to take. Whilst I believe it is statement of the reality of our 'predicament', I would like to feel that we could cut the odds substantially, but only if we knew what we were trying to achieve with OS/hardware/software mods. There is a little science to trying to persuade the 'Bastard Windows' to let the audio stream alone from its myriads of extraneous processes (in our case) by dedicated cores and promoting/demoting process priority, mostly it is trial & error. Jitter & timing of events is the closest we get to a statement of what to eradicate, but not knowing how it is arising in the first place.

Although JC opined that MQn was in its infancy, I can hardly agree after a year of Gordon trying very hard in every area of the render loop.The limit that we are reaching IMHO is connected to using mainstream Intel/Windows mobos/OS.

To me the 'final solution' would have to involve dedicated hardware and OS and audio render (but not necessarily fancy front end to choose the tracks) software, preferably directly connected to a DAC, all designed as a whole for the audiophile experience. I am sure that it could be done. Actually I also don't think it need cost loads of money either. But to date, although some DIYers and vendors have talked about it, none that I know of have got anywhere near to fruition. And I don't mean Linux-based OS either, which I have tried and have many of the same weaknesses as Windows. John Swenson is working on a Wandboard/DAC combo. but using Squeezelite (Linux) as the player; Russ from Twisted Pear is doing something similar with the BeagleBone Black with a DAC of his design attached directly, but again Linux-based I believe - so neither would work with MQn unless Gordon rewrote MQn especially for their platforms.

Anyone know differently? If so, I am all ears. A dedicated FPGA would probably be the answer. Evaluation boards are cheap. Wonder if Gordon's skills extend there?!

Jonathan

jrling wrote:

tony wrote:That's what you get for posting unflattering video's of 61yr olds still trying to be their arty best.

Jrling no fear of abuse on that post sure most of us would agree with it all.

I am about to be 65! All claims to artiness lost long ago.

Whilst I am pleased that most seem to agree with my sentiment and statements, it is rather a negative position to take. Whilst I believe it is statement of the reality of our 'predicament', I would like to feel that we could cut the odds substantially, but only if we knew what we were trying to achieve with OS/hardware/software mods. There is a little science to trying to persuade the 'Bastard Windows' to let the audio stream alone from its myriads of extraneous processes (in our case) by dedicated cores and promoting/demoting process priority, mostly it is trial & error. Jitter & timing of events is the closest we get to a statement of what to eradicate, but not knowing how it is arising in the first place.

Although JC opined that MQn was in its infancy, I can hardly agree after a year of Gordon trying very hard in every area of the render loop.The limit that we are reaching IMHO is connected to using mainstream Intel/Windows mobos/OS.

To me the 'final solution' would have to involve dedicated hardware and OS and audio render (but not necessarily fancy front end to choose the tracks) software, preferably directly connected to a DAC, all designed as a whole for the audiophile experience. I am sure that it could be done. Actually I also don't think it need cost loads of money either. But to date, although some DIYers and vendors have talked about it, none that I know of have got anywhere near to fruition. And I don't mean Linux-based OS either, which I have tried and have many of the same weaknesses as Windows. John Swenson is working on a Wandboard/DAC combo. but using Squeezelite (Linux) as the player; Russ from Twisted Pear is doing something similar with the BeagleBone Black with a DAC of his design attached directly, but again Linux-based I believe - so neither would work with MQn unless Gordon rewrote MQn especially for their platforms.

Anyone know differently? If so, I am all ears. A dedicated FPGA would probably be the answer. Evaluation boards are cheap. Wonder if Gordon's skills extend there?!

Jonathan

Yea we were thinking about that before just don't know enough to write code for the fpga

Tp botic will Be good

erin wrote: Hello Aleg,

Sorry that I cant be specific. It is the same version I have used since about October 2013. I don't know the version number. 2.5 something perhaps??

I try other versions. They don't cut the mustard. I go back to my favorite version.

I can upload my folder if you want to try.

Regards,
Erin

Hi Erin

If you could please do, just the mqnplay and mqncontrol should be sufficient.
I may have them myself but if the are no longer identifiable.
I'm just curious.

Cheers

Aleg

Yea we were thinking about that before just don't know enough to write code for the fpga

Tp botic will Be good

Yeah TP BOTIC should be good from a hardware point of view which is Russ' speciality,, but of course not using MQn and therefore IMHO still limited by the render software they will use, which is Linux-based.
We all know that is one of, if not the most important aspects of SQ.

jrling wrote:

Yea we were thinking about that before just don't know enough to write code for the fpga

Tp botic will Be good

Yeah TP BOTIC should be good from a hardware point of view which is Russ' speciality,, but of course not using MQn and therefore IMHO still limited by the render software they will use, which is Linux-based.
We all know that is one of, if not the most important aspects of SQ.

Lol
I know all too well
its certainly the o's and player software that will hold it back
I think there's major creases to be ironed out there
But even given those flaws I think it's going to be in the same league as MQn and audio pc
And the only way is up for them
Linux MQn for the bbb and botic is a scary scary thought

nige2000 wrote:

jrling wrote:

Yea we were thinking about that before just don't know enough to write code for the fpga

Tp botic will Be good

Linux MQn for the bbb and botic is a scary scary thought

Indeed. But I'd pitch KS MQn against that any day. If only.

Quick report of tonight's test session:

Contenders: 3.14 | 3.75 | 3.83 | 3.92 | 3.94

I skipped some latest versions without testing, but took the favourites of Aleg and JC, which are often in line with my own preferences.

Without going into too much detail this time:

3.83 < 3.94 < 3.92 < 3.75 << 3.14

I tested all version with control 3.61 521, and that lead to the above ranking. Then I tested some different controls again, and for the newer versions it seems the appropriate and best sounding control is indeed 3.61, but for my reference 3.14 both control 2.97 and 1024 sound better than 3.61. I'll have to do some more testing between these controls, as the differences are subtle, much more so than with the play versions. The impression is that 2.97 has slightly better soundstage and decay, while 1024 has more solidity, bass power and tonal accuracy. I like them both very much with good old 3.14 and both combinations are much better than the rest of the contenders.

I'd like to humbly request a 24/96 version of 3.14 avx. That would make me really, really happy!

Oh, and just because I mentioned using acoustical instruments for testing purposes, doesn't mean that I only play that stuff when I want to enjoy and unwind. I just closed my session by playing some of my favourite tracks from Thin Lizzy's Live and Dangerous, an album from my youth, and there wasn't a part of my body that wasn't swaying and tapping or doing something or other. When a system can play piano and violin as if they're in the room with you, chances are it will also rock. :-)

"When a system can play piano and violin as if they're in the room with you, chances are it will also rock"
+1

satshanti wrote:Quick report of tonight's test session:

Contenders: 3.14 | 3.75 | 3.83 | 3.92 | 3.94

I skipped some latest versions without testing, but took the favourites of Aleg and JC, which are often in line with my own preferences.

Without going into too much detail this time:

3.83 < 3.94 < 3.92 < 3.75 << 3.14

I tested all version with control 3.61 521, and that lead to the above ranking. Then I tested some different controls again, and for the newer versions it seems the appropriate and best sounding control is indeed 3.61, but for my reference 3.14 both control 2.97 and 1024 sound better than 3.61. I'll have to do some more testing between these controls, as the differences are subtle, much more so than with the play versions. The impression is that 2.97 has slightly better soundstage and decay, while 1024 has more solidity, bass power and tonal accuracy. I like them both very much with good old 3.14 and both combinations are much better than the rest of the contenders.

I'd like to humbly request a 24/96 version of 3.14 avx. That would make me really, really happy!

Oh, and just because I mentioned using acoustical instruments for testing purposes, doesn't mean that I only play that stuff when I want to enjoy and unwind. I just closed my session by playing some of my favourite tracks from Thin Lizzy's Live and Dangerous, an album from my youth, and there wasn't a part of my body that wasn't swaying and tapping or doing something or other. When a system can play piano and violin as if they're in the room with you, chances are it will also rock. :-)

After I read this post, I had a nice listen to 3.14 and 1024....

Drum and snare decay on 3.14 is amazing. Better than 3.94/3.95.
3.14 is more transparent and presents a blacker mid range spectrum.
But seems a little mid recessed V's 3.94? might be quieter, its smooth in either case
3.94 even though more mid forward doesn't have 3.14's transparency or decay.

3.94 seems to have tighter bass, but less of it
But 3.14 has better bass attack and punch, much more weight than 3.94.

I have been running control 10ms 1.6 window.
1024 is a lot better in my system, thankyou

Vocally 3.14 with 1024 is quite well balanced.
If I had to pick I would say 3.14 is ahead of the race.

3.14 seems to have a good mix of everything.
If 3.94 could have more bass weight/attack, and smoother mids it might sound very similar to 3.14 lol...

Interesting