Tír Na HiFi

2channelaudio wrote:

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. :-)

Thanks for the tip I will try the 3.14 and 2.97 combination.

Also which 1024 are you referencing... 3.61?

jrling wrote:...
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.
..

2channelaudio wrote:

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 has 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

Aleg wrote:

2channelaudio wrote:

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 has 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

2CA

I find it very comforting for me and also in the light of the recent discussions on the latest MQN-versions that also you find that MQN 3.14 tops all those others, if I may say so.
That means that some of us are again converging into a common perception of which one is best sofar, albeit via different routes.

Cheers

Aleg

jesuscheung wrote:

jrling wrote:...
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.
..

that's because you haven't heard xa+xa's win7.
that texture level+quality is way beyond.
but doesn't have mqn music presentation. seems like maker of xa is obsessed to making quality mid and vocal and texture. bass is ok.

not to mention xa sounds like cr*p from high to low jitter environments. all things are variable from tune to depth to texture.... zero compromise.

mqn tries to stay analog tune in all situations. that's already one compromise.

older mqn slowly improves on texture with less jitters. newer mqn struggles a little bit. sometimes gets worse....
newer mqn has higher overall quantity.

more you compromise, less is texture quality.

you need to listen to more software players to see what is possible.

in case you think i tuned my PC for particular player to have such conclusion. not really, i also listen to vlc/youtube/flash... they are have similar jitter response.

2channelaudio wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:

jrling wrote:...
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.
..

that's because you haven't heard xa+xa's win7.
that texture level+quality is way beyond.
but doesn't have mqn music presentation. seems like maker of xa is obsessed to making quality mid and vocal and texture. bass is ok.

not to mention xa sounds like cr*p from high to low jitter environments. all things are variable from tune to depth to texture.... zero compromise.

mqn tries to stay analog tune in all situations. that's already one compromise.

older mqn slowly improves on texture with less jitters. newer mqn struggles a little bit. sometimes gets worse....
newer mqn has higher overall quantity.

more you compromise, less is texture quality.

you need to listen to more software players to see what is possible.

in case you think i tuned my PC for particular player to have such conclusion. not really, i also listen to vlc/youtube/flash... they are have similar jitter response.

JC you got some links re xa + xa??

sbgk wrote:uploaded 3.98, think it's a step forward