Tír Na HiFi

sbgk wrote:jumped up little player has a cheeky ring to it.

It does, but some people might feel that it is a little bit disrespectful towards Adrian/Triode, considering more than 95% of the code is still his.

Julf wrote:

sbgk wrote:jumped up little player has a cheeky ring to it.

It does, but some people might feel that it is a little bit disrespectful towards Adrian/Triode, considering more than 95% of the code is still his.

But that's the code that is irrelevant to the sound quality as it is unlistenable.

Gordon's the one who is doing all the work to make something out of it.


Your suggestion is like artist Henry Moore having to pay tribute to the person that hew the stone out of the rocks. A bit silly isn't it.

Julf wrote:

sbgk wrote:jumped up little player has a cheeky ring to it.

It does, but some people might feel that it is a little bit disrespectful towards Adrian/Triode, considering more than 95% of the code is still his.

lol

If Adrian/Triode has a problem then I am sure he is grown up enough to make his feelings known. Don't think he needs you to protect his interests, in fact you are trying to associate yourself with Adrian/Triode by proxy without making any sort of contribution.

On to ignore you go.

I don't want to go too far off-topic, but I think it is fair to respond to your posting.

Aleg wrote:Gordon's the one who is doing all the work to make something out of it.

Squeezelite most definitely is "something" already - it is being used by a lot of people (including me) who are more than happy with the standard sound quality.

You might argue that Gordon's code is the most important part for you, but it nevertheless is perhaps 1% of the code of the whole program.

Your suggestion is like artist Henry Moore having to pay tribute to the person that hew the stone out of the rocks. A bit silly isn't it.

I think it is more like the person who painted a Henry Moore sculpture with bronze paint having to pay tribute to Henry Moore.

Julf wrote:I don't want to go too far off-topic, but I think it is fair to respond to your posting.

Aleg wrote:Gordon's the one who is doing all the work to make something out of it.

Squeezelite most definitely is "something" already - it is being used by a lot of people (including me) who are more than happy with the standard sound quality.

I suggest you stick with that then and move back to the slimdevices forum.

Julf wrote: You might argue that Gordon's code is the most important part for you, but it nevertheless is perhaps 1% of the code of the whole program.

Your suggestion is like artist Henry Moore having to pay tribute to the person that hew the stone out of the rocks. A bit silly isn't it.

I think it is more like the person who painted a Henry Moore sculpture with bronze paint having to pay tribute to Henry Moore.

I guess we differ in opinion then on what is most important. I view it as "someone has to do the coarse, dirty work" and someone will else do the refinements and make it truly worthwhile.

Aleg wrote:I guess we differ in opinion then on what is most important. I view it as "someone has to do the coarse, dirty work" and someone will else do the refinements and make it truly worthwhile.

Maybe a better metafor would be that Triode designed and built a car, and Gordon developed a "high performance" tuning part for the car that might increase the power of the engine. It is still a Triode car, not a "Gordon intercooler with some wheels, engine and bodywork attached".

Julf wrote:

Aleg wrote:I guess we differ in opinion then on what is most important. I view it as "someone has to do the coarse, dirty work" and someone will else do the refinements and make it truly worthwhile.

Maybe a better metafor would be that Triode designed and built a car, and Gordon developed a "high performance" tuning part for the car that might increase the power of the engine. It is still a Triode car, not a "Gordon intercooler with some wheels, engine and bodywork attached".

a better metaphor is that Triode added suspension to a car based on a bmw and mercedes that allowed it to be used on different roads and then I tuned the suspension so that it can gives a more pleasant ride.

sbgk wrote:a better metaphor is that Triode added suspension to a car based on a bmw and mercedes that allowed it to be used on different roads and then I tuned the suspension so that it can gives a more pleasant ride.

That is a metaphor I can live with - and I hope that once you have found the optimal combination of parameters, you will feed back your findings to Triode so they can be included as an option in the standard squeezelite program.

thanks for the classic Julf thread derailment lesson were all taking notes


How do i implement core affinity, where does it go?

nige2000 wrote:thanks for the classic Julf thread derailment lesson were all taking notes


How do i implement core affinity, where does it go?

I cannot get the affinity programs to work.

I did install the VC2013 C++ before, but the affinity programs report missing MSVCP120.dll
Then I installed VC2013 C++, which performed a repair, but still missing MSVCP120.dll reported.
Checked SWOW64 and indeed no MSVCP120.dll present.
Copied missing MSVCP120.dll into directory with affinity programs. Then a new error came up about not being able to start/open program at position xxxxxxx.

This is all on Server2012R2 in Core mode with AudioPhil's optimiser 1.23

So it is outside of my grasp now.


BTW some feedback on JLP

Listening to 13/13, 13/14 and last 16/16 it still doesn't do it for me compared to MQn 2.71

It is a 'beautiful' sound, with warmth and richness, there are details high and low.
But it can't grasp me, I get too easily distracted from the music.

What I like about the MQn 2.71 that I'm using as my reference point, is the raw power, its unforgiving resolution and details, laying bare in the highest resolution all there is in the music, with the greatest clarity, hiding nothing and showing all. And all that with good energy and timing in its presentation.
And that is what is still drawing me back to MQn 2.71.

Maybe that is not what you are looking for Gordon, as I can see what attracts people to the 'other' sound as well.
But IMHO it is just like choosing Hifi equipment.
I listened to many, many brands of Hifi and lots of different speakers.

Many speakers were 'beautiful' of tone and sound, but too round, full and slick sounding to my taste. Very 'analogue' some call it, but I'm not looking to achieve the same as the old (and limited) vinyls and tubes.
Many hifi brands were not resolving enough, or when they were, they were just 'fast' and lost all musicality.
In the end I found my perfect combination of speed, resolution, timing, musicality and clarity in my current combination. That's not to say other kit wasn't good, but it wasn't just not to my taste.

And that's what I feel might be happening with MQn and JLP as well.
I like the MQn 2.7x very much for its musical character, and have not yet found the same in JLP. I can see why other people might like it very much, but it is not (yet) what I'm looking for and had found in MQn.


BTW BTW
In my office system JLP is OK, but that is not that very resolving and unforgiving.
So maybe the gear used in assessing the sound might play a role as well.


Cheers

Aleg