Tír Na HiFi

It's a bit of a hassle switching back and forth between 3.14 and the latest avx's in their different folders, so I took my newest reference only, 4.23 avx, and compared it to all of the new avx's, 4.26 to 4.33 avx.

As I said yesterday, there are quality peaks and valleys in the progression, so for this run to my ears there were a few clear winners:

4.29 > 4.33 > 4.26 > 4.23

Sometimes the ones in between were slightly better or worse than their predecessors or successors, and sometimes they were really "off", but the ones listed above clearly stood out for me.

4.29 avx is a clear winner, does everything really well, and comes close to that elusive quality of 4.04 sse.
4.33 is very good too, but has a different signature that is slightly less attractive to me personally

Most of the ones I tested are now better than 3.14 for me. Again I will have to bring up 4.04 sse. Whenever I play it, I just forget about testing and am drawn straight into the music. Objectively and analytically these latest avx's are better, more detail, wider and deeper sound stage, but there is a magical solidity and coherence in 4.04 that still astounds me.

4.33>4.29>4.30>4.28

nice progression
still think were a little short on the micro micro detail, HF, reverb, vibration
macro detail is great
speed back to normal too

4.34 is a 4.04 + 4.29

4.35 is a 4.04 + 4.33

sbgk wrote:4.34 is a 4.04 + 4.29

4.35 is a 4.04 + 4.33

Thank you so much for that, Gordon! It's too late in the evening to start on these, but I will definitely do so tomorrow.

Just now I have been comparing various controls with 4.29 avx, leading to the confirmation that control 2.97 is still the best sounding, and then in descending order 512, 1024 and 2.61 512.

Then I substituted 4.29 avx for 4.04 sse with the same control and with almost all tracks I used on them, 4.04 sse had my preference! And that's so astounding!

So your willingness to humour me and create these two versions is really appreciated. I'll give them a real good listen and report back.

don't really rate 4.34/35, quite like 4.36 which is back to 4.33 method + a few tweaks

sbgk wrote:don't really rate 4.34/35, quite like 4.36 which is back to 4.33 method + a few tweaks

I have not been testing different control files
i was using the 512
what u using?

nige2000 wrote:

sbgk wrote:don't really rate 4.34/35, quite like 4.36 which is back to 4.33 method + a few tweaks

I have not been testing different control files
i was using the 512
what u using?

3.61 512

think the old ones were more for starting mqnplay when it was a console app, now it's a windows app it doesn't need to start as a console. It may sound enhanced, but think that's an effect.

just read a strange thread on ca about g rankin on usb cables - 12% errors in win 8 streaming compared to osx.

sbgk wrote:

nige2000 wrote:

sbgk wrote:don't really rate 4.34/35, quite like 4.36 which is back to 4.33 method + a few tweaks

I have not been testing different control files
i was using the 512
what u using?

3.61 512

think the old ones were more for starting mqnplay when it was a console app, now it's a windows app it doesn't need to start as a console. It may sound enhanced, but think that's an effect.

just read a strange thread on ca about g rankin on usb cables - 12% errors in win 8 streaming compared to osx.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-ge ... und-20814/

I read the thread.
Sounds a bit far fetched to me.
No measurements to back up the "claims" = unproven guff.

2channelaudio wrote:I read the thread.
Sounds a bit far fetched to me.
No measurements to back up the "claims" = unproven guff.

Free world...anyone can say anything without prove.