MQN

[jesuscheung]

i see people here are very highly skilled engineers.

building software, usb card, cable, dac

now, 2channelaudio is building speakers

the best i ever did was a audiophile mousepad

[jrling]

JC wrote: how about the buffering of chord DAC?

I have a Chord DAC64 MKII (bought used for £1,000) and its buffering is able to be switched off. I run it at 4 seconds. The difference in SQ between the two is noticeably better with buffering on.

[taggart]

MQnLoad 1.0.14.0616 beta

FIX: Copy logic works now even if various version of mqncontrol and mqnplay are marked with restricted attributes (e.g. read-only)

Please refer to History.txt and Mqnload.rtf for update instructions and further information.

Download: http://bit.ly/1is4g1J

Enjoy!

[2channelaudio]

MQnLoad 1.0.14.0616 beta

FIX: Copy logic works now even if various version of mqncontrol and mqnplay are marked with restricted attributes (e.g. read-only)

Please refer to History.txt and Mqnload.rtf for update instructions and further information.

Download: http://bit.ly/1is4g1J

Enjoy!

thanks taggart.
Can someone please do me a favour and dropbox a working c:\musicplayer folder with mqnload + ffmpeg?? configured in the appropriate folders. I am technically challenged, trying to get the flac decoding to work.

Seems simple, but wont work here.
Cheers

[m.massimo]

trying to get the flac decoding to work.

If you're interested in flac only, you can use flac.exe in \Codecs folder. It works on my W8.1.

[satshanti]

Keep mqnplay4416.exe and mqnplay.exe without 'Run as admin' checkbox.
Only try switching the checkbox on mqncontrol.exe. (Without in my running version with these latest avx's)
A reboot might do wonders as well sometimes.

Thanks, Aleg, but no luck unfortunately. I'd really like to try 4.34, according to Gordon a combination of 4.04 and 4.29, my nr. 1 and 2.

I just pitted my 3 best against the 3 latest avx's and none of them came close, I'm sorry to say.

4.39 > 4.40 > 4.41

but even 4.39 was not as good as my current top 3:

4.04 sse > 4.29 avx > 4.36 avx

I'd like to share a bit about what my ranking is based on, a bit of HiFi philosophy if you will. I think MQn has reached a level of fidelity at this point that on an equally high-level system any differences are subtle, but at the same time relatively straightforward to detect. On lower level hi-fi systems, components (or a piece of software in this case) can have big differences in various quality aspects.

For instance, you could rate something as follows: highs too metallic, bass nicely textured, midtones too pronounced, soundstage not too wide, but quite deep, bad tonal timbre, but good natural decay, etc. What I mean to say is that because of the larger differences in all these aspects, one perceives certain sound signatures, which are a bit like "flavours of distortion", and therefore a matter of personal preference.

At the level we're now, there is very little distortion left and differences are subtle and equally divided over the whole quality range. This means that I find my nr.1 "better" than my nr.2, because every single aspect of the sound is closer to reality, to the ultimate reference, to absolute fidelity. This is so, because no matter what genre of music, what track, what instrument I test them with, the ranking doesn't change. At this level, I cannot see any "detailed" versus "musical". For me "better" means not only more detail, but also more musical, more accurate timing, improved speed and attack, more natural decay, deeper and wider and better defined sound stage, more nuance in texture, accurate tonal spectrum, anything!

My judgement is of course dependent on my own ears and my system, so is purely subjective. However, my ranking is not based on preference, on what kind of sound I like, but on how close the reproduction of an instrument or singer comes to my own memories of hearing them in real life. That is HiFi to me, High Fidelity, and fortunately, once I've "calibrated" a component based on the above criteria with instruments or music that I would not necessarily play to relax, it turns out that everything I then play to relax is so much more enjoyable and involving, because it's just more "real".

[sbgk]

uploaded 4.42, more detail, based on 4.39

4.04 sounds pretty bad on my system

these versions have no looping and everything is held in registers, so about as good as it can get, just fiddling with alignments and 1 other setting now.

have uploaded a 4.42 for amd

found another alignment to make, 4.44 sounds pretty good

[nige2000]

Didn't get any testing done today but will do soon
Is it time for a 448 mqnplay for comparison?

[sbgk]

Didn't get any testing done today but will do soon
Is it time for a 448 mqnplay for comparison?

4.44 is pretty sorted

it uses hardware prefetching which can't go over page boundaries, so the buffers need to be page aligned, currently 2048 bytes, 448 is 1792 bytes and would have irregular noise due to hw prefetch issue.

[jesuscheung]

JC wrote: how about the buffering of chord DAC?

I have a Chord DAC64 MKII (bought used for £1,000) and its buffering is able to be switched off. I run it at 4 seconds. The difference in SQ between the two is noticeably better with buffering on.

yes. of course. you paid good money for it.

(look how i am suffering with a cheap soundcard... no filter, no buffer. i hear jitter, another jitter, another one)