Aleg wrote: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".