Tír Na HiFi

jesuscheung wrote:

Aleg wrote:

jesuscheung wrote: ....there is almost no explicit information regarding soundstage in a PCM wav file.
only weak signals in sound

What a strange remark????????????????

there no exact coordinates x y z as to where every instrument is located.

soundstage is based on correct music/vibration. when music is correct, soundstage is automatically correct.

didn't you realize, when drum weight changes, flow also changes? this is just one example.

You know a WAV file is just a file with digitised sound as recorded by several microphones and mixed by an engineer?

Soundstage is dependent on the capabilities of your hifi chain to discern small timing differences and signal fluctuations in the recording, to propagate these intact through your chain and recreate those timing differences accurately, as per frequency (range) and for every signal level and in a proper balance between left and right speakers (NOT headphones!!!).

nige2000 wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded 4.62 sse2/avx, think that's just about it.

anybody excited about the impending jplay announcement ?

News to me
New version?

5.2.1 update!

What's new:
- 4x smaller buffer used for _any_ player – affects _all_ Engines (set DriverBuffer to 2 to get 5.2 default behaviour)
- 2x smaller UltraSize (i.e. can go down to 10 but realistically seems
12-15 is minimum on most setups that could do 20 with 5.2)
- (internal) moved jplay.settings to registry (HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\JPLAY)

Sligolad wrote:

nige2000 wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded 4.62 sse2/avx, think that's just about it.

anybody excited about the impending jplay announcement ?

News to me
New version?

5.2.1 update!

What's new:
- 4x smaller buffer used for _any_ player – affects _all_ Engines (set DriverBuffer to 2 to get 5.2 default behaviour)
- 2x smaller UltraSize (i.e. can go down to 10 but realistically seems
12-15 is minimum on most setups that could do 20 with 5.2)
- (internal) moved jplay.settings to registry (HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\JPLAY)

just tried it, not as clean as MQn, first time I'd listened to it for a long time, bass seemed lumpy. too many compromises along the way ?

also there was the annoying digital sound overlay, probably due to clock being at 0.5 etc

nige2000 wrote:

Aleg wrote:

jesuscheung wrote: ....there is almost no explicit information regarding soundstage in a PCM wav file.
only weak signals in sound

What a strange remark????????????????

Wasn't just me then?

Think flow reverb is the issue now?
What's it sound like there?

Haven't compared much, the release rate is too high for me to keep up with sensible impressions.
Also very busy at work so just listening for relaxation.

Cheers
Aleg

think I'll settle for 4.69 or 4.70, one of them is 448, otherwise they're identical.

Aleg wrote:
Haven't compared much, the release rate is too high for me to keep up with sensible impressions.
Also very busy at work so just listening for relaxation.

Cheers
Aleg

only zoning in on a few of the problem aspects atm
still comparing to old 3.14/3.39
getting better though

oh 448 bye bye!!

sbgk wrote:think I'll settle for 4.69 or 4.70, one of them is 448, otherwise they're identical.

Definitely prefer 4.69 over 4.70 whichever version it is. 4.69 show better detail in mid bass,better mids and highs, but both however have not so well controled low bass. 4.70 worse than 4.69

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:think I'll settle for 4.69 or 4.70, one of them is 448, otherwise they're identical.

Definitely prefer 4.69 over 4.70 whichever version it is. 4.69 show better detail in mid bass,better mids and highs, but both however have not so well controled low bass. 4.70 worse than 4.69

4.71 might help with the bass.

uploaded 4.71 sse2

someone asked is avx better than sse, yes - you wouldn't go back once you heard avx, sse is nearly the same, just a little harder edged and avx sounds a bit fuller.

sbgk wrote:

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:think I'll settle for 4.69 or 4.70, one of them is 448, otherwise they're identical.

Definitely prefer 4.69 over 4.70 whichever version it is. 4.69 show better detail in mid bass,better mids and highs, but both however have not so well controled low bass. 4.70 worse than 4.69

4.71 might help with the bass.

uploaded 4.71 sse2

someone asked is avx better than sse, yes - you wouldn't go back once you heard avx, sse is nearly the same, just a little harder edged and avx sounds a bit fuller.

4.71 avx is just perfect on the bass, now also a well controlled deep bass, which is allowed to sing like his mid-bass brothers, instead of being just a blooming boom.


-----------

Vocals have become somewhat too harsh.
So apparently the additional high freqs that benefits the bass is too much when added to the vocals in the midrange.

Win it on one front, loose it on another :-(

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:

Aleg wrote: Definitely prefer 4.69 over 4.70 whichever version it is. 4.69 show better detail in mid bass,better mids and highs, but both however have not so well controled low bass. 4.70 worse than 4.69

4.71 might help with the bass.

uploaded 4.71 sse2

someone asked is avx better than sse, yes - you wouldn't go back once you heard avx, sse is nearly the same, just a little harder edged and avx sounds a bit fuller.

4.71 avx is just perfect on the bass, now also a well controlled deep bass, which is allowed to sing like his mid-bass brothers, instead of being just a blooming boom.


-----------

Vocals have become somewhat too harsh.
So apparently the additional high freqs that benefits the bass is too much when added to the vocals in the midrange.

Win it on one front, loose it on another :-(

is 4.72 any better ? thought 4.71 was a little bit harsh, but wondered if that was the recording.

I was going to say call it a wrap and then saw the bit under the dotted line.