Tír Na HiFi

sbgk wrote:uploaded a 256 4.74 avx version, see if Nige's theory about small buffers stacks up.

lol
double edged sword

dont it work like refresh rate on a screen?

4.74avx 256 with control 3.61 512 sounds excellent, again thumbs up but getting hard to tell differences now for me.
The recent versions sound warm, detailed and musical with layers so all good for me. I think all the earlier detail hunt left some of the earlier versions a little too clinical and glad we are over all that!!

nige2000 wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded a 256 4.74 avx version, see if Nige's theory about small buffers stacks up.

lol
double edged sword

dont it work like refresh rate on a screen?

works more like cpu or ram frequency ie larger buffers = lower frequency

found the 256 a bit wearing after a while.

sbgk wrote:

nige2000 wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded a 256 4.74 avx version, see if Nige's theory about small buffers stacks up.

lol
double edged sword

dont it work like refresh rate on a screen?

works more like cpu or ram frequency ie larger buffers = lower frequency

found the 256 a bit wearing after a while.

Will check tomorrow
Sounds strained with you?
Reduced Flow?

I need some troubleshhooting help if possible.

4.74 avx 256 and 512 do not play with control 3.61 512

Whats puzzling is that , the mqn command window displays it loads the music file successfully but then in the next line of it says the file cannotbe found.

Then when I look in the c:mqn folder the mqnplay.exe folder has disappeared. If I reinstall
the mqnplay folder ( correctly named ) and copy a new music file , activate the mqn batch file,
the mqnplay folder is deleted once again. Terminating the program from the error message window , or by pressing x or rebooting from cold do not stop the mqnplay file from being deleted.

Things I will try : delete the c:mqn folder altogether and start from scratch

Go back to using control 1.6 which has been my control file for the last 6 weeks or more.

Any other suggestions ?

I found a partial solution.

Started from scratch by deleting c:mqn

Reinstalled control 1.6

Play 4.74 sse works perfectly. Avx doesn't . Oh the temperament of the computing world. Still I prefer to be in this position than to be the manager of the english football team.

4.74 has prominent bass , more so than the later 3.7x versions but for thetracks I've played so far
Broken Bells after the disco , Daft Punk Get lucky , I imagine this is what the producer intended.

4.71 to 4.74 are all very good. some with tight bass. some with softer bass
need fix the nervous/intense vocal. as others commented earlier as harsh

alright jplay5.2 sounds like fun
let me try try

terrible sound... thin... not free
there is fog surrounding the sound
there is no bass
the treble is also terrible... soured. zero sweetness
blurry
only good thing is that it produces no spotlight.

VLC doesn't have bass either. it makes no weird sound like jplay.

anyone who enjoys jplay needs a reeducation

listening more...

where is the mid?
no mid, no treble, no bass... this is a piece of .....

I am very, very happy with 4.74 avx 256. Great sound all over. stop here and look no further.


My first impression on the 4.74 avx 512 is that it sounds a bit lighter with a bit more strain and not as open or flowing as the 256.
and the 256 a tad more relaxed and pleasant tad warmer and superior representation of details.

Will listen more later today, just first impression on 3 tracks with usefull intros.

Well done Gordon this could well be a candidate for the final release, with 256 clearly ahead IMO.

Cheers

Aleg wrote:I am very, very happy with 4.74 avx 256. Great sound all over. stop here and look no further.


My first impression on the 4.74 avx 512 is that it sounds a bit lighter with a bit more strain and not as open or flowing as the 256.
and the 256 a tad more relaxed and pleasant tad warmer and superior representation of details.

Will listen more later today, just first impression on 3 tracks with usefull intros.

Well done Gordon this could well be a candidate for the final release, with 256 clearly ahead IMO.

Cheers

almost! yes 256 is good vocal. harsh/intense is much reduced.
sweetness is also reduced.
also thinner sound compared to 512.

don't think changing buffer size is the solution. need proper fix.