Tír Na HiFi

jesuscheung wrote:

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.

For me with the avx versions it is just the other way around:
- sweetness of vocals is better with 256 than 512
- 512 sounds thinner and has a bit more edge than 256

256 is clearly more preferable than 512.

Maybe sse and avx do make a difference in this respect?

uploaded 4.75 avx 256, is it a step forward ?

Aleg wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:

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.

For me with the avx versions it is just the other way around:
- sweetness of vocals is better with 256 than 512
- 512 sounds thinner and has a bit more edge than 256

256 is clearly more preferable than 512.

Maybe sse and avx do make a difference in this respect?

so weird... just tested 4.74 AVX 256. also thinner.
normally, for any software, more buffer = more rich. you have opposite?

anyway, let me listen 4.75 AVX 256...
YES... vocal seems fixed.

please make a SSE version please. AVX is too smooth for non-haswell CPU

Hi Gordon,

after long time just listening the various versions I want to raise my hand sharing my experience with 4.75 256 avx: this version makes me smile, while I am listening to music (classical, jazz)
- very detailed without any wearing
- opened highs without harshness/edginess/flurry
- well balanced mids (especially vocals sound natural and expressive)
- controlled and tight bass with good depth
- soundstage is wide with good instrument separation

It's my new favourite - also in comparison to the famous 3.14 avx (and my special favourite 3.57 avx).

One sentence to 4.74 256 avx vs. 512 avx: 256 sounds more controlled and a bit thinner than 512 which sounds more natural but not so controlled. The best of both worlds is imho 2.75 256 avx. This description of course in respect of my setup (see signature).

Gordon, I estimate your enduring effort finding the best (means for me: most natural and authentic) representation of what the musicfile contents. Thanks a lot.
Best regards - Fujak

P.S.: I also tested the new version of JPlay (DualPC-Setup, Ultrastream) last evening and today: It sounds audible better than the former version 5.2, and it beats by far all common players like Foobar, JRiver ... but it still doesn't reach the level of MQn (no matter which MQn version I take for comparison) - especially regarding natural and authentic flow of music. So I think you are definitely on the right track.

I'd love to hear 4.75 256 AVX but none of the recent( back to maybe around 3.6x.AVX) will play for me. I've tried all the solutions and folders available from other contributors such as Nige, Aleg and Pearse but zero joy. Anything SSE plays no problem, and previously I was able to run any AVX including AVX2 versions (Haswell). I notice quite a few people are also unable to run AVX versions now but were able to before. The new SSE versions are fine but too many people are left behind on the shore waiting for AVX.
KM

3.57 does have the tempo for jazz

classic piano sounds like from a far distance.

i like first person view. some mqn versions focus on correct weight on notes. that's when classic piano isn't a sleeping pill.

256 sounding good here
like avx got avx'ed

does the control file need an update?
or will it upset the mix too much

can we handle a 128 buffer yet?

Hi Ken,
don't know whether you already tried this:
1. Right mouse click to mqncontrol.exe
2. Go to properties
3. within the window click "Compatibility" on the top of the window
4. Check "Run this program as an administrator"
5. Click button "Change settings for all users"
6. in new opend window also check "Run this program as an administrator"
7. Close both windows by clicking OK
Good luck! - Fujak

128/44100=2.9 = 3ms
256/44100=5.8 = 6ms

mathematically better with 128 less rounding err it seems

sbgk wrote:uploaded 4.75 avx 256, is it a step forward ?

On my office system:

4.75 avx 256:
-has a bit more punch, percussion in vocals than 4.74 which sounds a bit smoother.
has fuller, warmer mids: works beautiful on vocals (1000 shades of blue: Carmen Gomes Inc)
- a bit rounder in deep bass, loosing a bit of structure compared to 4.74, remains well controlled (Prayer; Kiyoshi Kitagawa)
- in classical piano has a bit more body to the sound than 4.74 which sounds a bit narrow on the higher notes. Sounds believable and could still be truthful, but 4.75 sounds nicer on this aspect. Don't know how this particular instrument sounds in reality as there can be massive differences between individual instruments. (In the Mists; Janacek; Alain Planes)
- in classical string quartet, likewise as with the classical piano, a bit more warmth and rounder tones, making it more pleasant (J.Haydn - String Quartet in G minor, Op.74, No.3 'Rider' - I. Allegro; Alban Berg Quartet)

I find both really beautiful tonally and in details.
Difficult to choose, 4.75 sounds just a tad more beautiful and nice, but 4.74 has just that tiny little bit of added texture.
If I had to pick one it would be 4.75 (I think, maybe, perhaps, or ..... ) as that little added texture of 4.74 doesn't suit all types of music/performances (but it does very well for some).

Or maybe both ...?

Cheers

Aleg