Tír Na HiFi

jesuscheung wrote:

nige2000 wrote: ...
ks probably needs alot of mucking out,
think were close to a really good version of avx mqn
improvement is infinite
were going to have to stop somewhere

last time i heard ks vs wasapi, ks has more quantity in bass and seems smoother. that's was it.

make a perfect wasapi mqn first...

I have no comment on JPlay as I have never heard it. However, as Gordon says, it is not a scam. It is good value if it delivers. There has clearly been a massive investment in developing it. The fact that you don't like it is fine, but don't write it off on that basis, as many others swear by it and pay for it willingly.
They have at least tried more adventourous technical solutions, and may not have succeeded yet.

I think you are (indirectly and unintentionally) making the same point as I am. Personally, I think we are close and Gordon has said so several times in recent versions. When we have a (close to) perfect WASAPI version, the lessons learnt in structuring the render loop will be very helpful in moving forward with say KS.

Those who followed Gordon with JLP found definitely that it running as a service was beneficial to SQ, no doubt about that. Also, with JLP we found that KS was a great benefit.

Noone has mentioned DMA, which again has the potential to be very beneficial. After all, at the end of the day, MQn is moving samples through to RAM and out again involving CPU cycles. If the CPU could effectively be removed from the equation, or at least minimised in its involvement, it seems very likely to be beneficial.

Gordon can of course tell us if I am barking up the wrong tree or just plain barking more likely!

Jonathan

sbgk wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:jplay is such a scam in my opinion. always trying to impress people with technical things.

if they want to impress, i think they should install jplay as a driver. why not. already doing service.

2pc... lan after lan... cpu locking...
if they actually use their ears, simple coding sounds 10 times better.

if you want to know how wrong jplay sound?
go to your kids music school. and listen to actual musical instruments.

it's not a scam, it's a bargain for what it is. Just they are so far up the creek that there is no going back to a simpler solution.

dont regret paying for my subscription, definitely worth that
but if they convince people they need two i7 pcs, jcatusb,cables etc,
convincing them to use a more minimalist player shouldn't be an issue

alright... tell me a version when jplay sounded great.
otherwise, people are just claiming jplay is audiophile grade out of thin air.

for the past year, i have heard nothing good.

i can name 10 other freeware sound better than jplay5.2.1.

people need to get a refund.

if you say 2 pc setup sounds twice as good, it is still meaningless.
it's same as saying, this thing sounds twice as good as a ipod. meaningless.

jesuscheung wrote:alright... tell me a version when jplay sounded great.
otherwise, people are just claiming jplay is audiophile grade out of thin air.

for the past year, i have heard nothing good.

i can name 10 other freeware sound better than jplay5.2.1.

people need to get a refund.

if you say 2 pc setup sounds twice as good, it is still meaningless.
it's same as saying, this thing sounds twice as good as a ipod. meaningless.

it's got a trial version, it's won awards, it's moved the debate about what affects sq forward, people don't seem to regret the E100 or whatever it costs.

maybe take your discontent up with them directly, I can't help you.

jrling wrote:Aleg - big thanks for keeping up such active interest in reviewing and reporting on the new versions as they flood out. Your insightful and descriptive comments are really most helpful to me (and many others I expect). Are you by chance a professional audio engineer?

That's a flattering compliment :-)), but no I'm not.
I try to describe my impressions in such a way that it conveys the idea or the feeling I have. I find it very difficult to convey impressions by ear or interpreting others statements of this.
Sometime I purposely use an exaggerated description just to get my point/feeling across.

But I do have a big interest in proper audio replay and especially timing issues as I feel these are often not treated on the same level as tonal balance (so the frequency domain) and (my and) our hearing is extremely sensitive to proper timing.

jrling wrote: One question if I may - what settings are you using in Pro Audio Clock Rate with the different 128, 256, 512 versions? I am using 3.61 512 Control and had Clock Rate at 448 as you suggested. But with SSE2/3 512 MQnplay versions (I do not have avx so many versions have to pass me by) I moved Clock Rate to 512 with slightly better results I think and have left it there since.

I am assuming that Gordon is not now changing Clock Rate within his code, which was the case a while back, I believe.

...

I assume Gordon still changes clockrate, I haven't checked recently but I'm still applying my own clockrate when starting mqn.
I have not changed clockrate on these new 128,256,512 versions, maybe something to try again when we've got a new 'agreement' on which line to follow up on.
I'm not using sse anymore, just the avx as I feel this has got better timings, movement and detail.
But don't just do what I like regarding clockrate. If you prefer 512 instead of 448, by all means use it!
All these impressions and preferences are only personal, subjective and system dependant, so there are many things that could turn out differently for you than for me.

Nice to hear you appreciate my efforts

Cheers

Aleg

uploaded 4.80, slight change in sq over 4.75 256 128

I have a i3 370 processor. It has no AVX instruction-set. Is it somehow (with a patch?) possible to listen to the AVX versions of MQN?

DJ le Roi wrote:I have a i3 370 processor. It has no AVX instruction-set. Is it somehow (with a patch?) possible to listen to the AVX versions of MQN?

Unfortunately not, it is what Intel has baked/deep programmed into the CPU. You would have to change CPU. But even that is not likely to help as 370M is also becoming dated, it is nearly 4 years old.

Cheers

Aleg

sbgk wrote:uploaded 4.80, slight change in sq over 4.75 256 128

Not done extensive testing but immediately noticeable is loss of control in deep bass, which becomes booming/blooming.

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded 4.80, slight change in sq over 4.75 256 128

Not done extensive testing but immediately noticeable is loss of control in deep bass, which becomes booming/blooming.

ok, reversed that change.

one more thing to try, have uploaded 4.81 and then can call it a day.