Tír Na HiFi

sbgk wrote:
uploaded 4.83 sse2, how does it compare ?

also uploaded a modified 2.82 avx/sse2 256 128 nop

I'll do tomorrow afternoon (CET)

Did anyone participate to archimago 16/24bit survey?
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/06/24 ... rt-ii.html
interesting results

I download the tracks and made the test, but I unfortunately missed the deadline to fill the form, so my results are useless (except for my personal use). However, I'm quite surprised to see that about 50% of respondents missed the correct identification. 50/50 equals to no difference at all between 16bit and 24bit tracks and that reinforce who think there's no need for 24bit or more (many think there's no need for fs>44.1kHz as well).
I think 24bit tracks in the Archimago could be identified, at least rereading my notes when I made the test (using 24 bit sse2 10ms R2.55 win8.1-r2 hirez + 1.4). Mark Waldred is preparing a similar test.

ok, thanks, agree with that.

just uploaded mqnplay1644.exe 24 bit 4.82 256 avx 64 nop

which may be better, that's the last one, I promise.

m.massimo wrote:

sbgk wrote:
uploaded 4.83 sse2, how does it compare ?

also uploaded a modified 2.82 avx/sse2 256 128 nop

I'll do tomorrow afternoon (CET)

Did anyone participate to archimago 16/24bit survey?
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/06/24 ... rt-ii.html
interesting results

I download the tracks and made the test, but I unfortunately missed the deadline to fill the form, so my results are useless (except for my personal use). However, I'm quite surprised to see that about 50% of respondents missed the correct identification. 50/50 equals to no difference at all between 16bit and 24bit tracks and that reinforce who think there's no need for 24bit or more (many think there's no need for fs>44.1kHz as well).
I think 24bit tracks in the Archimago could be identified, at least rereading my notes when I made the test (using 24 bit sse2 10ms R2.55 win8.1-r2 hirez + 1.4). Mark Waldred is preparing a similar test.

think the 4.82 nop are the ones to try.

I did the test and got it right, but what's the point. Was surprised at the results.

sbgk wrote:ok, thanks, agree with that.

just uploaded mqnplay1644.exe 24 bit 4.82 256 avx 64 nop

which may be better, that's the last one, I promise.

Prefer 128 nop over 64 nop.
Better detail in bass, 64 becomes somewhat textureless and has slightly less control, becoming prone to booming.

Last one of the day!

Cheers

Aleg

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:ok, thanks, agree with that.

just uploaded mqnplay1644.exe 24 bit 4.82 256 avx 64 nop

which may be better, that's the last one, I promise.

Prefer 128 nop over 64 nop.
Better detail in bass, 64 becomes somewhat textureless and has slightly less control, becoming prone to booming.

Last one of the day!

Cheers

Aleg

your boom detector is as sensitive as my sibilance detector.

think that's it, can't think of anything else to try.

shall get hirez out over the week.

sbgk wrote:

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:ok, thanks, agree with that.

just uploaded mqnplay1644.exe 24 bit 4.82 256 avx 64 nop

which may be better, that's the last one, I promise.

Prefer 128 nop over 64 nop.
Better detail in bass, 64 becomes somewhat textureless and has slightly less control, becoming prone to booming.

Last one of the day!

Cheers

Aleg

your boom detector is as sensitive as my sibilance detector.

think that's it, can't think of anything else to try.

shall get hirez out over the week.

Together we have found a good balance if both satisfied with this version. :-)

Looking forward to trying some high res on this version (32-bit too please ;-))

Cheers

Aleg

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:

Aleg wrote: Prefer 128 nop over 64 nop.
Better detail in bass, 64 becomes somewhat textureless and has slightly less control, becoming prone to booming.

Last one of the day!

Cheers

Aleg

your boom detector is as sensitive as my sibilance detector.

think that's it, can't think of anything else to try.

shall get hirez out over the week.

Together we have found a good balance if both satisfied with this version. :-)

Looking forward to trying some high res on this version (32-bit too please ;-))

Cheers

Aleg

it's scientifically proven that you can't hear any difference between redbook and hirez

sbgk wrote:

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:
your boom detector is as sensitive as my sibilance detector.

think that's it, can't think of anything else to try.

shall get hirez out over the week.

Together we have found a good balance if both satisfied with this version. :-)

Looking forward to trying some high res on this version (32-bit too please ;-))

Cheers

Aleg

it's scientifically proven that you can't hear any difference between redbook and hirez

I don't adhere to the science religion, I believe only in experiment. Placebo also has a positive effect :-)

surprise surprise 4.82 256 avx 128 nop is my preferred version too
well done and thanks aleg/sbgk

any chance of getting the ability to set clockrate plz?

nige2000 wrote:.... 4.82 256 avx 128 nop is my preferred version too
well done and thanks aleg/sbgk

any chance of getting the ability to set clockrate plz?

Phew, it was awfully silent today from other regular contributors.
Glad you like it as well.

Cheers

Aleg