MQN

[erin]

Well, I installed Windows server 2012 on my old PC (E5400 CPU), so I have to run mqnplay.exe 2.59 sse2 intel 8 4 16 16 8.

I compared it to my Win8 computer with G530 CPU running sse4 2.60 8 4, and I have a problem which is:

2.59 sse2 sounds much better to my ears because it just simply has more detail, and the layers in the recording are very easy to hear. I'm hearing things left right and centre that I have never heard like this before. Little things in the background are really clear. If I was to complain about 2.59 sse2, I'd say its a bit laid back in the midrange. And dynamics don't jump out and strike me around the head. But, oh, the depth and tone is very impressive. Cymbals sound like analog. There is space around instruments, sounds jump out from nowhere and fade away beautifully . Perfect! .. I really like this version.

When I listen to sse4 2.60 8 4, I find it is very forward in the midrange, dynamics are good, but it sounds quite forced. Cymbals sound digital and have no space. The top end sounds forced and harsh. I feel tension in my shoulders when listening to this version. There is no depth. There is no subtlety. To me it delivers music like a sledgehammer. Its all.... in your face. I don't like this version at all. Sorry.

Here is the problem/ question I have..... Is Windows server 2012 that much better than windows 8?

But either way. 2.60 8 4 is no go for me.

[erin]

I need to go off and have a listen to the 2.60 versions as I have been enjoying a variety of the 2.59's over the last couple of days albeit with vey minimal listening time. As I seem to post a lot these days it will be early next week before I can have a decent go at it. Probably too late to influence choice but happy to go with the flow.

Just another question is that version similar to the longwinded 2.59 regarded as bass shy? I didn't find that one too shy if that helps.

has more bass than that 2.59 one.

On my system 2.59 has nicer more tonal bass with layers and layers of detail, which 2.60 does not.

[sbgk]

I need to go off and have a listen to the 2.60 versions as I have been enjoying a variety of the 2.59's over the last couple of days albeit with vey minimal listening time. As I seem to post a lot these days it will be early next week before I can have a decent go at it. Probably too late to influence choice but happy to go with the flow.

Just another question is that version similar to the longwinded 2.59 regarded as bass shy? I didn't find that one too shy if that helps.

has more bass than that 2.59 one.

On my system 2.59 has nicer more tonal bass with layers and layers of detail, which 2.60 does not.

ok, didn't listen to the sse2 version. thanks for the feedback.

ws2012 is better than win8

[nige2000]

Might have to take a poll
for first second and third choice

cant see everybody's system sounding the same

heard too much variation with configurations to believe theres a perfect version for everyone

[sbgk]

Might have to take a poll
for first second and third choice

cant see everybody's system sounding the same

heard too much variation with configurations to believe theres a perfect version for everyone

that may be, but I believe there's an optimal low noise version of the code and that's what I was trying to find.

[nige2000]

Might have to take a poll
for first second and third choice

cant see everybody's system sounding the same

heard too much variation with configurations to believe theres a perfect version for everyone

that may be, but I believe there's an optimal low noise version of the code and that's what I was trying to find.

Ok should be a lowest noise one of alright

remember the last time I tried a sse2 was very low noise
but still prefered the sse4 for everything else

[Sligolad]

I have a favourite but based on limited listening and it is 2.59 sse4 Intel 8 4 16 16 8. I did find a lot of “wow” detail on 2.60 but it did sound too much on my system but I will go back and listen again this evening after some more installation changes.

Bass sounds fine for me on 2.59 sse4 Intel 8 4 16 16 8 and I have loads of micro detail and presence in the music but this is most likely very system dependent, I have HiRez playback so maybe best not to heed my ramblings and go with the majority.

But for me PC optimisation is a must and the differences are getting smaller as the versions of minimal players get better but for anyone dedicated to the route of a PC just for audio playback it is definitely the way to go, and it might just change your preference of MQN version!

I spent most of last night trying to narrow down the service which was preventing MQN run on my server 2012 R2 preview install in Scott’s (CAD) win8 optimising script and I narrowed it down to 2 before calling it a night. I spent the final hour listening to music on 2.59 sse4 Intel 8 4 16 16 8 with the optimiser running and the sound was amazing.

The usual warning applies of try this at your own risk but I have been running, reverting and running many times with edits in the script with no issues and hope to finish today and upload to Dropbox for anyone interested. It is free and you can reset your system to before the optimisation if you do not like it, it is the only real option for those not opting for paying for Audiophils Optimiser other than doing it yourself.

Going to go for a server R2 rtm install today on a CF card on Paul Pangs SATA unit and see if that changes things, then tomorrow hope to spend time listening to the various MQN versions again.
Cheers, Pearse.

[sima66]

I take it everyone has listened 2.60 sse4 intel 8 4

Haven't had any bad feedback so shall use that one for 24 bit etc

listened to it again, very good micro detail, just a tad bass shy

couldnt say that

this far in we may begin to realise the differences with pc equipment
there seems to be many many things that affect the sound

what you going to do go for another version/variant

I agree with nige on this, there is plenty and nice bass with 2.60 sse4 intel 8 4.
That is my favorite one.

[taggart]

As announced some days ago I'd like to increase usablity of MQn a bit by offering an alternative for mqn.bat that I would call "mqnload.exe". This program will not have any runtime dependencies and will be compiled to very efficient byte code. Here are the features that are planned be covered:
- playing or adding* selected files/folders by double click on mqnload
- playing or adding selected files/folders by hotkey (customizable)
- selecting files/folders in windows explorer and using context menu entry for start playback or adding them to future playback (good for non-audio-dedicated machines)

* "adding" here does not mean to add files to current playback. Due to technical approach of MQn this couldn't be done. It means instead, that you can select files that are collected in a list for future playback. This allows to select files that are located in different folders that can be played all together when finally playback command or hotkey is used.

- integrated on-the-fly, decoding of flac and m4a files (multithreaded to save time)
- support for different file types in one go
- support for unicode
- support for m3u playlists (if selected by above mentioned possibilities, files listed in m3u files are added or played)
- support for cache mechanism:
a. if configured, converted files could be saved in cache (so that there is no need to decode them again when newly used)
b. if configured, files located on a network share could be saved in cache for future use
c. quota for cache is configurable; when max size is reached, oldest files are deleted automatically to free up space for new files
- extended support for priority/affinity (to be checked, maybe not necessary)
- hotkeys for all necessary commands (play, add etc.)
- hotkey for displaying a list with alternative mqn versions for quick selection and A/B testing

All this shouldn't influence sound quality by no means, because mqnload will be used only temporarily and it is already closed when playback starts. Would this idea gain your acceptance? Let me know what you think.
Cheers, Christoph

[sima66]

Since not all the albums are recorded-mixed the same (some have to much bass, some are to bright....), It's always better to have a couple of variations of MQn choosed for the specific album(song).
At list that's my way.