MQN

Anything to do with computer audio, hardware, software etc.
m5lig
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:08 am

Re: MQN

Post by m5lig »

Nige , I have to agree the mboard is the least likely source of the problem. The instructions are executed by the CPU. So either my CPU isn't up to the task in spite of it being a Haswell, or the coding/compiling is striking a hurdle within this particular CPU.

Or I could be completely wrong and its none of these things.

I have reinstalled server R2 , but I could do it again , since its quick . I haven't applied Optimiser in an effort to reduce services.
Asrock z87m extreme4, i5 4670K, winserver2012 R2, paul pang usb card v1, sotm dx usb, minidsp 4x10 Hd, rotel 1066 amps, linkwitz LX521 speakers.
User avatar
satshanti
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: MQN

Post by satshanti »

nige2000 wrote:
satshanti wrote:
sbgk wrote:5.31 sounds agricultural compared to 5.47, a bit tiring after a while, not going back there.
If this was a response to my previous post, I may not have been clear enough. I still had a slight preference of 2496 5.31 over 5.47, but only because there were no other 2496 5.4x versions and I also have a sense that preferences for 1644 may not apply for their respective 2496 versions.

On our main test platform 1644 avx2 my order of preference was:

5.44 > 5.47 > 5.40 >> 5.31

with the differences between the latest versions being ever so subtle. Today I'll try to listen to all versions between 5.40 and 5.47 to pinpoint my favourite.
Which control file are you using?

Which dac are you using these days?
Control 2.97 on a battery powered HiFimeDIY Sabre (asynchronous) USB DAC 2 (yes, not exactly in the same league as a Chord Hugo, but considering it's 30 times cheaper, the quality for price ratio is stellar :-)
uwtfplay on AMD FX8120@1600 RAM@800 FSB@1200 | AQ Jitterbug | Atlas Element USB cable | HiFimeDIY Sabre DAC 2 | NVA Super Sound Pipe | SMSL sApII headphone amp | AKG K702 (or HiFimeDIY UD20 DDX amp | Anti-Cable | Celestion DL6-II)
nige2000
Posts: 4253
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:47 am
Location: meath

Re: MQN

Post by nige2000 »

satshanti wrote:
nige2000 wrote:
satshanti wrote: If this was a response to my previous post, I may not have been clear enough. I still had a slight preference of 2496 5.31 over 5.47, but only because there were no other 2496 5.4x versions and I also have a sense that preferences for 1644 may not apply for their respective 2496 versions.

On our main test platform 1644 avx2 my order of preference was:

5.44 > 5.47 > 5.40 >> 5.31

with the differences between the latest versions being ever so subtle. Today I'll try to listen to all versions between 5.40 and 5.47 to pinpoint my favourite.
Which control file are you using?

Which dac are you using these days?
Control 2.97 on a battery powered HiFimeDIY Sabre (asynchronous) USB DAC 2 (yes, not exactly in the same league as a Chord Hugo, but considering it's 30 times cheaper, the quality for price ratio is stellar :-)
thought you had a dddac at some stage

ive a few cheap dacs, some aren't exactly bad
its easier to be disappointed with an expensive one

have you tried the 512 control recently ?
i can see the attraction of the 2.97 but the detail of the 512 edges it for me
sd card player, modded soekris dac, class a lifepo4 amp or gb class a/b amp, diy open baffle speakers based on project audio mundorf trio 10's
User avatar
satshanti
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: MQN

Post by satshanti »

nige2000 wrote:
satshanti wrote:
nige2000 wrote: Which control file are you using?
Which dac are you using these days?
Control 2.97 on a battery powered HiFimeDIY Sabre (asynchronous) USB DAC 2 (yes, not exactly in the same league as a Chord Hugo, but considering it's 30 times cheaper, the quality for price ratio is stellar :-)
thought you had a dddac at some stage

ive a few cheap dacs, some aren't exactly bad
its easier to be disappointed with an expensive one

have you tried the 512 control recently ?
i can see the attraction of the 2.97 but the detail of the 512 edges it for me
Yes, I still have the (broken) dddac, as a resistor started smoking one day, and I haven't gotten around to fixing it yet. Besides that, the Sabre DAC sounds better to me, possibly due to the hires option, which just works better on my converted binaural files.

Thanks for the reminder. It's indeed time for another control comparison again, this time with the amazing new versions. :-)
uwtfplay on AMD FX8120@1600 RAM@800 FSB@1200 | AQ Jitterbug | Atlas Element USB cable | HiFimeDIY Sabre DAC 2 | NVA Super Sound Pipe | SMSL sApII headphone amp | AKG K702 (or HiFimeDIY UD20 DDX amp | Anti-Cable | Celestion DL6-II)
sbgk
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: MQN

Post by sbgk »

m5lig wrote:sbgk,

I know zero about programming but does this apply for us AVX2 less folk ?

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/ ... piler.aspx

Thanks .
thanks, hadn't seen that. 5.48 and 5.49 use avx2, only 24/96 at the moment. Seems to make a difference.
User avatar
satshanti
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: MQN

Post by satshanti »

I was eager to revisit the 1644 avx2 5.4x series, because they are all better than 5.31, my previous favourite, and comparing some of them yesterday, I wasn't convinced about Gordon's choice of 5.47 as the final version.

I did the full monty, that is listened to most of my usual test tracks on all of them. They are all clearly related, so the difference between them is subtle, yet at the same time within that subtlety the differences that were there were often quite pronounced, with the various versions having distinct sound signatures. The resulting order of preference could sometimes change slightly per track, but overall this is my experience:

5. 42 > 45gabd > 43 > 41 > 44 > 45AEBD > 40 > 47

As I already feared yesterday, 5.47 didn't rank well. It would be great if some of you could confirm or refute my experience, even if just by comparing 5.47 with 5.42. As always it could very well be my system, my ears or my brain that's off compared to others. :-)

While I was at it, I also tested the few available hires versions, which led to a similar result:

5. 41 > 49 > 48 > 31 > 47

Before I ran these tests, I took up Nigel's advice and compared control 2.97 with 3.61 512 on some of the new 5.4x series, and found that the latter was now better than the former, so I went back to using control 3.61 512.
uwtfplay on AMD FX8120@1600 RAM@800 FSB@1200 | AQ Jitterbug | Atlas Element USB cable | HiFimeDIY Sabre DAC 2 | NVA Super Sound Pipe | SMSL sApII headphone amp | AKG K702 (or HiFimeDIY UD20 DDX amp | Anti-Cable | Celestion DL6-II)
wushuliu
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:24 am

Re: MQN

Post by wushuliu »

5.07 avx (not avx2) sounds amazing. I can't get avx2 to work with my new i3 processor - and I don't have the time right now or for several months to troubleshoot - but that's okay, the regular avx is a marvel.
Eclipse W6520R/Satori TW29R MTM
Hifime Es9038Pro
3eaudio TPA3251
Aleg
Posts: 1381
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: MQN

Post by Aleg »

Did just a check on 5.42 vs 5.47
Give preference to 5.47.
To my ears 5.47 Is much more rhythmic and firm sounding. 5.42 is soft and mellow sounding (dutch: week) without much body.
HDPLEX;picoPSU;ASUS Q87M;i7-4770T;PH SR7EHD;Server2012R2;Thesycon 2.24;
JCAT USB;Sonicweld DiverterHR2;Naim DC1;Chord Hugo;Morrow Audio MA6;Naim NAC-282,SuperCapDR;NAP-300;
AQ Cinnamon;GISO GB;Netgear Pro+XM21X;Cisco SG300;NAS-ZFS.
nige2000
Posts: 4253
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:47 am
Location: meath

Re: MQN

Post by nige2000 »

Aleg wrote:Did just a check on 5.42 vs 5.47
Give preference to 5.47.
To my ears 5.47 Is much more rhythmic and firm sounding. 5.42 is soft and mellow sounding (dutch: week) without much body.
Haven't tested 5.42 yet but I wonder is there a difference in sound because of the cpu architecture
I'm sure there is more trivial reasons for sq changes
sd card player, modded soekris dac, class a lifepo4 amp or gb class a/b amp, diy open baffle speakers based on project audio mundorf trio 10's
cvrle59
Posts: 449
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:45 am
Location: Canada

Re: MQN

Post by cvrle59 »

Aleg wrote:Did just a check on 5.42 vs 5.47
Give preference to 5.47.
To my ears 5.47 Is much more rhythmic and firm sounding. 5.42 is soft and mellow sounding (dutch: week) without much body.
I played an album with 5.47 avx2 last night, and it is a real deal version. Is it my champ right now, probably, but I will get it going tonight again, to confirm it.
i3 Haswell, PPAStudio USB3 card and USB Micro cable/Chord Hugo/Nad-275BEE/Harbeth-30.1
Post Reply