Tír Na HiFi

sbgk wrote:uploaded 5.60 sse2/avx/avx amd/avx2

nah
still prefer 5.97

nige2000 wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded 5.60 sse2/avx/avx amd/avx2

nah
still prefer 5.97

5.61 might be better

sbgk wrote:

nige2000 wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded 5.60 sse2/avx/avx amd/avx2

nah
still prefer 5.97

5.61 might be better

Forgot to mention I tried 5.61
It might be better than 5.60 but not 5.98

Lost clarity definition dynamics loosening of bass
All the nasty stuff

sbgk wrote:uploaded 5.60 sse2/avx/avx amd/avx2

Sse2 Sounds waaay better than Foobar XA (recommended by JC) and Aplayer (Album Player) what means is GREAT.
Thanks SBGK.

John Dot wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded 5.60 sse2/avx/avx amd/avx2

Sse2 Sounds waaay better than Foobar XA (recommended by JC) and Aplayer (Album Player) what means is GREAT.
Thanks SBGK.

Think jc uses different settings/o's for different players
Maybe he just has the right combo's
Not much good for us that don't understand the o's as well

5.62 might be better then

sbgk wrote:uploaded 5.60 sse2/avx/avx amd/avx2

Why did you jump from 5.99 to 5.60? Shouldn't it have been 6.00? Not that it matters much, but it might be confusing jumping back 0.40 versions. :-)

satshanti wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded 5.60 sse2/avx/avx amd/avx2

Why did you jump from 5.99 to 5.60? Shouldn't it have been 6.00? Not that it matters much, but it might be confusing jumping back 0.40 versions. :-)

Keep us on our toes.

jrling wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:on my intel cpu without AVX2

in terms of analog texture
no instruction > sse4, sse2, sse3 > avx

in terms of max details
sse4 > no instruction > avx, sse2, sse3

in terms of flow
avx > no instruction > sse4, sse2, sse3

the true question is:
how much better is AVX2 over sse4.1/2?
coz people are mostly only comparing avx2 vs sse2

Interesting. But how are you testing all those instruction sets, when Gordon is only compiling for SSE2 for some time?
Also how you play 'No Instruction Set'

'No Instruction Set' = mqn.exe... more analog tune than all mqn
i suspect musical notes are more correctly done
although, certain sound texture seems much achievable/of higher quality with instruction sets
depends if you go for texture or note correctness

go back and listen to the old 2.71...
it has details that is impossible with sse2
avx seems to reproduce some details like sse4, but less analogly.

sure, avx2 > avx
sure, avx2 > sse2/3
as reported by everyone
but testing on avx2 vs sse4 is lacking

John Dot wrote:

sbgk wrote:uploaded 5.60 sse2/avx/avx amd/avx2

Sse2 Sounds waaay better than Foobar XA (recommended by JC) and Aplayer (Album Player) what means is GREAT.
Thanks SBGK.

i bet you didn't test xa on pkshan win7...

if you did use pkshan win7 and still think mqn is better all way, you should buy xs...
you can get a refund if you can define OS+bios setting + mqn that beats xs

tell you right now... xa + 7 > mqn + R2 with texture quality + mid + vocal refinement + earaches...
other things mqn better