Tír Na HiFi

Sligolad wrote:This is mad stuff, after listening to some vocals on 2.60 8 4 I found myself missing 2.59 sse4 Intel 8 4 16 16 8.
Went back and the vocals sounded much sweeter and more lifelike in 2.59 sse4 Intel 8 4 16 16 8.

Tried swapping back and forth again and arrived at the same conclusion.
No more messing for tonight just going to listen to music.

Love MQn too much. have to agree with Sligolad. sbgk sorry about before going off topic.

agree 2.59 sse4 Intel 8 4 16 16 8 is best of 2.59s. all around best. treble is one step from sounding hard. 0.001% hard. everything sounds just right. should be fuller. maybe bass layer is weak.

jesuscheung wrote:

Sligolad wrote:This is mad stuff, after listening to some vocals on 2.60 8 4 I found myself missing 2.59 sse4 Intel 8 4 16 16 8.
Went back and the vocals sounded much sweeter and more lifelike in 2.59 sse4 Intel 8 4 16 16 8.

Tried swapping back and forth again and arrived at the same conclusion.
No more messing for tonight just going to listen to music.

Love MQn too much. have to agree with Sligolad. sbgk sorry about before going off topic.

agree 2.59 sse4 Intel 8 4 16 16 8 is best of 2.59s. all around best. treble is one step from sounding hard. 0.001% hard. everything sounds just right. should be fuller. maybe bass layer is weak.

I'll go back and listen to it, to me the 4 is not adding any benefit and not sure the second 16 is required, think it brightens the sound and then the last 8 gives a compressed sound usually, but in this case brings it back to normal, so not a natural sound. Have some versions which I'm going to test which may be better than 2.60 8 4.

Maybe I should be listening through headphones as the amp/speakers may be distorting the music in some way leading me to take decisions based on that distortion. I can hear detail using my £20 headphones plugged into the laptop which I don't get through the speakers, then again I probably listen to the speakers with the volume too low, which is another factor. See, if we knew what was affecting the sound then we could measure it and remove these variables.

Another factor no one has mentioned yet is that each generation/make of cpu decodes the code differently, so they will sound different even if everything else was the same.

Clive wrote:The 2.60 cp version is very enjoyable. There's no shortage of bass for sure and it doesn't get in the way of the rest the music. Vocals are more "there" and expressive. Detail is good and not at all in your face. I'd say this is the best 2.60 version and better than the 2.59s too.

I have SSE2 Atom dual core version of 2.60 CP. Couldn't agree more. The closest yet to being in the studio with the performers. Most other versions sounded slightly veiled or coloured in comparison, although I didn't think so at the time (until I heard 2.60 CP).

I feel that this version is getting close to SBGK's original objective which was to get as close to the Master Tape. That is never achievable of course as the CD WAV file is our limit. Many CDs do sound harsh and edgy or poorly mixed, but for a player to mask those deficiencies suggests to me that it is 'filtering' the sound in a way not intended by the artist. So I suppose if one likes the player's 'filter', then you will like that version. But getting everyone to agree is quite another matter!

Jonathan

Hello Jonathan,
Where did you download the sse2 version of 2.60? I would like to test it.

DJ le Roi wrote:Hello Jonathan,
Where did you download the sse2 version of 2.60? I would like to test it.

uploaded the 2 sse2 atom versions, no intel version yet

This is just an observation - why would jplay have something up their sleeve ? they already have your money, it would take a major rewrite and climbdown for them to change, they don't even bother to maximise the SQ of their own mini player. They know what's best for you.

sbgk wrote:This is just an observation - why would jplay have something up their sleeve ? they already have your money, it would take a major rewrite and climbdown for them to change, they don't even bother to maximise the SQ of their own mini player. They know what's best for you.

Exactly
that's why once off payment doesnt work

Wishful thinking! Maybe to attract new customers by making it better. If your prognosis is correct I will be waiting for the cows to come home. Nigel hopefully will appreciate that remark

tony wrote:Wishful thinking! Maybe to attract new customers by making it better. If your prognosis is correct I will be waiting for the cows to come home. Nigel hopefully will appreciate that remark

Be dum tish!!!!!!

Jriver probably have the charging strategy right. One-off payment for the product and a smaller payment for upgrades to major new versions.