Tír Na HiFi

sbgk wrote: 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.

ok, can see why 2.60 8 4 is not optimal and 2.59 8 4 16 16 8 is ok, but just a block of sound on my test track, so have uploaded 2.61 sse4 intel which is hopefully the best of both.

This is becoming a full time job. Audiophil releases R2 with KS support yesterday and now at least 5 versions of MQn to test. Whatever about paying the developers what about the poor testers?

tony wrote:This is becoming a full time job. Audiophil releases R2 with KS support yesterday and now at least 5 versions of MQn to test. Whatever about paying the developers what about the poor testers?

true, that's why measurements would be useful, hopefully getting near the end game.

I find there's more meat and bass to 2.60.

2.61 to me has detail and the bones+ internal organs, 2.60 cp adds flesh and blood to those bones.

I can easily foresee times when I would want the choice of these two "engines" - if I dare plagiarise a Jplay term.

Quick listen to new 2.61 immediately still prefer the mellower sound in 2.59 8 4 16 16 4. 2.61 sse4 intel (edited) Thin is not right too sharp on my system

I haven't listened to the 2.60 versions yet. Now I have to go and do sunday stuff. Well back and before departing again listening to 2.60 intel 8 4 that works for me. True love ways sounds sublime on this I think this is my new favourite.

I'm not feeling it with 2.60 CP. S'Okay, but I MUCH prefer the first 2.60 SSE4 version. I haven't got to 2.61 yet (been to Maplin...;-)).

I also went back to 2.56 8 8 16 16 4 al dec this morning. Not as smooth as 2.60 but very good, very detailed and tight sounding.

OK - 2.61 beckons...

Testing 2.59 sse2 atom 8 4 16 16 8 versus 2.60 sse2 atom 8 4 v2:
2.60 wins in all terms: bass is more controlled and tuneful, it never booms with speakers, midrange richer and more delicate tonality.
I used a couple of albums and was impressed by Peter Hammill's The Silent Corner, with which I felt much more emotion in Peter's singing.
This 2.60 is awsome.

How many maplins have we sold
seem to be popular
how many did you get?

dont forget to turn down the voltage mark

nige2000 wrote:How many maplins have we sold
seem to be popular
how many did you get?

dont forget to turn down the voltage mark

A Group Buy would have been worthwhile - or you should have wangled some commission!

I got two - they had two in stock, seemed rude not to.

My Pico won't be here for a few days, so plenty of time to fiddle the voltage and stick them on the oscilloscope to see what they're like.

Back on topic - 2.61 is pretty much what I like - detailed and dynamic. Tonally not the richest perhaps, certainly not a romantic, velvet glove sound - but that's fine by me.

Well after finishing all my work under the hood of my Audio PC I went back and had a listen again to 2.59 8 4 16 16 4 and I now feel it has enough on the bottom end which I did not hear before so it now replaces 2.59 8 4 16 16 8 which now sounds a little to heavy on bottom end.

All I did was move from SSD with server 2012 R2 Preview to Paul Pang SD SATA drive with server 2012 R2 RTM version with CADS Optimisation script to clean up the dross.

Going to close up my Audio PC for a while now and concentrate on testing versions of MQN.
Final hardware change in the coming weeks will be to put music on an external SSD with a good SATA cable and linear power.
Currently have the music on a 1Tb USB WD Drive with spinning disc.

I will give the 2.6 versions a listen again.