Tír Na HiFi

dannyhc wrote:Just remember Gordon doesn't owe you anything, even if he never released another version ever again, what he has produced is good enough for me.

Gordon and some of us engaged into a collaboration of developing MQN, he by providing the program, we by giving him feedback on sound quality and effect of changes.
He promised to release 32-bit container and high-res versions at the 'end' of the wasapi development phase, based on the accepted best version.

I feel he does owe us something, given the amount of time that everybody has spent on reviewing and commenting on his releases. The total amount of time spent on reviewing is a multiple of his time spent on developing the code.

He also asked for donations to be given, so money was spent on his promises.

If you didn't spend any serious time in reviewing and commenting, I understand your position, but not for some who did more than you did.

If you consider your feedback valuable then you need to compare your situation.

When someone gives you dessert to stuff yourself with, don't complain that it tastes bad, you end up looking like an insulate spoilt brat.

You are a product of what happens when the rod is spared.

dannyhc wrote:Just remember Gordon doesn't owe you anything, even if he never released another version ever again, what he has produced is good enough for me.

Owing is a strong word. I agree that we shouldn't take Gordon's efforts for granted, but I think nobody here does. I for one am very grateful for his efforts, and have expressed this already many times.

However... this is a forum, and many of us have to a small or larger extent actively participated in MQN's development. As far as I'm concerned this doesn't give us any special rights, but I think the request (not a demand) for a range of versions is not unreasonable.

Just to clarify

People asked if they could make donations as a way of showing appreciation, I set up the UNICEF MQn donation page to allow that to happen.

I won't dignify the other comments with a reply.

Not sure where the Unicef bit has come in but a lot of us have made donations and some have given I believe on a couple of occasions. But lets not turn this into a bun fight it has been too good a journey to spoil at this stage.

Gordon it would be nice to finish off this stage of the development by rounding out some of the landmark versions. For me I happily champion Mqn on other forums and selfishly would like a complete range on landmark versions to help spread the word.

For yourself surely finishing a few landmark versions that allow all to play different versions
is a goal worth producing. You probably don't care but I can just see the knockers of MQn smirking when advised this version only plays 16/44.

Anyway it is your call maybe the mistake here is not communicating by pm on this subject.

dannyhc wrote:If you consider your feedback valuable then you need to compare your situation.

When someone gives you dessert to stuff yourself with, don't complain that it tastes bad, you end up looking like an insulate spoilt brat.

You are a product of what happens when the rod is spared.

Yes, feedback is very important and also comparing all those versions is sometimes frustrating and time consuming!
The feedback is also VERY important because it was given the right direction in developing the MQn.
The guy with the most feedbacks was Aleg and deserves all the respect. One of the biggest voices and always first one to help with any troubles!

Probably you don't think that feedback is that important because you didn't give it any! Never heard from you before which "dessert" you like it better, or which one has a "bad taste" and need to be changed!!!

sima66 wrote:

dannyhc wrote:If you consider your feedback valuable then you need to compare your situation.

When someone gives you dessert to stuff yourself with, don't complain that it tastes bad, you end up looking like an insulate spoilt brat.

You are a product of what happens when the rod is spared.

Yes, feedback is very important and also comparing all those versions is sometimes frustrating and time consuming!
The feedback is also VERY important because it was given the right direction in developing the MQn.
The guy with the most feedbacks was Aleg and deserves all the respect. One of the biggest voices and always first one to help with any troubles!

Probably you don't think that feedback is that important because you didn't give it any! Never heard from you before which "dessert" you like it better, or which one has a "bad taste" and need to be changed!!!

+1
+ If I wasn't involved as much as other people who contributed the most as Aleg did, I would, at least read through this thread first (don't need to even mention CA thread related to MQn), before I comment.

What an unusual twist this thread has taken.

I have found when generous mavericks like sbgk take on projects like this they KNOW where they want to go with it.

Instead of keeping it to themselves, and I am sure sbgk knows/knew he had come up with something pretty good and decided to share it with those who share his love of music and good reproduction of music. As he learned more and made changes he posted them for others to use and took their comments and used them as he saw fit. That alone is a fair trade.

Who is to say how many comments really made an impression on sbgk? I would tend to think some have aggrandized their contributions without considering that sbgk is a gentleman and gentlemen take pleasure in letting others think they are charming and intelligent.

uploaded 7.03 with portaudio wdmks version

this uses wdmks with proper callback method, previous version didn't

there's a problem selecting the default device, so it's fixed to device 4 which is what mine is. I had 1 (laptop speakers) or 4 (usb dac)

plays on mine, might play on someone else's as well, sounds pretty good, different to wasapi, more natural ? I would say it's already better than the wasapi versions for musicality, lacking in absolute detail, so probably a few weeks away from finished product.

shall upload a list devices program so you can see what device no is required and I'll build some versions with the required device. think solution will be to parameterise it in mqncontrol

sbgk wrote: sounds pretty good, different to wasapi, more natural ? I would say it's already better than the wasapi versions for musicality, lacking in absolute detail, so probably a few weeks away from finished product.

ks always had a nice flow to it, suppose the fear is that it will badly lack in detail as it sorta has a spongy sound in comparison th mqn wasapi

suppose if mqn ks had mqn wasapi detail/speed/agility it should be a winner