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.
If it tanks out on the oscilloscope, don't tell anyone ;)
I just used my ear oscope while testing the ps's
2.61 yea maybe not the perfect one were looking for but it's up there
Still have to retry the 2.59's again
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
I think the sound of MQn is heavily influenced by the efficient use of memory, this document is worth browsing if you are technically minded http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/cpumemory.pdf
from the abstract
"As CPU cores become both faster and more numerous, the limiting factor for most programs is
now, and will be for some time, memory access. Hardware designers have come up with ever
more sophisticated memory handling and acceleration techniques–such as CPU caches–but
these cannot work optimally without some help from the programmer. Unfortunately, neither
the structure nor the cost of using the memory subsystem of a computer or the caches on CPUs
is well understood by most programmers"
It covers everything MQn is trying to do, also has an explanation of why large memory pages are a good idea.
Alright guys I am going to throw a bit of a spanner in the works here but here is the latest from me!!
Been back and forth looking for some real body in the music lately with recent versions thinking I am missing bass or something to that effect.
This afternoon I pulled out my TT and hooked it up to give me a reference to where MQN is at and I was very surprised....the TT had much more body and flesh on the music compared to the 2.59 versions I thought were best.
They sound great with excellent detail and have great dynamics but sounded lean compared to the same tracks on the TT.
I went back to a copy of MQN I had from the night of our last meet where MQN really drew me in and that version sounded much better and reminded me why I was so taken by it that night at Tony's.
I will have to defer to John and Nigel to tell us what that version was but it has made me rethink where I am going.
I think it is time for me to start going back listening to some of the older versions to see where we started getting too lean....sorry only word I can think of at the moment.
Surprised is all I can say and hope it is not just my hearing having an off day but I will do some more listening this week to try and get my head around this.
Going to take some time out for this evening as all this changing around and forensic listening may be catching up on me and colouring my judgement.
It would be nice to know what the version was we heard at Tony's that night though?
It was comparing MQn with my 301 and Salvation TTs that helped me confirm 2.60 cp has the body I desire! Seriously though 2.59 and to a lesser extent 2.61 have the leanness of Jplay...which is something I thought we were trying to improve on.
Clive wrote:It was comparing MQn with my 301 and Salvation TTs that helped me confirm 2.60 cp has the body I desire! Seriously though 2.59 and to a lesser extent 2.61 have the leanness of Jplay...which is something I thought we were trying to improve on.
Clive wrote:It was comparing MQn with my 301 and Salvation TTs that helped me confirm 2.60 cp has the body I desire! Seriously though 2.59 and to a lesser extent 2.61 have the leanness of Jplay...which is something I thought we were trying to improve on.
Havent re listened to 2.59's yet
think 2.6 cp is fav at min
especially bass wise
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
Clive wrote:It was comparing MQn with my 301 and Salvation TTs that helped me confirm 2.60 cp has the body I desire! Seriously though 2.59 and to a lesser extent 2.61 have the leanness of Jplay...which is something I thought we were trying to improve on.
Havent re listened to 2.59's yet
think 2.6 cp is fav at min
especially bass wise
try 2.62 sse4 intel, it should have better bass than 2.6 cp
Wasn’t home for the weekend, so I haven’t listened too 2.60 sse4 intel 8 4 cp.
I jumped from 2.59 8 4 16 16 8 straight too: 2.61 sse4 intel.
I really like 2.61 sse4 intel very much.
Very detailed yet not clinical.
There is a whole new layer of details.
For instance: I hear a whole new layer of details on Trentemoller’s album:‘The last resort’ (an album known for its recording quality).
No blurr, no smear.
All instruments and sounds are clearly separated (are easy recognizable apart from each other)
Finaly the high’s are very good.
With vocals ‘S-ses’ and ‘T’s’ are very good
But also cymbals, triangles, ect
Imaging and soundstage are impressive/very good.
(Amongst producers my Klein & Hummel O300 are famous for their imaging and soundstage repoduction)
There’s plenty of good bass. Bass is perfect too my ears.
But may be that's because of my Klein & Hummel O300 are active speakers.
In general active speakers stand out from passive speakers having more ‘punch’ and more ‘drive’.
I can’t say the bass is weak or not loud enough in my setup.
Too my taste and on my system, I like 2.61 very, very much !!
Thank you
I never enjoyed computer sourced music so much.
Win 8.1 -> RME PCI 9632 AES/EBU digital out -> Mogami W3080-00 AES/EBU XLR -> Mutec MC-3+ Smart Clock -> Mogami W3080-00 AES/EBU XLR -> PMC Two Two 8
Wasn’t home for the weekend, so I haven’t listened too 2.60 sse4 intel 8 4 cp.
I jumped from 2.59 8 4 16 16 8 straight too: 2.61 sse4 intel.
I really like 2.61 sse4 intel very much.
Very detailed yet not clinical.
There is a whole new layer of details.
For instance: I hear a whole new layer of details on Trentemoller’s album:‘The last resort’ (an album known for its recording quality).
No blurr, no smear.
All instruments and sounds are clearly separated (are easy recognizable apart from each other)
Finaly the high’s are very good.
With vocals ‘S-ses’ and ‘T’s’ are very good
But also cymbals, triangles, ect
Imaging and soundstage are impressive/very good.
(Amongst producers my Klein & Hummel O300 are famous for their imaging and soundstage repoduction)
There’s plenty of good bass. Bass is perfect too my ears.
But may be that's because of my Klein & Hummel O300 are active speakers.
In general active speakers stand out from passive speakers having more ‘punch’ and more ‘drive’.
I can’t say the bass is weak or not loud enough in my setup.
Too my taste and on my system, I like 2.61 very, very much !!
Thank you
I never enjoyed computer sourced music so much.
thanks, would be interested to know what you think of 2.62 sse4 intel and 2.62 sse4 intel rax
Clive wrote:It was comparing MQn with my 301 and Salvation TTs that helped me confirm 2.60 cp has the body I desire! Seriously though 2.59 and to a lesser extent 2.61 have the leanness of Jplay...which is something I thought we were trying to improve on.
I agree can't end up back at ground zero
the issue is that there are instructions that make a difference, but I don't know what the optimum combination is, then as I learn/experiment more the correct use of the instruction is found and I can progress onto the next instruction. We are down to the last 3 or so instructions that have this issue, it is compounded by the fact that one instruction may produce more treble and another more bass. Which is correct ? very difficult to judge.
