Tír Na HiFi

2.62
not floating my boat
too close to ear
sounds forced less flow less musical
more bass yes better bass no
more vibration in the furniture
non runner for me

rax is better but less base than 2.62
need more listening to decide if better or worse than 2.6 8 4 cp
so far seems better in places and worse in others

nige2000 wrote:2.62
not floating my boat
too close to ear
sounds forced less flow less musical
more bass yes better bass no
more vibration in the furniture
non runner for me

rax is better but less base than 2.62
need more listening to decide if better or worse than 2.6 8 4 cp
so far seems better in places and worse in others

ok, ta. so 2.6 cp has promise ?

sbgk wrote:

nige2000 wrote:2.62
not floating my boat
too close to ear
sounds forced less flow less musical
more bass yes better bass no
more vibration in the furniture
non runner for me

rax is better but less base than 2.62
need more listening to decide if better or worse than 2.6 8 4 cp
so far seems better in places and worse in others

ok, ta. so 2.6 cp has promise ?

ah now
don't put it all on me
get some more reviews

anyway need to do more listening and ive a self inflicted headache bass testing isnt suiting me much

sbgk wrote: thanks, would be interested to know what you think of 2.62 sse4 intel and 2.62 sse4 intel rax

I just give my first impression. They follow so quickly.

2.62 sse4 intel rax is too bass heavy. On acoustic instruments (cello, piano) it becomes unnaturally. From my speakers, which are not bass heavy at all, it becomes almost boomy.

2.62 sse4 intel is bassy enough, certainly not bass light. Have not yet compared with 2.61 sse4 intel which I also like very much.

sbgk wrote:
ok, ta. so 2.6 cp has promise ?

Not in my opinion!
Too bass heavy with loss of detail.

The 2.60 sse4 intel 8 4 was much better than the cp.

Cheers

Aleg

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:
ok, ta. so 2.6 cp has promise ?

Not in my opinion!
Too bass heavy with loss of detail.

The 2.60 sse4 intel 8 4 was much better than the cp.

Cheers

Aleg

ok, ta

sbgk wrote:

tony wrote:

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.

To answer Pearse's question I think it was 2.53 but it could be as far back as 2.44.Hopefully Nigel or John can remember. Of course the date should close that down. Check start date of this thread as it was probably the version released at that time.Sbgk can advise too?

How different is the coding from that time? Pearse's view does demonstrate you need a base point to reference but I do concur with what Clive said some of the last few I listened to were getting back to Jplay area. Now can't do it tonight but maybe if I compare some of these versions to Jplay I might be eating humble pie. I think a meet up when sbgk gets through these instructions to see if a consensus could emerge comparing it to well agreed existing components. i.e Pearse's turntable and maybe Simon's wadia?

Also it is amazing to see how critical we can become when one looks how far things have moved since early jplay and one laptop.

Aleg wrote:

sbgk wrote:
ok, ta. so 2.6 cp has promise ?

Not in my opinion!
Too bass heavy with loss of detail.

The 2.60 sse4 intel 8 4 was much better than the cp.

Cheers

Aleg

funny i initially thought there was loss of detail in cp

when i checked back there was nothing missing

It's hard to choose....2.60 cp and the 2.62 versions are of a similar ilk. I think 2.62 rax has better delineated bass on deep and strong bass lines, maybe a touch more treble too.

Those that prefer 2.59 probably won't like 2.60 or 2.62.

Definitely swings and roundabouts between 2.60 cp and the 2.62 versions.

I notice my solid floor vibrating, or it's my shoes.....but I do have four 15" bass drivers (dipole).