Tír Na HiFi

jesuscheung wrote:...2.41.1 //99.5%vibration 0.5% too mellow. 99.8%emotion. can't stop listening
...
2.40 //99.5%vibration. 99.8%emotion. can't stop listening

conclusion: best vocal needs 2.40 + 2.31 fibonacci + 2.43 + 2.41.1 + 2.40.2.

seems v2.41.1/v2.40 are best, also feel as you commented. i like v2.41.1 more than. thx.

uploaded v2.43.1 256 , optimized code of v2.41.1.
think better, more transparent, vibration, clarity, soundstage more stable.
emotion? think better. try it.

lekt wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:...2.41.1 //99.5%vibration 0.5% too mellow. 99.8%emotion. can't stop listening
...
2.40 //99.5%vibration. 99.8%emotion. can't stop listening

conclusion: best vocal needs 2.40 + 2.31 fibonacci + 2.43 + 2.41.1 + 2.40.2.

seems v2.41.1/v2.40 are best, also feel as you commented. i like v2.41.1 more than. thx.

uploaded v2.43.1 256 , optimized code of v2.41.1.
think better, more transparent, vibration, clarity, soundstage more stable.
emotion? think better. try it.

2.43.1 is good.
2.40 is sharp in style, more clear in vocal vibration. 2.43.1 has mellow style vocal vibration.
but 2.40 is 0.1% hard in treble. 2.43.1 has no hard treble.
i think as machine more well-tuned, 2.40 is more correct. (last week 2.40 is 0.5% hard in treble for my setup. this week as my OS more well-tuned, treble is 0.1% hard).
overall 2.40 is 99.9% in vocal vibration. 2.43.1 is 99.5-.8%
all 2.43.1, 2.41.1 and 2.43.1 are very similar in emotion.

recent versions 2.42x and 2.43x, sounds is rich, but give me a little 'sticky' feeling. not as free/open/transparent as 2.41x , 2.40x.

my gut feeling is that 'sticky' feeling is not good. in terms of tweaking OS, 99 out of 100 is a bad sign.

jesuscheung wrote:recent versions 2.42x and 2.43x, sounds is rich, but give me a little 'sticky' feeling. not as free/open/transparent as 2.41x , 2.40x.

my gut feeling is that 'sticky' feeling is not good. in terms of tweaking OS, 99 out of 100 is a bad sign.

im very busy on office, 2.42x, 2.43x did'nt test on speakers at home, only tested by headphones. must be test by both equipments. im suspecting their bass balance. will do test more careful.

2.43.1 sounds like current best! just a little 'sticky' feeling.

maybe time for you to take a break, Xmas must be a busy time for you.

sbgk wrote:maybe time for you to take a break, Xmas must be a busy time for you.

can't stop listening music and can't stop coding, sbgk. how is your kernel streaming project now?

lekt wrote:

sbgk wrote:maybe time for you to take a break, Xmas must be a busy time for you.

can't stop listening music and can't stop coding, sbgk. how is your kernel streaming project now?

can't find enough info to get started. the kssample doesn't work, so would need to look at portaudio code to understand what's required.

Thing is I've never been that impressed with the sound of KS when I've tried it, sounded a bit soft. It was interesting reading about the different modes KS can use eg memory mapped between source and destination so there is no copying required, think this could be used in soundcards. USB devices require the data to be copied, so that puts a ceiling on how good usb can sound, perhaps. Am going to demo a NAD M50, so will be interesting to hear what a high end streamer sounds like, might be good enough for me to give up on MQn.

pkshan gave up KS a year or 2 ago. i missed that part of development. never heard it.

lekt, now i can feel how difficult it is for you keep soundstage. i did 5 different registry tweaks in svchost. it gives me 5 different soundstage lol. giving me a headache.