Tír Na HiFi

Aleg wrote:
It makes me weary of where this MQn player is heading to.
What is a proper reference point for the developer to aim for? I don't think it is in all the different opinions of single people who all have their preferences and room settings.

you would realize sbgk tries to make better code and let us check if better code translates into better SQ. if you want a reference point for sbgk, buy him a 50K CD player and use that as reference point.

think MQn is more about discoveries. less so it about trying to achieve a "reference point".

made judgement too early. 2.61 has very good emotion. better than most. the last best emotion i heard was 2.38 8 8. could this beat it?

JC

do you think we require more bass?

what do you think the best complete version is?

nige2000 wrote: Some very good points there Aleg

i would say theres an element of all those points in the reviews
no-ones system is going to sound the same
Dont know how were going to overcome this

Which jplay engine were you using Aleg?

I used solely UltraStream in a dual-PC setup. And before US, I used Xtream and before that Beach.

My personal prefered sound is for lots of micro-details in esp. acoustic instruments.
I'm not looking for lots of bass. Clarity of sound, lots of details and overtones and with a live-like colouring is what I'm looking for.
My wife plays a grand piano in our house, so at least for piano I know what it should sound like and what is a proper sound colour, even though recording venues sound acoustically very different, I know/recognise the proper sound of the instrument.

My speakers, Wilson Benesch Square Two, are not bass-heavy but that suites me very well. I used to have KEF which also is a bit more lean sounding.

So that is an indication of my preferences.

Cheers

Aleg

Aleg wrote: My personal prefered sound is for lots of micro-details in esp. acoustic instruments.
I'm not looking for lots of bass. Clarity of sound, lots of details and overtones and with a live-like colouring is what I'm looking for.
My wife plays a grand piano in our house, so at least for piano I know what it should sound like and what is a proper sound colour, even though recording venues sound acoustically very different, I know/recognise the proper sound of the instrument.

I understand where you're coming from with acoustic instruments. What I find can be a problem is that the ideal (extreme?) setup for micro details with acoustic instruments doesn't necessarily translate well when listening to more processed material with a lot of electronic instruments. Trying to find the correct code to work ideally with both might just be an unrealistic challenge. Perhaps we need an engine for "intimate/acoustic" another for "processed rock" and one for "symphonic".

Clive wrote:

Aleg wrote: My personal prefered sound is for lots of micro-details in esp. acoustic instruments.
I'm not looking for lots of bass. Clarity of sound, lots of details and overtones and with a live-like colouring is what I'm looking for.
My wife plays a grand piano in our house, so at least for piano I know what it should sound like and what is a proper sound colour, even though recording venues sound acoustically very different, I know/recognise the proper sound of the instrument.

I understand where you're coming from with acoustic instruments. What I find can be a problem is that the ideal setup for micro details with acoustic instruments doesn't necessarily translate well when listening to more processed material with a lot of electronic instruments. Trying to find the correct code to work ideally with both might just be an unrealistic challenge. Perhaps we need an engine for "intimate/acoustic" another for "processed rock" and one for "symphonic".

Clive

I think you're right and that may have to be the conclusion, different types of music benefitted best by different types of engines.

Horses for courses, so to speak.

Cheers

Aleg

nige2000 wrote:JC

do you think we require more bass?

what do you think the best complete version is?

still waiting for a version that is focus, mellow, emotional at no expense of micro-details. so far, mellow eats away micro-details. the most revealing versions add hardness. waiting for this pattern to break! and then the best version will come.

I think the 2.59 and possibly 2.6 versions sound amazing with Piano which is a favourite instrument of mine but a lot of other instruments also sound amazing on these versions.
It was only listening to some more vocal tracks yesterday and comparing to TT that I found something missing, thought initially it may have been the mastering or conversion to CD but when I went back to an old version the midrange warmth and body to the vocal appeared better.

I wish I had more time to work through this but need to work to pay the bills, I will certainly be revisiting more earlier versions when I get time to try and pin down where the differences are and I wish I had come to this party much earlier but such is life.

At the end of the day there is no rush as I think we are all after a version which can bridge a lot of requirements given that we are all a fussy lot, hope SBGK
has the patience. Cheers, Pearse.

jesuscheung wrote:

nige2000 wrote:JC

do you think we require more bass?

what do you think the best complete version is?

still waiting for a version that is focus, mellow, emotional at no expense of micro-details. so far, mellow eats away micro-details. the most revealing versions add hardness. waiting for this pattern to break! and then the best version will come.

JC

Don't you think details and 'harshness' may always go together?

I mean might increased details be interpreted as harshness, without actually being harshness?

I once had a 'discussion' with Mark Waldrep, dr. Aix from Aix Records about this, and we both agreed that it might be possible that increased details, that also can come about in HighRes music, might be felt/interpreted as increased harshness, being sharp edged or be 'digital' sounding. While it is 'just' increased levels of detail of smaller movements, of sharper transients being audible.

What's your view on this?

Cheers

Aleg

Aleg wrote: Don't you think details and 'harshness' may always go together?

I mean might increased details be interpreted as harshness, without actually being harshness?

I find this is the tradeoff, especially where female vocal is concerned. It's as though the extra detail moves the mic closer to the vocalist. When sibilance becomes unnatural it destroys my emotional connection as it's pretty much all I can then hear.

Sligolad wrote:I think the 2.59 and possibly 2.6 versions sound amazing with Piano which is a favourite instrument of mine but a lot of other instruments also sound amazing on these versions.
It was only listening to some more vocal tracks yesterday and comparing to TT that I found something missing, thought initially it may have been the mastering or conversion to CD but when I went back to an old version the midrange warmth and body to the vocal appeared better.

I wish I had more time to work through this but need to work to pay the bills, I will certainly be revisiting more earlier versions when I get time to try and pin down where the differences are and I wish I had come to this party much earlier but such is life.

At the end of the day there is no rush as I think we are all after a version which can bridge a lot of requirements given that we are all a fussy lot, hope SBGK
has the patience. Cheers, Pearse.

piano sound:
-2.61 to 2.63 flows better than 2.59s. meaning more enjoyable.
-2.6x lost a bit of realism due to mellowness.
-2.59 and 2.6x's treble can be too much. sounds out of tune. ears will hurt.
-2.58 tot align is currently most correct/real version in piano. but you must forgive its defect. musicality is choppy- doesn't flow smoothly.