Re: MQN
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:28 am
v89 better.
does v89 seem to tight?
does v89 seem to tight?
jesuscheung wrote:v89 better.
does v89 seem to tight?
Oh, I thought you had replaced the 3 clocks on your mobo, successfully? (after a couple of "puff the magic dragon" moments) :)nige2000 wrote:Yea it's more likely to be a mobo CLK
But which one the usb clk the mobo master CLK or the realtime clk
Because their replacement all provide a similar increase in sq
But I never got the three replacements to work simultaneously well not reliably anyhow
I believe jitter in timing has a knock on effect
v90 might be better in that regardjesuscheung wrote:v89 better.
does v89 seem to tight?
For me v89>v87 because it is tighter. By that I mean tighter bass which surely is to be desired? v89 also brought a more defined upper treble which v87 lacked slightly.sbgk wrote:v90 might be better in that regardjesuscheung wrote:v89 better.
does v89 seem to tight?
Yea that's what I thought toojrling wrote:For me v89>v87 because it is tighter. By that I mean tighter bass which surely is to be desired? v89 also brought a more defined upper treble which v87 lacked slightly.sbgk wrote:v90 might be better in that regardjesuscheung wrote:v89 better.
does v89 seem to tight?
v90 just loosened the bass.
v89 is my new reference (with 7.41 Normal).
did you try that one from tuesday?Fran wrote:OK lads,
I've lost track of this over the last few months - been working hard on other stuff. Now its back to some CA catchup time.
I'm back on a version of MQn from earlier in the year - I think its 2.73 and running server 2012 on a zuma PC with some separate PSU but not as good as it could be. I'd like to be able to play 24/96 etc. What is the correct newer version for me to use?
fran