Page 570 of 804
Re: MQN
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:40 pm
by tony
jrling wrote:sbgk wrote:uploaded mqnplay 16/44 7.48, found some settings and code were wrong, getting there.
7.49 set's mqnplay to realtime priority, improves another unmeasurable aspect of the sq
the exe is back up to 140kb, so the next thing is to trim that down to 2kb and that'll be that.
7.49 1644 Normal is stunning. Def my best yet and my new reference.
Everything about it is a step up from 7.41 V93PA which was itself very good.
A proverbial veil lifted. Dynamic and detailed but also no hint of harshness.
One thing I noticed in Task Manager which I haven't seen before was that MQnPlay.exe when
a single track was played took 2GB of RAM and CPU % a steady 30.5%. Both readings somewhat surprised and concerned me.
Is that to be expected, Gordon?
Same for me gone from 0-1%cpu to circa 26% on 7.49, 7.48 has disappeared from the google drive.
Will give a longer listen but initial impressions is it is a little soft sounding but very pleasant.
Gone back to the last PAV93 and 7.41normal. Can't test the subsequent PAless versions
Re: MQN
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:55 pm
by sbgk
jrling wrote:sbgk wrote:uploaded mqnplay 16/44 7.48, found some settings and code were wrong, getting there.
7.49 set's mqnplay to realtime priority, improves another unmeasurable aspect of the sq
the exe is back up to 140kb, so the next thing is to trim that down to 2kb and that'll be that.
7.49 1644 Normal is stunning. Def my best yet and my new reference.
Everything about it is a step up from 7.41 V93PA which was itself very good.
A proverbial veil lifted. Dynamic and detailed but also no hint of harshness.
One thing I noticed in Task Manager which I haven't seen before was that MQnPlay.exe when
a single track was played took 2GB of RAM and CPU % a steady 30.5%. Both readings somewhat surprised and concerned me.
Is that to be expected, Gordon?
9% on haswell i5
anyway, a bit of investigation found there was a major flaw in the loop, now fixed in 5.75
cpu down to 0.1 % and storage as per track length.
if you thought 7.49 was good wait until you hear 7.55 etc
Re: MQN
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:01 pm
by tony
Yes 7.55 working fine here and down to 0%. Maybe reporting too quickly but seems very dynamic, excellent. Veil lifted here now.Using first track on Agartha tonight for testing a bit of squeaking Miles always useful for treble ache.
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:55 am
by sbgk
7.56 24/96 avx2 - nice
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:22 am
by jesuscheung
.... not working here...
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:15 am
by jrling
if you thought 7.49 was good wait until you hear 7.55 etc
Good news. What is strange, is that a render loop with such a major flaw could sound so good!
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:00 am
by DJ le Roi
7.52 24/96 and 7.50 16/44 work both with my Teac Dac and my M2Tech Dac (Xmos). Beautiful sound.
Unfortunately, 7.55 is not working:
-Teac Dac: no sound at all
-M2Tech Dac (Xmos): crackles.
Tested it with two computers, same result. I use MQNLoad.
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:15 am
by Aleg
sbgk wrote:7.56 24/96 avx2 - nice
No 7.56 found, but both 7.55 avx 4416 & 9624 just work nicely here on SonicWeld Diverter with Thesycon 2.23.
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:32 am
by m.massimo
1644 7.55 normal +3.64 and
2496 7.55 normal + 3.64
work fine here with MQnLoad on WaveIO.
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:16 am
by DJ le Roi
DJ le Roi wrote:7.52 24/96 and 7.50 16/44 work both with my Teac Dac and my M2Tech Dac (Xmos). Beautiful sound.
Unfortunately, 7.55 is not working:
-Teac Dac: no sound at all
-M2Tech Dac (Xmos): crackles.
Tested it with two computers, same result. I use MQNLoad.
I think it has something to do with MQNLoad. When I first choose 7.49 and after that I choose 7.55 then it's working. Not tried hirez.