Tír Na HiFi

With 8.34 9624 avx we're again back at the old issue of reduced highs in favour of 'exagerated' mids to make it sound nice.

8.35 is Better than 8.34
Prefer 8.35 over 8.36. 8.36 went a bit too far in the other direction.

Aleg wrote:8.35 is Better than 8.34
Prefer 8.35 over 8.36. 8.36 went a bit too far in the other direction.

Anyone have a way of measuring these differences, yet ?

There's a good article in The Absolute Sound regarding measurement of sound quality where the authors suggest a correlation between SQ and the apparent height of a sound image. They estimate the height a sounds appears above a line between mid range drivers. Perhaps best for something like a stacked choir where a single singer is standing higher up. Not sure how accurate this would be to distinguish MQN versions. It's worth a read but don't come moaning to me if you don't agree. Personally I pay attention to the views of some of the golden-eared on this forum. :)
KM

At least we all should use the same piece(s) oft music. There are some older pieces from EBU that might serve for us.

Luki

Finally to get a chance to do some listening!

The avx 576 restarts my PC faster than the restart button!
With avx 64 I just got noises!

With all the regular avx2's (from 8.29 - 8.36) I get the "old record" clipping every couple of seconds.
Beside the clipping noises, I prefer the 8.36avx2. In my opinion this is the most detailed and transparent version that I ever heard!
Perfect balanced in my system.

8.36avx2 gives noise both with my Teac Dac and my M2Tech Dac.

8.32 64 avx2> 3.36 avx2 by a long shot

8.37 & 8.38 = system crash

uploaded 3.40 2496 in various versions, I like the 512 avx2 version, but will crash for some.

read that xxhighend new nos dac has galvanic isolation making it virtually immune to computer/player noise. Hope we see more of that sort of that, though maybe substituting one form of noise for another.