MQN

[nige2000]

8.70 >> 8.71

Noise floor us good in 8.70 compared to <8.64
Good detail and speed but seems a little dull needs dynamic definition/impact
is noticeable on piano
all in all good improvements

bad explanation drawing but have to try
[/url]

[jrling]

I think I need an explanation!
Also how are you measuring noise?

Cheers
Jonathan

[nige2000]

subjectively

is this where you harp on about measurements and blind testing?

[jrling]

subjectively

is this where you harp on about measurements and blind testing?

Not aware that I have done so before, but am not going to do so now. Just wanted to understand what your graph was saying.

I do think that we would all benefit from understanding why changes made to the MQn code have an effect - both positive & negative, so that Gordon could be even more effective. But after a complete thread run by jkeny on this forum, I don't think anyone came up with any proposal for how to do the measurements.

[sebna]

8.70 >> 8.71

Noise floor us good in 8.70 compared to <8.64
Good detail and speed but seems a little dull needs dynamic definition/impact
is noticeable on piano
all in all good improvements

bad explanation drawing but have to try
[/url]

That is a very good visualization.

What I discovered recently is that I like version 8 for electronica where a bit of rounding and loss of texture is welcomed but WASAPi is still so much better on acoustic music like jazz for example.

Version 8 (have to check at which I have stopped recently) has more realistic soundstaging making objects more 3d and also projecting overall greater depth sensation.

Cheers

[nige2000]

ahh just what i meant about a lack of assertiveness in regards dynamic definition/agility and clarity
it seems a little smooth
highs and lows seem to be curtailed
yet some aspects of detail is very good maybe these aspects have not been revealed before in wasapi
because detail is usually curtailed when there is a smoothing effect and to some extent it still could be

i realise I'm explaining myself badly now

[nige2000]

What I discovered recently is that I like version 8 for electronica where a bit of rounding and loss of texture is welcomed but WASAPi is still so much better on acoustic music like jazz for example.

Version 8 (have to check at which I have stopped recently) has more realistic soundstaging making objects more 3d and also projecting overall greater depth sensation.

yes wasapi has a very realistic sound staging and texture with pin point accuracy as you say

[cvrle59]

What I discovered recently is that I like version 8 for electronica where a bit of rounding and loss of texture is welcomed but WASAPi is still so much better on acoustic music like jazz for example.

Version 8 (have to check at which I have stopped recently) has more realistic soundstaging making objects more 3d and also projecting overall greater depth sensation.

yes wasapi has a very realistic sound staging and texture with pin point accuracy as you say

You must have your favorite wasapi version. I am wandering what that is?

[sbgk]

uploaded 8.73, maybe better detail

interesting discussion on

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pc-based ... ost4112228

posts 81 to 84, never seen that discussed before, implication seems to be that 48 hz is better than 44.1

[nige2000]

8.16 avx2

Which is 4kb
current ks is 104kb
maybe that's a factor