Tír Na HiFi

Ken Moreland wrote:I recently acquired a copy of Jazz at the Pawnshop in DSD 128 (DoP)and compared it with MQN (latest versions) playing the 16bit version. I used JPlay KS Ultrastream DirectLink SinglePC. The 16bit version was fine and everything sounding excellent but IMHO the DSD128 version was superior , not a lot in it though. Worth a try on JPlay . There are a lot of variables in JRiver such as buffers etc.

was that with the latest control/play version ?

Was listening to the 2L sample Mozart Violin concerto which are free to download, I downsampled the 24/192 to 16/44 with dbpoweramp and played the dsd64/dsd128 as dff files via jrmc.

Hopefully shall see if it can be improved, dsd64 dop uses 176 and dsd128 dop requires 352.

Latest MQN 4.23 avx2/ 9.10avx2 aa . DSD 128 gives a big easy sound with all the same detail etc as the MQN/16bit. On Jplay I have the buffers lowest on DirectLink and use UltraStream engine, worth a try.

sbgk wrote:..... dsd128 dop requires 352.

There is also a description in the DOP-document of using 4 blocks instead of 2 and still use 176.4 kHz, but I can't figure out if that is the DOP-standard for dsd128 or the 352.8 kHz PCM-sample rate with 2 blocks is.

Cheers

uploaded control 4.24 avx2 after problem with compiler was fixed

sbgk wrote:

Clive wrote:

2channelaudio wrote:Hi Gordon,

Any idea when the majority will be able to try the latest versions of Mqn on their devices?

Keen to have a listen with my yellowtec puc 2 lite.

Cheers

Me too with my Octave mkII (M2Tech USB card).

can't you edit the exe or is there another issue ?

Is there a view to release a version which doesn't require manual customisation for each particular device?
I like good sound but I am over the DIY tweaking stuff.

uploaded mqnplay 9.11 avx2, found some more things I could leave out

set up for thysecon driver device so should be long enough for everyone.

\\?\tusbaudio_enum#vid_20b1&pid_000a&ks#6&1e31c658&0&1#{6994ad04-93ef-11d0-a3cc-00a0c9223196}\pcm_out_02_00

think fidelizer might be increasing the priority of audiosrv and audioendpoint, tried increasing audiosrv and there does seem to be a difference which some may care for, I'm happy with the default priority. I don't use fidelizer, was just investigating.

the plan is to get it working for all devices, a couple of things to try first though.

sbgk wrote:uploaded mqnplay 9.11 avx2, found some more things I could leave out

set up for thysecon driver device so should be long enough for everyone.

\\?\tusbaudio_enum#vid_20b1&pid_000a&ks#6&1e31c658&0&1#{6994ad04-93ef-11d0-a3cc-00a0c9223196}\pcm_out_02_00

think fidelizer might be increasing the priority of audiosrv and audioendpoint, tried increasing audiosrv and there does seem to be a difference which some may care for, I'm happy with the default priority. I don't use fidelizer, was just investigating.

the plan is to get it working for all devices, a couple of things to try first though.

Great I look forward to an easy implementation. ;)
From the feedback it seems the latest MQn's are very good indeed, so I will wait patiently and check in now and again.

Personally, I think the time spent on DSD would be better invested elsewhere.
Only a minority of music lovers would be interested in such a restrictive format.
For me and all my audiophile mates, 44.1khz -96khz is king...

The ear can't discern above 88khz resolution anyway... so DSD seems a rather futile pursuit.

trying a new way of loading the data

uploaded control 4.25/ play 9.12, seems better clarity. only work with each other.

2channelaudio wrote:...
The ear can't discern above 88khz resolution anyway... so DSD seems a rather futile pursuit.

A bold statement posted as if it would be true/truth!!

Where is the backup for such a statement?
Depending on what you exactly mean it might be wrong in several different ways.

Aleg wrote:

2channelaudio wrote:...
The ear can't discern above 88khz resolution anyway... so DSD seems a rather futile pursuit.

A bold statement posted as if it would be true/truth!!

Where is the backup for such a statement?
Depending on what you exactly mean it might be wrong in several different ways.

Hi Aleg,

I'm not going to argue this with you.
This topic has been argued and argued.

Ill let the experts - who are much smarter and educated on the topic than me present the case.

I probably shouldn't have used such a blanketed statement, which only serves to irritate gents like yourself.
There are many factors and complex issues which could be discussed.

Here's a snip'it' of a response.........

Nyquist taught that a sampling rate needs only to exceed twice the signal bandwidth.
So this would suggest, to accurately record sound within the 20hz-20khz audible freq range a sampling rate of 44.1khz would be sufficient. (This is assuming of course you can actually hear the extremities of this freq band..... lol )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_rate

From Lavry paper links below:
What is the audio bandwidth? Research shows that musical instruments may produce energy
above 20 KHz, but there is little sound energy at above 40KHz. Most microphones do not pick
up sound at much over 20KHz. Human hearing rarely exceeds 20KHz, and certainly does not
reach 40KHz. The above suggests that 88.2 or 96KHz would be overkill. In fact all the
objections regarding audio sampling at 44.1KHz, (including the arguments relating to pre
ringing of an FIR filter) are long gone by increasing sampling to about 60KHz.

Excellent links..... white papers.
http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/la ... _audio.pdf
http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry- ... theory.pdf

Ill leave it there.
There's really no point continuing down this line.
PM me if your interested in discussing.
Cheers