MQN

[DaveF]

Exactly. Not looking for definitive proof or such but its a very worthwhile experiment. Time and time again it has been shown that the ears are easily fooled. If in this case there is enough evidence from the above tests that differences are correctly identified a high percentage of the time then it should harden our resolve to dig further into the technical side to find out a why. Once the mechanism is understood clearly, it can be further improved then. Right now it all seems rather hit and miss without a clear understanding of whats going on underneath.

DaveF, I've no problem with doing a blind test but you do realise MQN was already tested blind, twice, by Clive - once inadvertently, by himself & another time in an arranged blind test where he had a number of listeners who were mainly disinterested in the outcome & all seemed to identify differences & agree on which MQN version was best.

Maybe Clive can say more about these blind tests & fill in some of the details as they seem to have been glossed over or missed?

Edit: I'm not sure if further discussion of this belongs in the MQN measurements thread

Well that's interesting on the testing above. Have yourself, Tony and other users done it here?
Agreed that this bit should be continued over on the other thread.

[cvrle59]

also, turning your pc sideways will give you a much wider soundstage

LOL

[LowOrbit]

also, turning your pc sideways will give you a much wider soundstage

Dang! That was supposed to be secret!

I've just had a quick earful of the latest 2.64 Intrinsic tlb version. This and the previous intrinsic versions have the most detail, the later version being slightly more rounded tonally. This is turning into the dance of the seven hundred veils - one removed each day.

Does that make Gordon the stripper?

[jkeny]

Well that's interesting on the testing above. Have yourself, Tony and other users done it here?
Agreed that this bit should be continued over on the other thread.

It was Clive's post viewtopic.php?p=46281#p46281

I've performed one blind test accidentally and one on purpose. The on purpose one was with 4 people, individually. I chose versions of MQn which I found to be sound quite different. Their blind test results were the same as my sighted ones. There are many versions of MQn which sound more alike and so are harder to tell apart, these would be a tougher blind test.

which was a direct reply to your previous request for a blind test. You must have missed it?

[DaveF]

Well that's interesting on the testing above. Have yourself, Tony and other users done it here?
Agreed that this bit should be continued over on the other thread.

It was Clive's post viewtopic.php?p=46281#p46281

I've performed one blind test accidentally and one on purpose. The on purpose one was with 4 people, individually. I chose versions of MQn which I found to be sound quite different. Their blind test results were the same as my sighted ones. There are many versions of MQn which sound more alike and so are harder to tell apart, these would be a tougher blind test.

which was a direct reply to your previous request for a blind test. You must have missed it?

I missed that one so. Guess I'd pass a blind test then eh..

[jkeny]

DaveF, I have done blind tests on early versions on my own but probably not with 100% scientific rigour & could tell the difference between them. Once I could hear the differences & have established to my own satisfaction that I was not fooling myself, I'm not really that bothered in further blind testing.

[nige2000]

just to over complicate things
as usual
Last time in tonys there was some other differences that will have had an effect too
I was running r2 without any script
my ram at that time was unable to work at 800mhz like tonys and i was at a determental 1066mhz
and had not yet figured out that running the haswell cpu at 800mhz was optimal

im ready for my rematch

dont forget CPU voltage affects SQ. you need more voltage than minimum for best SQ.

I had a play around with the cpu voltage but ended up leaving it at auto
maybe I should try again

rough guess what voltage do you think I need for 800mhz
its certainly not much

[Peter Stockwell]

Just plunked 2.64 Intrinsic SSE4 into computer. Listening to Diego El Cigalo "Tango y Cigala", a live recording. It's sometimes a bit fierce. I'm finding this version very poised, makes it easier to get the musical message.

Like this version of 2.64 MQn.

[DaveF]

DaveF, I have done blind tests on early versions on my own but probably not with 100% scientific rigour & could tell the difference between them. Once I could hear the differences & have established to my own satisfaction that I was not fooling myself, I'm not really that bothered in further blind testing.

Fair enough, I was under the impression that nothing like this was done.

From a code point of view, can you remember what was different in the two versions so that it might give a clue as to the underlining causes?

[jesuscheung]

just to over complicate things
as usual
Last time in tonys there was some other differences that will have had an effect too
I was running r2 without any script
my ram at that time was unable to work at 800mhz like tonys and i was at a determental 1066mhz
and had not yet figured out that running the haswell cpu at 800mhz was optimal

im ready for my rematch

dont forget CPU voltage affects SQ. you need more voltage than minimum for best SQ.

I had a play around with the cpu voltage but ended up leaving it at auto
maybe I should try again

rough guess what voltage do you think I need for 800mhz
its certainly not much

my CPU at 4000Mhz needs a minimum of 1.105v for stability. best SQ at 1.15v.
at 2400Mhz needs min of around 0.82v. best SQ at 0.86v.

you do the maths.

by listening: too much voltage->SQ seems powerful/blurred. too tight->harsh/messy.

not enough voltage->BSOD.