Page 742 of 804
Re: MQN
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:54 am
by adolfo.a.aguiar
adolfo.a.aguiar wrote:One more vote for v75.
I have borrowed an Audiophilleo to compare my Hugo USB input vs SPDIF.
With the USB input, all the players available to me worked fine. MQn > HQ Player > Foobar.
With SPDIF, both Foobar and HQ Player worked fine (I had to increase HQ Player WASAPI buffer to 20 ms to avoid clicks). With MQn, music plays with regular background noise (clicks and pops).
What should I do to correct this behavior?
On the subject of Hugo's USB vs SPDIF, more listening is required. The Audiophilleo is brand new and needs break-in. The sound with the Audiophilleo is more relaxed, analog like, but the USB input has more details.
And I need to make MQn work with SPDIF in my system.
sbgk,
I need your help here.
I retested today with/without RAM OS and MQn plays with clicks and pops. As I had to raise HQ Player buffer time to 20ms, I wonder if the problem lies with the buffer time. Is there a solution for this?
Re: MQN
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:49 am
by janh
elaprince wrote:Yes
+1 for v88
Listened to v75 and v88. I much prefer v88.
Re: MQN
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:07 pm
by elaprince
HI all
I just hope that this project is not dead in the water?
Keep my fingers cross
Thanks
Re: MQN
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:46 pm
by sbgk
uploaded play v91, a bit more detail I think.
Re: MQN
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:51 pm
by elaprince
Welcome back Gordon
I did try v91 against v88
I think I like better v91 seems it has more details in fact
Need more test
Thank you
Re: MQN
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 12:18 am
by sbgk
elaprince wrote:Welcome back Gordon
I did try v91 against v88
I think I like better v91 seems it has more details in fact
Need more test
Thank you
v92 a bit more solid in bass, but still retains the detail, so many ways to skin a cat, think this one has everything.
shall get the multitrack out tomorrow.
v93 small tweak to v92, full on experience now, amazing what 16/44 can sound like.
Re: MQN
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:57 am
by elaprince
sbgk wrote:elaprince wrote:Welcome back Gordon
I did try v91 against v88
I think I like better v91 seems it has more details in fact
Need more test
Thank you
v92 a bit more solid in bass, but still retains the detail, so many ways to skin a cat, think this one has everything.
shall get the multitrack out tomorrow.
v93 small tweak to v92, full on experience now, amazing what 16/44 can sound like.
Indeed Gordon why even bother with DSD
v93 amazing
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:19 pm
by elaprince
Anyone else test this version?
What are your findings?
Thanks
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:39 pm
by janh
Listened to v88, v93 and v95.
v88 has less detail. The other two - I think I like v93 best - amazing as elaprince say. They both have very good detail.
Another thing:
A week ago I installed Windows 10 Home on my music PC. With MQn I used mqnplay win 10 v88, control v28 and loader v27.
When I started to play a file, both mqncontrol and mqnloader would start as Background processes in Task Manager. After 30 sec. mqnloader stopped, and then mqnplay and music started.
Then I run Fidelizer Pro 6.9 (Extremist), and after that mqnloader would run background for a full minute, before it stopped and mqnplay and music started.
I then reverted to 2012 R2
Re: MQN
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:57 pm
by elaprince
+1
If you own Win Server 2012 R2 there is no point IMHO to try Win10
Win10 is inferior to Win Server
I think it would be beneficial for everyone here to try Win Server 2016 which is coming out hopefully next year
Preview already made available by Bill
I am i few weeks time I might do that myself (already have latest preview on hand)
Thanks