Tír Na HiFi

finally got some time to really listen.

2.68 sse4 > 2.68 sse4 dqa

2.68 sse4
-polite like 2.66 v2. being polite has side-effects just like 2.66 v2. e.g. power/weight is less than norm.
-vocal can be kind of control/compressed. eat away some micro-details.
-not the most real/live version. more of a dreamy style.
-maybe slightly less bass than norm. coz treble in piano starts to feel uncomfortable after a while.
-very difficult to tell the best version is in the 2.6x.

2.68 sse2 intel win 8.1-R2 only
"The program can't start because pgort1.20.DLL is missing...."

i am using R2.

I used to use CMP + cPlay. I enjoyed its full bodied mellow but detailed sound.
When I bought windows 8, and tried it, I found that its audio sounded very good. Not quite as good as CMP + cPlay, but close, and on some tracks I even preferred listening to foobar on Win8.

I was in the process of rebuilding my CMP computer when I was put on to MQN by John Keny.

When I tried WS2012 it was quite apparent that WS2012 is much better than Win8 for audio.

Having said all of this. My friend uses Vortexbox. He is quite adamant that it sounds better than CMP +cPlay. He also had a dedicated PC running CMP, linear power for his USB converter etc...

I've heard vortexbox, and yes it is also very good. I recommend that people try it. What is cool about vortexbox is that you can control it using your smart phone - and get audiophile sound!

What I have learnt is that in the end, audio comes out. All of the good software players sound better than foobar or WMP. But, if we can all be honest, its only slightly better in terms of air, space around instruments, background depth, soundstage width etc. At the same time, we should all know that Hi Fi is all about those 1% improvements. These software players give the extra 1, 2 and 3%.
Its the sort of thing you could spend $5-10K on a CD player to get that sort of improvement, so free audiophile software is really good!

So, no I don't think you or anyone else is crazy when they say it all sounds rather similar, because yes, it does in most ways.
At the recent hifi show I heard the Wilson speakers, with all the fancy amps and sources driving them. Total cost of system was AUD $300K.
The JBL system costing around $20K to my ears was much better. I also heard some other systems that cost $5K and gave 90% of the sound of the big expensive systems.

Everything in the chain is important, but getting the right speakers IMO is more important than the front end. (assuming that your front end is up to the task anyway) And I think that anyone here using MQn with a decent DAC would be in that category.

jesuscheung wrote: 2.68 sse2 intel win 8.1-R2 only
"The program can't start because pgort1.20.DLL is missing...."

i am using R2.

have updated the file, so should work now

just upgraded to r2 and without optimisation the music seems to have a composure which I haven't heard before, don't know whether it's R2 or the 2.68 win 8.1 - r2 version as didn't test any other version, but thought people would have commented more on R2 if it was making that big a difference.

The 8.1 - R2 version implements the Raw and background audioclient settings, documentation is pretty sparse about what these do, but thought I would try it and see.

sbgk wrote:

jesuscheung wrote: 2.68 sse2 intel win 8.1-R2 only
"The program can't start because pgort1.20.DLL is missing...."

i am using R2.

have updated the file, so should work now

just upgraded to r2 and without optimisation the music seems to have a composure which I haven't heard before, don't know whether it's R2 or the 2.68 win 8.1 - r2 version as didn't test any other version, but thought people would have commented more on R2 if it was making that big a difference.

The 8.1 - R2 version implements the Raw and background audioclient settings, documentation is pretty sparse about what these do, but thought I would try it and see.

R2 is great ive been jumping up and down about it behind the scenes, so much so i used an non optimised r2 rather than optimised r1 to demonstrate MQn at tonys audio pc meet(where we got some interest). also used r2 for jplay streaming.

8.1 isnt too far behind either

So the difference your hearing is mostly R2 id imagine
even youtube sounds alright

Sorry for the dumb question.

I presume 8.1 refers to Windows 8.1. So I should upgrade?

R2 - No idea. What is that please?

Thanks

erin wrote:Sorry for the dumb question.

I presume 8.1 refers to Windows 8.1. So I should upgrade?

R2 - No idea. What is that please?

Thanks

yes
win 8 and win server 2012 r1 are very similar build wise
win 8.1 and server 2012 r2 also very similar and have some work done under the hood audio and efficiency wise

if someone was doing a dedicated audio pc build i think server 2012 r2 is the one to use
if a multi use pc or laptop win 8.1 is the one to use

if you can test new os versus old that would be best

but i think the new ones are best

erin wrote:Sorry for the dumb question.

I presume 8.1 refers to Windows 8.1. So I should upgrade?

R2 - No idea. What is that please?

Thanks

8.1 has a new kernel. same kernel as R2.
8's kernel equals 2012.
7's kernel equals 2008 R2.
vista's kernel equals 2008.

i guess a properly tuned 8.1 equals a properly tuned R2.

sbgk, back then probably when it was MQn 2.3x, you asked the value for Win32PrioritySeparation. back then, i said 18 was best because it was the most revealing.

now MQn 2.5x, 2.6x has gotten so much more revealing, 18 starts to be inappropriate. i now believe 28 is best. 18 was forcing the details. 18 was good because MQn was lacking details relative to now.

18 losses some layers of bass and adds earaches and losses some musicality.

in a high digital jitter environment, meaning, OS is un-tuned, 18 is better. in a highly tuned OS+2.6x/2.5x MQn, 28 is better.

of course there is 14 recommended by jplay. all it does is make stage sounds 'better' in exchange for musicality and many details. i dislike it.

jesuscheung wrote: 18 losses some layers of bass and adds earaches and losses some musicality.

in a high digital jitter environment, meaning, OS is un-tuned, 18 is better. in a highly tuned OS+2.6x/2.5x MQn, 28 is better.

of course there is 14 recommended by jplay. all it does is make stage sounds 'better' in exchange for musicality and many details. i dislike it.

Interesting

I believe having wireless running doesn't help the sound, have you tried it without yet ? Do you plan on having a more dedicated machine in future ?

Have you tried the 8.1 - R2 version yet, am interested to see if the raw bypass setting does anything. There are 3 settings specific to 8.1/R2 - hardware offloading (needs a device that has that capability), raw bypass and category (am trying background)

more details about raw here

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library ... s.85).aspx

category here

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library ... s.85).aspx

jesuscheung wrote:

erin wrote:Sorry for the dumb question.

I presume 8.1 refers to Windows 8.1. So I should upgrade?

R2 - No idea. What is that please?

Thanks

8.1 has a new kernel. same kernel as R2.
8's kernel equals 2012.
7's kernel equals 2008 R2.
vista's kernel equals 2008.

i guess a properly tuned 8.1 equals a properly tuned R2.

cant remember now but i thought there was more to it than just the kernel
the gap is narrower between R2 and Win 8.1 than R1 and win 8 (i have several installs)

i havent tried the Win32PrioritySeparation tweak does it bring as much benefit as setting the IRQ priority for the dac

i also suspect that optimal settings for the highly tuned pcs differs from standard pcs whether that be power supplies, hardware, software or bios settings