MQN

[sbgk]

thanks for the feedback, if you can narrow it down to the specific version it would help. I think that's enough versions for now, shall see if a favourite emerges.

[tony]

I would suggest Gordon people pm you there favourite. Simply because people may become influenced by choices others go for.
We don't want to be accused of rigging the vote!

[sbgk]

I would suggest Gordon people pm you there favourite. Simply because people may become influenced by choices others go for.
We don't want to be accused of rigging the vote!

it's extra effort for me to read pms and interesting to see peoples discussion/interpretations of the different versions so would prefer not. think open discussion has worked so far.

[tony]

Ok lets see what develops over the next week or so.

[erin]

I mentioned Vortexbox in a post about 3 pages ago. So I installed it on the same PC to which I had WS2012 installed. I simply removed the HDD, installed another, then installed Vortexbox.

I write this just for the sake of comparison becuase I think it is interesting, and hopefully others do too.

Vortexbox sounds HUGE, and dynamics are huge. Its the audio equivalent of a top fuel racer.
Vortexbox sounds like the music is free flowing and completely unrestricted. Bass is fat, mids are forward, treble is vibrant and sparkling. Dynamic attack is probably as good as it gets!
However, the one problem is that it does sound a bit grainy across the entire frequency spectrum - to my ears anyway.

I was able to power down the PC and swap HDD in a matter of about 2 minutes, so that the same tracks were fresh in my mind.

MQn 2.66 mfence in comparison, has much less bass, much less dynamics, but clearly excels in terms of much lower noise, and overall clarity.

These two softwares suit different people, or different systems, or different moods.
If you prefer dynamics, and want the full bass weight and attack, then Vortexbox is the one for you.
If you prefer soundstage, and low noise background, then MQn is for you.
Both allowed me to enjoy music in different ways.

If the low noise of MQn could be combined with the dynamics of Vortexbox then I think we would have the ultimate audio playback.

I think its really important to compare all music players. From what I have heard over the years, Im not sure that there is a best player, but probably that different players present music in a different way, suit different moods and/or systems. What I've written above is not an endorsement of one software over the other. Take it as being complimentary about both.

I intend to try installing XBMC (openelec) on the same computer later this week and will compare it to Vortexbox, MQn etc.

[sbgk]

did you try it with squeezelite ?

http://info.vortexbox.org/tiki-index.ph ... queezeLite

I tried squeezelite on windows and couldn't get any joy, suppose alsa maybe different.

[erin]

did you try it with squeezelite ?

http://info.vortexbox.org/tiki-index.ph ... queezeLite

I tried squeezelite on windows and couldn't get any joy, suppose alsa maybe different.

No I didn't. Is squeezelite meant to sound better?

[sbgk]

did you try it with squeezelite ?

http://info.vortexbox.org/tiki-index.ph ... queezeLite

I tried squeezelite on windows and couldn't get any joy, suppose alsa maybe different.

No I didn't. Is squeezelite meant to sound better?

don't know, it uses portaudio

[erin]

did you try it with squeezelite ?

http://info.vortexbox.org/tiki-index.ph ... queezeLite

I tried squeezelite on windows and couldn't get any joy, suppose alsa maybe different.

No I didn't. Is squeezelite meant to sound better?

don't know, it uses portaudio

Alan Horstmann, seems to know what he is talking about and says

using PulseAudio is fine for a general-purpose
desktop, but serious audio users would always skip all the re-sampling and
automatic config behaviour, and use Alsa more directly, perhaps through Jack.

[wushuliu]

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.

Hi, I have just installed MQN on an AMD PC. I've been using Jplay for a longtime and have to agree - after changing Win32 Separation to 28 MQN soundsMUCH better. Very obvious change in presentation. MQN is amazing!