jrling wrote:
The different combinations of software and hardware settings must run to the millions. How can us mere mortals make sense of that? Just by listening and finding one or two that please one. Which is basically what Gordon has been doing for over a year and extremely successfully to my ears.
Jonathan - standing by for a barrage of opposing views!
only about 200-300 things you have to worry about in terms of OS/bios.
as long as you always pick better choice, you will be fine.
as for mqn, the coding makes millions of combination i guess. millions times more difficult to do.
erin wrote:
Anyway, I have been listening to MQN 3.92 and found it to be very pleasant. Music should be relaxing and enjoyable and musical. 3.92 ticks those boxes. - A step in the right direction. Keep up the good work Gordon.
But, 3.92 is not as good as my favorite version because it does not have much bass detail. The leading edge is lost. So, very relaxing, but not audiophile....
There is only so much cake in the world!
When the greedy people want to have more than their fair share, then there is less cake for everyone else.
Buy locally.
Build locally.
Grow locally.
Share locally.
Results in a fair slice of the cake for everyone.
erin wrote:
....
Anyway, I have been listening to MQN 3.92 and found it to be very pleasant. Music should be relaxing and enjoyable and musical. 3.92 ticks those boxes. - A step in the right direction. Keep up the good work Gordon.
yes. 3.92 is nearly leanless. leanless > details
3.94>3.95>3.96.
Yes yes. Detail is down.
I cannot find the 3.96? too many files in the folder. Please provide a link .. . . . . .
There is only so much cake in the world!
When the greedy people want to have more than their fair share, then there is less cake for everyone else.
Buy locally.
Build locally.
Grow locally.
Share locally.
Results in a fair slice of the cake for everyone.
erin wrote:
Anyway, I have been listening to MQN 3.92 and found it to be very pleasant. Music should be relaxing and enjoyable and musical. 3.92 ticks those boxes. - A step in the right direction. Keep up the good work Gordon.
But, 3.92 is not as good as my favorite version because it does not have much bass detail. The leading edge is lost. So, very relaxing, but not audiophile....
Erin
3.96 and 3.95 are uploaded with the same timestamp, the 3.95 is actually more recent.
I always order the details list on date modified which will put the most recent at the top.
jrling wrote:A few comments on recent posts if I may -
Develop by scientific measurement rather than by ear - is a compelling argument - well actually I would do it by both - BUT there has been no method put forward to produce those measurements or for that matter correlate measurements with listening experience. jkeny started a good thread on just such an approach, but noone volunteered a method, I seem to recall. Certainly, not without access to mega-expensive equipment only available to those in the electronics industry.
Of course, SQ is dependent not only on hardware but software. But it is the interaction between the two that results in what we hear. We are all using different hardware and differently configured Windows OS and so even testing the same version of MQn, we are not comparing apples with apples, so it is not at all surprising that there are numerous quite opposing views of versions of MQn.
As far as I am concerned, having to get a soldering iron out to the PC, is a red line not to be crossed. A slippery slope. And IMHO, I can get really, really good SQ without that. Careful choice of power supply (see my signature for my cheap approach), good quality components like RAM with standard BIOS settings can give very good results. Tuning the Windows OS is where I get most gain and in my case that time is free.
To make the point, taggart's excellent utility 'Tasker' easily provides the ability to change Windows Priority and Affinity for MQnplay for instance. My WaveIO has the Thesycon XMOS drivers with latency settings configurable in the Control Panel. Just changing that latency to Minimum from Low can in my case change the whole tone of the music to sharp and digital. Similarly configuring MQnplay to its own dedicated core and High (but not Realtime) Priority can transform the SQ for the better.
.. and did I mention that I have a Chord DAC which has a 4 second RAM buffer in the DAC that reclocks the SPDIF input and theoretically should remove a lot of incoming jitter? But it is still easy to detect difference between versions of MQn (to Gordon's surprise).
The different combinations of software and hardware settings must run to the millions. How can us mere mortals make sense of that? Just by listening and finding one or two that please one. Which is basically what Gordon has been doing for over a year and extremely successfully to my ears.
Jonathan - standing by for a barrage of opposing views!
cant disagree with much of that
dont have the gear to do good measurements, if i did there'd be methodology to be considered etc etc,
cant say i ever felt the need to measure much
ya reclocking doesnt seem to fix it all, strange isnt it
when i use the xmos chip i use the lowest settings its handy for fine tuning
them xm21x's get around
sd card player, modded soekris dac, class a lifepo4 amp or gb class a/b amp, diy open baffle speakers based on project audio mundorf trio 10's
look, digital jitter is very simple.
once you correct it, it is forever correct.
say you overvolt your CPU, you should expect,
blur -> false mellow
muddy excess -> false extra details
blur another jitter that thins the sound -> false neutral sound
look, just fix the bloody voltage, there will be no more issues. FOREVER is done
very simple
people thinks another piece of software (e.g. reclock, player) will fix every little things. it cannot.
jrling wrote:A few comments on recent posts if I may -
Develop by scientific measurement rather than by ear - is a compelling argument - well actually I would do it by both - BUT there has been no method put forward to produce those measurements or for that matter correlate measurements with listening experience. jkeny started a good thread on just such an approach, but noone volunteered a method, I seem to recall. Certainly, not without access to mega-expensive equipment only available to those in the electronics industry.
Of course, SQ is dependent not only on hardware but software. But it is the interaction between the two that results in what we hear. We are all using different hardware and differently configured Windows OS and so even testing the same version of MQn, we are not comparing apples with apples, so it is not at all surprising that there are numerous quite opposing views of versions of MQn.
As far as I am concerned, having to get a soldering iron out to the PC, is a red line not to be crossed. A slippery slope. And IMHO, I can get really, really good SQ without that. Careful choice of power supply (see my signature for my cheap approach), good quality components like RAM with standard BIOS settings can give very good results. Tuning the Windows OS is where I get most gain and in my case that time is free.
To make the point, taggart's excellent utility 'Tasker' easily provides the ability to change Windows Priority and Affinity for MQnplay for instance. My WaveIO has the Thesycon XMOS drivers with latency settings configurable in the Control Panel. Just changing that latency to Minimum from Low can in my case change the whole tone of the music to sharp and digital. Similarly configuring MQnplay to its own dedicated core and High (but not Realtime) Priority can transform the SQ for the better.
.. and did I mention that I have a Chord DAC which has a 4 second RAM buffer in the DAC that reclocks the SPDIF input and theoretically should remove a lot of incoming jitter? But it is still easy to detect difference between versions of MQn (to Gordon's surprise).
The different combinations of software and hardware settings must run to the millions. How can us mere mortals make sense of that? Just by listening and finding one or two that please one. Which is basically what Gordon has been doing for over a year and extremely successfully to my ears.
Jonathan - standing by for a barrage of opposing views!
cant disagree with much of that
dont have the gear to do good measurements, if i did there'd be methodology to be considered etc etc,
cant say i ever felt the need to measure much
ya reclocking doesnt seem to fix it all, strange isnt it
when i use the xmos chip i use the lowest settings its handy for fine tuning
them xm21x's get around
Nothing wrong with using your ears to make system setup decisions!
But science does help qualify and quantify subjective feedback, which I find helpful sometimes.
I also agree with jrling's choice of mods to achieve good audio.
Most of which I have implemented.
erin wrote:
Anyway, I have been listening to MQN 3.92 and found it to be very pleasant. Music should be relaxing and enjoyable and musical. 3.92 ticks those boxes. - A step in the right direction. Keep up the good work Gordon.
But, 3.92 is not as good as my favorite version because it does not have much bass detail. The leading edge is lost. So, very relaxing, but not audiophile....
jrling wrote:A few comments on recent posts if I may -
Develop by scientific measurement rather than by ear - is a compelling argument - well actually I would do it by both - BUT there has been no method put forward to produce those measurements or for that matter correlate measurements with listening experience. jkeny started a good thread on just such an approach, but noone volunteered a method, I seem to recall. Certainly, not without access to mega-expensive equipment only available to those in the electronics industry.
Of course, SQ is dependent not only on hardware but software. But it is the interaction between the two that results in what we hear. We are all using different hardware and differently configured Windows OS and so even testing the same version of MQn, we are not comparing apples with apples, so it is not at all surprising that there are numerous quite opposing views of versions of MQn.
As far as I am concerned, having to get a soldering iron out to the PC, is a red line not to be crossed. A slippery slope. And IMHO, I can get really, really good SQ without that. Careful choice of power supply (see my signature for my cheap approach), good quality components like RAM with standard BIOS settings can give very good results. Tuning the Windows OS is where I get most gain and in my case that time is free.
To make the point, taggart's excellent utility 'Tasker' easily provides the ability to change Windows Priority and Affinity for MQnplay for instance. My WaveIO has the Thesycon XMOS drivers with latency settings configurable in the Control Panel. Just changing that latency to Minimum from Low can in my case change the whole tone of the music to sharp and digital. Similarly configuring MQnplay to its own dedicated core and High (but not Realtime) Priority can transform the SQ for the better.
.. and did I mention that I have a Chord DAC which has a 4 second RAM buffer in the DAC that reclocks the SPDIF input and theoretically should remove a lot of incoming jitter? But it is still easy to detect difference between versions of MQn (to Gordon's surprise).
The different combinations of software and hardware settings must run to the millions. How can us mere mortals make sense of that? Just by listening and finding one or two that please one. Which is basically what Gordon has been doing for over a year and extremely successfully to my ears.
Jonathan - standing by for a barrage of opposing views!
cant disagree with much of that
dont have the gear to do good measurements, if i did there'd be methodology to be considered etc etc,
cant say i ever felt the need to measure much
ya reclocking doesnt seem to fix it all, strange isnt it
when i use the xmos chip i use the lowest settings its handy for fine tuning
them xm21x's get around
Nothing wrong with using your ears to make system setup decisions!
But science does help qualify and quantify subjective feedback, which I find helpful sometimes.
I also agree with jrling's choice of mods to achieve good audio.
Most of which I have implemented.
I had a lengthy post on a new thread about pc power supplies and their implementation this morning
Which is the best bang for buck
Dismantling motherboards comes with risk and certainly not the place to start when upgrading your audio pc
Anyway I lost the whole post
I'll retry when I'm finished my mourning period
sd card player, modded soekris dac, class a lifepo4 amp or gb class a/b amp, diy open baffle speakers based on project audio mundorf trio 10's