Tír Na HiFi

Ok I'll go back and try it

I saw a posting from someone using a Linux-based player disputing that another user could hear a difference between two versions of the software.

Now, all of this would have been different if there was real evidence for the difference in sound, in the form of at least a plausible explanation in terms of changes in settings or software, or a real measurement between versions. Something like RMAA would be ideally suited for measurements, it's not hard to do, it just requires a decent sound card to do the measurements. Considering the amount of money people with these complaints are willing to spend on sound quality, it almost seems silly that hardly any of this budget is spent on actually measuring real results.

I know nothing of RMAA (freeware) and don't have a sound card, but I wondered if others did and knew of this RMAA software? It would be interesting if it could demonstrate real world graphical display of differences in MQn output between versions. In the User Manual - http://audio.rightmark.org/download.shtml there is a noise floor graph which might be helpful.

Jonathan

jrling wrote:I saw a posting from someone using a Linux-based player disputing that another user could hear a difference between two versions of the software.

Now, all of this would have been different if there was real evidence for the difference in sound, in the form of at least a plausible explanation in terms of changes in settings or software, or a real measurement between versions. Something like RMAA would be ideally suited for measurements, it's not hard to do, it just requires a decent sound card to do the measurements. Considering the amount of money people with these complaints are willing to spend on sound quality, it almost seems silly that hardly any of this budget is spent on actually measuring real results.

I know nothing of RMAA (freeware) and don't have a sound card, but I wondered if others did and knew of this RMAA software? It would be interesting if it could demonstrate real world graphical display of differences in MQn output between versions. In the User Manual - http://audio.rightmark.org/download.shtml there is a noise floor graph which might be helpful.

Jonathan

But if I understand it correctly, is this RMAA software not part of the playback/recording chain?
Would it thereby not be influencing the playback results compared to the situation where it is not installed on the playback computer?

I would expect measuring tools to be totally outside and independent of the object being measured.

Cheers

HI Aleg
I don't know.
My understanding was that it measured the output from a sound card on the PC playing MQn.
So comparing that output with different versions of MQn would surely be capturing the data before it got into the replay chain? Except of course for the sound card, but that is a constant. It would be measuring any nasties that the sound card itself is producing I accept, but if we are trying to see if there are any measurable differences between MQn versions - eg noise floor - then that seems to work. It is free (if you already have a sound card of reasonable quality)

some interesting dynamics in this diyaudio thread.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pc-based ... os-67.html

apparently linux audio is immune from the differences heard in MQn and this is not allowed to be discussed in a public forum by the poor deluded people who want to report it.

wouldn't be an issue if there were tests that reflected the user experience.

jrling wrote:

nige2000 wrote:8.64
Good detail

tracks with a little static background still seem to be amplified when compared to wasapi
maybe thats noise?
agility seems a little slow maybe something similar to difference between avx and avx2 wasapi

With 8.64 Normal, I am getting an over-exaggerated emphasis on the vocals centre compared with the excellent more balanced 8.61 Normal. A bit strained.

was using a setting which gave that effect, think it gives more detail.

8.65 combines that setting with another and sound seems less thin, with more musicality and detail.

sbgk wrote:some interesting dynamics in this diyaudio thread.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pc-based ... os-67.html

apparently linux audio is immune from the differences heard in MQn and this is not allowed to be discussed in a public forum by the poor deluded people who want to report it.

wouldn't be an issue if there were tests that reflected the user experience.

The infamous Julf going on full speed again :-(

sbgk wrote:some interesting dynamics in this diyaudio thread.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pc-based ... os-67.html

apparently linux audio is immune from the differences heard in MQn and this is not allowed to be discussed in a public forum by the poor deluded people who want to report it.

wouldn't be an issue if there were tests that reflected the user experience.

Aren't you glad you have such enlightened, intelligent believers like us lot?!

Are you still planning to move your attentions to Linux?
They don't have have need of you. MPD dressed up to the nines to look like something completely different, but if you polish a t**d, what do you get ? A t**d of course.

You could wipe the floor with your render loop refinement, and no Windows to get in the way and a Real Time OS (if you chose the right one).

Jonathan

is 8.65 working in the same manner as 8.64? Have got as far as 8.61 so not too far behind.

it seems the same characters just move around the net forums trying to poke people in the eye.
Said it before but sad life really.

sbgk wrote:
was using a setting which gave that effect, think it gives more detail.

8.65 combines that setting with another and sound seems less thin, with more musicality and detail.

Prefer 8.64 to 8.65.
Bass lines have gotten muddled.
Thought 8.64 was tonally well balanced on my system.