Another playback software to argue over
- Thread starter jkeny
- Start date
I tried the 2.65 version of MQn last night. It sounded more open than version 2.63 that I started with and also a little more open than Jriver 19(not sure which version) using John's Ciunas DAC.
MQn does not work with my own DAC the Exasound e20. My dac uses only a custom ASIO driver and MQn uses WASAPI. I have noticed quite a difference between the sound quality of DSD files played back on Foobar vs Jriver through my dac though. The sound is much better through Jriver. More open and realistic. In Foobar I just changed to the 64bit drivers and now DSD sounds much better. Not sure which I prefer (Jriver/Foobar) because I have not taken the time to compare yet. I have no idea why there are differences between programs let alone different versions of programs but there seem to be.
MQn does not work with my own DAC the Exasound e20. My dac uses only a custom ASIO driver and MQn uses WASAPI. I have noticed quite a difference between the sound quality of DSD files played back on Foobar vs Jriver through my dac though. The sound is much better through Jriver. More open and realistic. In Foobar I just changed to the 64bit drivers and now DSD sounds much better. Not sure which I prefer (Jriver/Foobar) because I have not taken the time to compare yet. I have no idea why there are differences between programs let alone different versions of programs but there seem to be.
Are you saying there are no differences in SQ between different software or was yours a tongue in cheek response?
I know that there are differences in SQ between different bit-perfect players I started the thread & suggested for people to try the software, MQN
I was just waiting on Julf, Amirm, J_J Tim & many others to tell us how unreliable the sense of hearing is.......DBTs......or to use Tim's term substantiate the "claim"
How about if you stopped telling people what you think we are thinking?
We are not denying anyone hears what they hear. We do question the reasons for *why* people hear what they hear. Not understanding the difference between those two is a rather fundamental failing.
I think it's a bit of both, and I don't mean just you. We have read the term 'delusional' many times on this forum which is used to describe some people when they state what they hear with their systems. So I think there is quite a bit of denying what people hear more than I think there is questioning the reasons why people hear what they hear. Usually these conversations demand "proof," DBTs, measurements, etc. We see it all the time here.
"Delusional" is of course both inappropriate and incorrect.
Saying that what people hear might be subject to perceptional bias and psycoacoustic factors is not the same as denying what people hear.
People hear what they hear. The correlation between differences between what people hear and differences in actual sound waves is in some cases strong and in other cases less strong.
It should be acceptable to discuss all those factors and the correlation (or lack of it) between sound waves and the perception of them, without people feeling that their experience is being "denied".
Nobody can demand proof of what you hear. If you say "speaker X sounds warm, with a tinge of orange", that is how you do perceive the sound. But if you make a claim such as "all speakers with an alnico magnet sound bad", then it is just a random opinion until you provide some support for the claim.
But broad generalisations and diffuse accusations such as "There are a number of people here who will X" are always both misplaced and misdirected.
Let me say here that Clive (who posted here) has done both his own "accidental" blind test of this software & more importantly an organised blind test with 4 people. The results have shown that the differences are identifiable blind & sorted in the order of preference of sighted tests.
This has been posted by Clive on other forum threads that Julf participates on.
This has been posted by Clive on other forum threads that Julf participates on.
Although I have no interest in trying MQN, I do not understand why Julf keeps on attacking this software and jkeny. As far as I know, jkeny does not force anyone to buy or donate to MQN author. He just encourages people to try it. If you do not like this software, please stop posting in this thread. Whether the author releases the code or not, it is of no interest in this thread. Whether it is free according to open source or not, I do not care. I only know that I do not need to pay to use it unlike some other softwares.
Really? Here are the latest versions anyway https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tw9i3e9dkky9j6q/zbt-Wc9kkX/ 2.66 sse2 intel dqa dqa
Hi John, bit-perfect are only the very first basic requirement.
It will sound different from motherboard to motherboard, PSU to PSU, CPU to CPU, and from SW revision to SW revision.
Then it will sound different again with every variant of USB cable, USB adapter, DAC, PSUs for the USB adapter and DAC.
Then it will sound different again with every variant of cables, amplifiers, PSUs for amplifiers, and speakers, and the room they are used in.
I agree, Ray, that bit-perfection is a very basic requirement & that lots of other factors have/can have their effects.
However, essentially saying "everything matters" as in your post is somewhat different from demonstrating the specific effect of one factor, particularly when it is considered by many to be impossible. I consider it worth investigating.
I didn't get it working. I highlighted a few FLAC files and copied them (to the clipboard) but when I then tried to play (via the .bat file) nothing happened. It may be because I remote desktop into my music server, not sure.
OK then, well that explains it.
I don't use .WAV files for space reasons so I won't be able to test.
Sorry and thanks for the explanation.
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |