Clive

Credit to you Chris for reviewing and correcting the situation as best can be done after the event. Clive

Chris, it's good that you've taken steps to correct things though what's happened can't be totally undone. The reactions of the two people originally banned may not have been ideal but this can happen in the heat of the moment. Also as you are moderating CA all on your own you cannot be expected to pickup a rapidly moving 1,500 post thread and hope to understand all the dynamics. The nub of this is that I'm sorry to say you've been manipulated by someone with an agenda; whether it be due to their personal beliefs or commercial interests.

Hi Chris, can you say any more about the fake posts? This has me intrigued, has someone been posting in someone's else's name?

Chris, It's all too late now anyway. It's not that Julf made blatantly inappropriate individual posts, he was jibing at MQn rather too often, as though he had an axe to grind, hence accusations of trolling. In this respect his posts were inappropriate given the nature of the thread. MQn will live on elsewhere now I expect.

Chris, Can I take it that you regard MQn just as a piece of software and not a product, this sounds like the case? This is important as it's 50% of the reason for your investigation. The other 50% relates to a couple of comments 1,464 posts. The reality is that Julf has been baiting people interested in MQn both here and on the PFM forum. He has a major role to play in this, I hope you will consider this. Best regards, Clive

I would like to point out that the experiments being performed with the code do not constitute a product. The executable has been free to use. The source was touted as being available if a donation to UNICEF was made - this I suspect was a response to mean-spirited comments on another forum. It's not possible to see this thread in a commercial light. Do you agree?

I just now compared 2.59 sse4 intel 8 8 with 2.60 sse4 intel 8 4. 2.59 initially sounds more interesting in the mid-range with 2.60 seeming more restrained but slightly longer acquaintance tells me that 2.59 has just a trace spitch on vocals, I wouldn't go as far saying it's sibilance it's seems like a very slight boost in detail or a small amount of harshness. I find the spread of bass across the soundstage different between the two versions. 2.59 only fills 2/3rds the width of my room whereas 2.60 does the full width. Presumably the bass effect is in the upper bass but I can't know for sure.

LowOrbit - if the bits are bits argument were valid then I would agree that total accuracy would be the objective. As we can tell from the MQn experiments the bits are bits argument is flawed. The problem then is what is the best sound? This can only be subjectively judged as there is no technical spec of bit accuracy to aim at for the final solution (MQn is bit perfect, this is just a tablestake).

I would gladly donate too.

For sure and I very much hope you find the optimal setup where we get everything! You're certainly working incredibly hard at this, it's hard enough trying to keep up with just with the listening but you have the development to do too!

2.56 8 16 16 8 eax dec indeed seems like a good compromise, it's hard to know how far to strive for. What I mean is that sometimes we hear especially powerful bass or sparkling treble but this can be an artifact of the sound being too extreme in some way but we hold these aspects in our head and want the powerful bass and sparking treble without bloat or sibilance. Whether it's possible or we are chasing rainbows is another matter...time will tell!

I believe we're at the point where individual systems suit particular versions on MQn, it's hard to come up with what is the one "best" version. My room for instance is very live and even with a number of acoustic panels to tame it, it still exposes harsh treble quite ruthlessly. Likewise I wonder how headphone listening at max volume translates into listening via say my open baffles. 2.53 sse4 intel nt nt has improved the treble which with 2.53 intel rax cp seemed a little "white" sounding to me. 2.53 nt nt dec eax cp is better still. Central vocal focus is very good. I can't decide if the bass is reduced or better, my hunch is better.

It's been frenetic with MQn for a while but it does seem to have hotted up very recently, not unlike the Americas Cup which I managed to see some of. I must admit I didn't think MQn coukd get much better but it seems that's an unwise position to take!

Thanks, somehow I missed that one. After a week away on a trip I'mfascinated to find out what progress has occured.

It must be buried in the thread somewhere....What's the difference between 1.x, 2.x and 3.x?