Thank you for your donation!


Moode 6 sound quality
#1
What are your experiences?

This topic is about complaints concerning the sound quality of release 6.x.

I still like the 3.8.4 RT kernel version when talking about the sound quality. I tried 4.x and 5.x but still find the sound quality of 3.8.4 RT the best.

It sounds more open (wider soundstage).
Reply
#2
(08-31-2019, 06:32 AM)Vhond Wrote: What are your experiences?

This topic is about complaints concerning the sound quality of release 6.x.

I still like the 3.8.4 RT kernel version when talking about the sound quality. I tried 4.x and 5.x but still find the sound quality of 3.8.4 RT the best.

It sounds more open (wider soundstage).

To be fair, that topic is concerned with *one* user's experience with distortion caused by *one* digital equalizer with *certain* settings.

The 3.8.4 RT kernel is dead to us and never coming back. The real-time Linux project is ongoing (https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/realtime/start) but it still takes extra work at the outset and ongoing maintenance work to integrate a project like moOde with it. No one has volunteered to take on this responsibility.

Meanwhile much of the goodness of the real-time Linux activity has already been implemented in the mainline Linux kernel. So much that most projects which used to require RT no longer bother.

Have you read the MPD User Guide (https://www.musicpd.org/doc/html/user.html)? The subject of Real-Time Scheduling using the mainline kernel has its own section and a recipe is given so you are free to explore the subject yourself. Pay special attention to the closing note in that section

Quote:Note There is a rumor that real-time scheduling improves audio quality. That is not true. All it does is reduce the probability of skipping (audio buffer xruns) when the computer is under heavy load.

I am in no position to try to evaluate the sound quality of various versions of moOde running various kernels and I wouldn't try even if I were. So much depends on the surrounding system---the DAC drivers, the interface to the DAC, the DAC itself, the downstream audio system, the music source. Conducting valid tests and tabulating the results in hard data which others could apply to their own situation would be exhausting. 

Regards,
Kent
Reply
#3
@Vhond I've only used MoOde since v4 but the sound is fabulous IMO. I can't say which version between v4, v5 & v6 is better as during that time I have made changes to my setups that have also affected (improved) the SQ, better termination of speaker cables, bi-wiring as my power amp has 2 sets of outputs, likewise speakers have separate inputs for hi / low.

The thread you referred to is posted by someone who has increased some bands on one of the EQ pre-sets & suffers distortion as a result, albeit they were successful with the same settings in v5.
I don't know why they don't revert to v5 and enjoy the music, as they stated themselves how fabulous the sound was given their particular tastes in EQ.
Reply
#4
It’d be interesting to see what difference the preempt rt kernel would make but I’m not bored enough to mess with it yet. From memory 3.8.4 with rt/ll + fifo sounded more relaxed and 4.x more forward, whether that was good or bad probably depended on your chain.

I’ve said it before but for 6.x I think there’s a pretty noticeable improvement to be found with the newer .21 version of mpd (it uses rt threads as above so gives much the same benefit as an rt kernel) but we can’t switch over to the new one as default because of the bluetooths.

If you need bluetooth check out Edward’s audio tweaks thread somewhere on the forum, they adjust task priorities and some other stuff and I thought improved things a bit. I think it sounds better without the tweaks if you’re using the newer mpd but ymmv and it’s easy enough to try it out and remove if desired.
Reply
#5
I like 3.8.4 also. Might just be psychological because it was better than the previous versions. I've been updating but still saved the older IMG. Gogo Penguins sounding great with 4.4 right now. Have 5.? On another box. Hard to judge even swapping out ssd cards.
Reply
#6
(09-03-2019, 04:24 AM)energyi Wrote: I like 3.8.4 also. Might just be psychological because it was better than the previous versions. I've been updating but still saved the older IMG. Gogo Penguins sounding great with 4.4 right now. Have 5.? On another box. Hard to judge even swapping out ssd cards.

Don't think it was psychological, I agree with Kent it's not the RT kernel as is but the optimization of specific processes and parameters (e.g. for latency).

Same experience with Rune and optimization of specific parameters.
Reply
#7
(09-03-2019, 09:21 AM)Vhond Wrote:
(09-03-2019, 04:24 AM)energyi Wrote: I like 3.8.4 also. Might just be psychological because it was better than the previous versions. I've been updating but still saved the older IMG. Gogo Penguins sounding great with 4.4 right now. Have 5.? On another box. Hard to judge even swapping out ssd cards.

Don't think it was psychological, I agree with Kent it's not the RT kernel as is but the optimization of specific processes and parameters (e.g. for latency).

Same experience with Rune and optimization of specific parameters.

But can you identify the supposedly better sounding version in a blind test?  

Most audiophiles will be convinced that they hear a difference between two amps even if the person conducting the experiment just pretended to switch amps.  That's expectation bias.  It's why it's so important to follow the scientific method.  We're all prone to hearing differences if we are convinced that something has changed.

People see these objects as being different, but they are identical in both size and shape:

   

Your hearing is no more immune to being deceived than are your eyes.
Reply
#8
@fmaxwell

=>Most audiophiles will be convinced that they hear a difference between two amps even if the person conducting the experiment just pretended to switch amps.  That's expectation bias.  It's why it's so important to follow the scientific method.  We're all prone to hearing differences if we are convinced that something has changed. <=

That's the crucial sentence in this post. and I know what I'm talking about ... was an audiophile over 20 years  Rolleyes

On the other hand, in times of analog music playback, there was a difference between an A/B amplifier and, for example, a single ended (SE) amplifier. The SE sounded more relaxed and more open. The single ended was not the better amp but because of its more 2nd harmonics it sounded like that.

As you wrote, there is a difference between truth and perception.

Regards
Norbert
Reply
#9
(09-10-2019, 08:51 AM)Norbert Wrote: The SE sounded more relaxed and more open. The single ended was not the better amp but because of its more 2nd harmonics it sounded like that.


It really isn't that simple. There are lots of reasons why good single ended amplifiers can sound better - but this probably sn't the place to discuss it.
Reply


Forum Jump: