# A (better sounding?) alternative to Foobar2000 -OR- A musing in the realm of bit-perfect streaming



## MrRoderick

So, In my pursuits I have come across the nifty little project "Minimalist Audio Player". It is a small (very small) wasapi (or, now ASIO) audio player designed to avoid contact with the Windows API, as the creator believes that any interaction with the OS interferes with sound quality. The player is so small in fact that it does not have an interface. Its just an .exe and a set of batch files that can perform operations like next, stop etc.
   
  Now, I've been a Foobar2000 guy for quite a while now, if just for its functionality/customizability and the ASIO support. I did not even know about WASAPI (and I use Win7), until Foobar, ASIO, or something was way out of whack and I went hunting for fixes. Thus I came across this little player, in a thread claiming it sounded _better _than Foobar2000 (on HydrogenAudio). At that point in the game I just wanted to listen to music, as the problems were mounting, and I went ahead and tried it out. (By the way, I generally output SPDIF to iBasso D10, but broke toslink adapter and have recently been going the USB route)
   
  I was initially hugely impressed, enough so to do a sort of mental double take. For starters, I'm generally with the logic-camp of things, making me think that there's not really a way for a program to sound any better than another when they're outputting "bit-perfect" data. Right? But immediately something was different. As best as I can describe it, the sound is more present, and quicker. As if it was brought more to life. Its clearer not in more detail, but more in more realism. Things that snap really _snap_. It was actually the greatest moment so far, besides when I finally got my D2000's 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, that some kind of aural realization came over me. Mind you, that does not mean that it sounded _hugely _different than Foobar, but just that it _did_. Which is further than anything else I've personally heard (eh, what can I do).
   
  I continued exploring the program, jumped back on fixing Foobar to get some comparison listening, and my impressions, after a few days of tinkering, remain the same. Which I find very intriguing. The program certainly doesn't hold up as a full on music application, as it doesn't even have a GUI, but for those times when I'm really just wanting to delve into the sound, this is what I'll use. The intriguing bit, to me, is why that is.
   
  So I took a look around on here to see if anyone else knew much about the player, and it was very very briefly mentioned by one member, along with the player Lilith, which is apparently much bigger, but shares a similar philosophy to this player. The thread for the Lilith player was fairly ridiculous however, with people up in arms about the whole "bit-perfect is bit-perfect" thing. Which, as I said, I generally subscribe to. But, if that is so, why do I hear a difference between players? And not just me, but just about anyone who that I've seen that has actually used the player.
   
  I've come to a couple conclusions. First, sure, a program can technically be outputting the data completely untouched, but in how it delivers that data to the final output, i.e. the pins in my USB port or the light in a SPDIF out etc., despite using ASIO or WASAPI, it still bears affectation due to interaction with the OS. This idea is based on the philosophy of the "Minimalist Audio Player"'s creator, and in that there is the presence of the occasional noise and hiccup I get with digital output. Especially when showstopping OS errors will hugely affect the audio output, so far as to make it sound all choppy and whatnot. On the flipside, I imagine that may lie within the processor running the codecs that decode the audio into an output.
   
  Really I don't know very much more than generally a program works in the order of file>program decodes>ASIO or WASAPI skips windows mixing>external DAC converts to analog signal. I want to know whats going on with the output, and why this player seems to sound better (no, not placebo, hush) for multiple reasons.I want to stop dealing with little tiny skips and pops and all that crap, which might lie in that windows-program interaction, I want get as much sound quality as I can, and heck I'm just curious. I'm a computer audio believer (mostly cause I really really can't afford the nice stuff) and I'm constantly on the lookout for improvement.
   
   
  So, if you want to check out the player the link is here: http://andy-audioplayer.blogspot.com/
   
   
   
  Any info on the whole Windows output to device thing would be interesting, as well as your thoughts on if the player sounds better, and really on the nature of our conception of bit-perfect, which, after some light research, I think is a little 'the earth is flat' ish (only a little).
   
  To note, the player has various things you may, or at least I did, have to work out. Most of these issues are addressed in either the blog or the player's readme, but if you have other problems I'd be happy to help as I am very curious to your thoughts. Make sure to read that readme though!


----------



## Hybrys

I personally think most, if not all, differences between players are placebo, 'sounding better' as you put more work into it.  This theory holds true via a recent conversation, where people were saying Foobar < uLilith < MPC+Reclock.  Guess which one is harder to use?
   
  If you can, get someone to help you completely blind test it, trying to 'trick' you.
   
  As for output methods... They work strangely.  WASAPI is built into Windows, as a method of bypassing any method Windows could use to alter that sound (including the internal mixer).  ASIO is something similar, but more of a way to directly interact with the hardware for lower latencies, and as a result, bypasses Windows processing aswell.  ASIO4ALL isn't ASIO, and is a stopgap method of audio transportation, creating a virtual device that Windows can stream to, then streaming from that device to your hardware.  I would even hazard a guess that it isn't bitperfect in Vista/Win7.
   
  Use your ears, but think critically.  Bitperfect is bitperfect is bitperfect.  It won't change unless you introduce some kind of signal processing along the line.  If it's tested to be true 44.1khz (or whatever your source.  Tested via locking receivers/measurement) in multiple programs, but you still hear a difference, something is wonky.


----------



## leeperry

bit-perfect is the biggest lie in computer audio, all the players sound different..they just do: http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CPlay.SoftwareInducedJitter
   
  Reclock uses a small WASAPI buffer in a thread running in realtime priority, and many ppl think that it does sound better than foobar.
   
  Hardly anyone has the right gear to measure software induced jitter...the XXHighEnd coder gave it a shot here: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.0;all
   
  even children can hear the difference in a DBT: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/2/21586.html
   
  the MOT's who sell uber-low jitter clocks yadayada don't have the gear to measure it, hahah. I'd be like like a blind salesman selling you haute-couture cloths 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Yes, I know the player you're mentioning...a friend of mine is very fond of it, but it doesn't support VST plugins so it's of no use to me.


----------



## ROBSCIX

Test out the various players for yourself and use the one that you like the best.


----------



## MrRoderick

I understand the concepts of ASIO and WASAPI, and as far as the players go, I have come to a preference conclusion. What I'm interested in is the possibilities, as Leepery has mentioned, of variation in 'bit-perfect' streaming. By the way, that cmp2 site is very intriguing, thanks. Pretty much what I was looking for. I'm not sure what solution that pushes me toward however.
   
  I guess it just depends on the use and the kind of listening I want to be doing. But I'm still interested in refining that bit stream down to the best I can get it. I'll keep researching.


----------



## ROBSCIX

Yes, Test out things and form your own opinions but do some reading also.


----------



## JulioCat2

This is the most Ugly player i have found, but the Better Sounding too, so who cares about not having a GUI, this player sounds as pure, transparent and "bit perfect" as it can get, thanks Andy for this simple but wonderful peace of software!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Justin Uthadude

Try XMplay
  It sounds great, it's very small and memory efficient; uses winamp plugins and wasapi/asio/directsound, plays any format, drag 'n drop, skinable, outputs to external dacs, streams radio or urls, blah blah blah, and my favorite: doesn't need installing. That's right - no registry problems. You can unzip it and be listening in 15 mins without hair-pulling, book-reading, forum-searching configurations. Did I say it sounds great? I tried it one night jusforthehelluvit and now it's my music player. (I still use MediaMonkey as my library manager and tagger, because it's better for that purpose.) For a down and dirty player that sounds pretty pure but has flexibility power it's sweet. In fact, I'm listening to Nils Lofgren Acoustic Live as I type this, and it sounds as good as I've ever heard it. Placebo? Maybe. Maybe not. It's free to find out.
  .


----------



## Justin Uthadude




----------



## Head Injury

Well, I'm trying it. And it sounds good. But that's because it's playing louder than Foobar. Any way to fix that sans playing with the volume knob, considering its absent interface?


----------



## Mister Bean

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Well, I'm trying it. And it sounds good. But that's because it's playing louder than Foobar. Any way to fix that sans playing with the volume knob, considering its absent interface?


 

 Can you use the Windows volume mixer to achieve this? In Windows 7 (and I think some earlier versions as well) you can change the volume for individual programs. This does, however, introduce another variable.


----------



## MrRoderick

well if you're outputting to your DAC the volume should not necessarily be an issue, since it is only outputting the bit stream. Is your primary sound driver an analog output, or is the setup the one from your sig? And to comment on mister bean, the app will not come up in windows sound mixer, nor even in the task manager, save for as a small process 'stealthaudio32.exe'. If its louder than foobar perhaps its either a. effect of dsp's in foobar (like the bauer dsp, thus 'quieting foobar'), or b. that loudness is the perception i have of 'presence'. To me it does not seem louder. Then again, turning down the knob does not hurt.


----------



## MrRoderick

Another note, just so you all know, i am having a large amount of problems with the player unfortunately. They might resolve once i get a new toslink adapter and can go back to optical, i think my usb ports are whack. So again, it ain't perfect... but for some real pristine listening here and there, and some intriguing bit-perfect food for thought, it is quite nice. Which reminds me, those links that leepery posted are really, really interesting, and super-complicated, especially PeterSt attempt to measure bit-perfect variations (which he proves to exist!!)
   
  Also, i tested out the players by very ... patchwork means of using my optical cable. yeah, i held it in place, hahaha. But it added that little boost of synergy, (partially due to the 24/96) and sounded even nicer, with the minimalist player still grabbing my ears more. (I just got a 24/96 vinyl rip of Boards of Canada's Campfire Headphase and it is absolutely lovely)


----------



## Shike

Quote:


leeperry said:


> bit-perfect is the biggest lie in computer audio, all the players sound different..they just do: http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CPlay.SoftwareInducedJitter


 
 That article is the biggest lie in computer audio made from paranoia and little to no scientific testing.
   
  DBT the players - properly - making sure they're level matched (confirming something isn't going wrong with the players).
   
  As for PeterSt, he still has a long way to prove his hypothesis.


----------



## ROBSCIX

Agreed.


----------



## leeperry

shike said:


> That article is the biggest lie in computer audio made from paranoia and little to no scientific testing.


 
  OIC, so all the players sound the same to you...and jitter doesn't exist per se, nor is it audible of course? you're such a lucky guy.
   
  I presume that all the opamps/cables and S/PDIF interfaces sound the same too, right?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





mrroderick said:


> well if you're outputting to your DAC the volume should not necessarily be an issue, since it is only outputting the bit stream. Is your primary sound driver an analog output, or is the setup the one from your sig? And to comment on mister bean, the app will not come up in windows sound mixer, nor even in the task manager, save for as a small process 'stealthaudio32.exe'. If its louder than foobar perhaps its either a. effect of dsp's in foobar (like the bauer dsp, thus 'quieting foobar'), or b. that loudness is the perception i have of 'presence'. To me it does not seem louder. Then again, turning down the knob does not hurt.


 

 I set the primary device to uDAC before I installed and ran the program. It's usually set to my X-Fi sound card for gaming, with Foobar set to use the uDAC instead, but not right now. The app _does _show up in the volume mixer, but like any good bit-perfect player changing the volume does nothing. I've got no DSPs active in Foobar. And it's definitely not "presence" or any nonsense like that. If anything, the "presence" is a result of the volume. Causation does not equal correlation, and all that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Ah! It's probably ReplayGain! This little no-interface player probably doesn't use it, huh?


----------



## chinesekiwi

Well, software players *can* affect the picture quality of a movie. FACT. There are many tests showing this. I do not see why this cannot be applied to audio as there are many things 'under the hood' that affect picture quality and thus many things 'under the hood' of software digital music players that can affect the sound. Both are jsut processing digital data after all Btw, the general consensus is that _Media Player Classic_ - _Home Cinema_ is the best for viewing vids. VLC is so crap tbh.
  People underestimate the influence of software / firmware on digital sound.


----------



## leeperry

head injury said:


> I don't know if it's louder for everyone else and no one's noticed


 
  OMG, you found the reason why many ppl think it's better! that's because it's louder...yes sir, you can make bit-perfect louder, how cool is that


----------



## Draca

I remember something about jitter only mattering at the DAC conversion stage, but I may be wrong.
   
  @leeperry: I've never found cables to make a difference personally, aside from those with better shielding resisting mobile phone interference more than others. The actual conductor on the other hand, I haven't found to matter.
   
  Equating opamps to the bitperfect debate seems a like comparing apples to oranges though. You're also putting words in Shike's mouth (or ears)


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> OMG, you found the reason why many ppl think it's better! that's because it's louder...yes sir, you can make bit-perfect louder, how cool is that


 

 You can also make it "sound better", huh?
   
  Anyway, it was ReplayGain. But a direct comparison between the two revealed no differences as far as I'm concerned. So I'll stick with the one using the interface.


----------



## chinesekiwi

Anyway, jitter is a non-issue these days as no-one (I do mean no-one) can hear below -75dB jitter measurements and sound equipment these days is well below that.
  opamps are highly highly highly influential sound wise. Can transform what an entire thing sounds like.


----------



## leeperry

*@Draca:* I'm simply asking questions...nothing more, nothing less! Everything sounds way different to my ears, opamps/cables/bit-perfect players/digital transports...but sure I'm a crackhead like many other ppl who also hear differences, sh** happens.
   
  even this 11yo child would prolly need medication, sadly: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/2/21586.html
   
  maybe it's not too late for her


----------



## chinesekiwi

I hear differences between different software settings easily tbh. They are subtle by themselves though but if you compound a lot of subtle changes, it can result in a noticeable change.
  I prefer my tweaked ASIO4ALL settings to my 02 US's native ASIO drivers tbh.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> I'm simply asking questions...nothing more nothing less! Everything sounds way different my ears, opamps/cables/bit-perfect players/digital transports...but sure I'm a crackhead like many other ppl who also hear differences, sh** happens.


 

 No you're not, you're just falling for placebo, which is a perfectly normal thing. If some people pass a DBT of this player and Foobar, then I'll give it more of a chance. But I'm not going to agonize for half an hour listening to songs on both trying to decide between the bit-perfect player with an interface, built-in conversion, ReplayGain, libraries, album art, etc. and the bit-perfect player that does nothing but play music in a potentially slightly better way. I hear no difference, at least not in the song I chose. But I want to stick with Foobar, so it may be reverse placebo.


----------



## leeperry

ahhh, here we go! I'm falling for placebo. This thread was in bad need of threadcrapping anyway, thanks for passing by fellas...that's exactly what the OP wanted in the first place, see this thread as a troll bait


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> ahhh, here we go! I'm falling for placebo. This thread was in bad need of threadcrapping anyway, thanks for passing by fellas...that's exactly what the OP wanted in the first place, see this thread as a troll bait


 

 Because it's always healthier conversation when everyone just agrees and moves on.
   
  Besides, I see a question mark in his title, not an exclamation mark.


----------



## leeperry

well, look at the Lilith thread, the first 6 pages are plain theadcrap...and in the last pages several ppl say that they think it does sound way better than f**bar...crackheads too?
   
  you can measure anything in video...colorimetry, lumen output, etc etc....in audio you can hardly measure the important stuff like SS depth/width and PRaT. Saying that they all sound identical because they're bit-perfect is completely missing the picture, but maybe your gear is not transparent enough. Quite frankly, the d2k is hyped to death here on head-fi, and the miracle didn't happen when I tried it. any cable/opamp/digital transport/player will sound perfectly identical on those crappy phones.
   
  I don't think it's the other players that sound better than f**bar, it's just f**bar that sounds terrible...it's been making the XXHighEnd's coder a rich man, he doesn't want f**bar to improve whatsoever


----------



## MrRoderick

I think it's time I set up a good DBT. I'll let you guys know! And take it easy with the passions!


----------



## ROBSCIX

Quote:


mrroderick said:


> I think it's time I set up a good DBT. I'll let you guys know! And take it easy with the passions!


 


 Good idea.


----------



## leeperry

I think it's time for the non-believers to compare foobar Vs Reclock, both in WASAPI exclusive or KS. They don't sound identical, and I'm far from being the only one noticing it.
   
  Reclock runs a small audio buffer in realtime priority, and has the most accurate clocking you can get on a PC.


----------



## chinesekiwi

However some have argued that Reclock is louder thus Loudness-contour factors come into it (Fletcher-Munson is outdated ).
  They're not arguing that is sounds identical, they're arguing why it doesn't.


----------



## leeperry

Reclock is as bit-perfect as can get..You can ask James about it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  ah well, those threads are sterile by essence, just like w/ cables....believers and non-believers used to slaughter each other in the past century, luckily we've passed that.
   
  if you like to listen to mp3 on your ipod, to FLAC in foobar, ulilith, or Reclock...it's a free world!
   
  I read you saying in another thread that you thought ASIO4ALL sounded "better" than the built-in ASIO drivers...changed your mind at all? A4A is the pimp daddy of untouched audio to my ears, and there's a forum where audio drivers engineers chitchat...they're all pretty blown away by how well A4A works.


----------



## ROBSCIX

Quote: 





chinesekiwi said:


> However some have argued that Reclock is louder thus Loudness-contour factors come into it (Fletcher-Munson is outdated ).
> They're not arguing that is sounds identical, they're arguing why it doesn't.


 


 Do you use that on your audio Kiwi?


----------



## Happy Camper

I've been running lillith for a week and think it sounds better than fb w/a4a. Much less demand on resources.


----------



## ROBSCIX

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> I've been running lillith for a week and think it sounds better than fb w/a4a. Much less demand on resources.


 


 If you were using ASIO4All on both players....the exact same output plugin why would there be a difference unless you are adding some effect in one or the other?


----------



## Torr

This may all be due to placebo effect, but even if it is, so what? Whether it sounds better because the output is actually different or it sounds better because you think it does, the end result is still that it sounds better to you. So, if it sounds better to you, go ahead and use it, you may get more enjoyment out of your music that way!
   
  Placebo effect starts becoming a moral issue when unscrupulous vendors take advantage of it in order to sell you incredibly expensive merchandise at huge markups. In that case, exposing the truth behind the snakeoil makes sense. But when comparing various free alternatives to each other, I say let each person use what they enjoy most; whether the enjoyment is the result of physiological differences or merely perceptual ones is largely irrelevant.


----------



## Hybrys

Placebo effects are negative if either you're selling things based on those placebo effects, OR if the placebo effect makes you think that a negative thing is a positive thing.
   
  ASIO4ALL is NOT a good method of audio transportation.  It's a stopgap method, and anyone can tell you that virtual device bridges are not a good way to get things done.  The only 'wonder of coding' here is that they got the virtual device to operate at such a low latency, probably sacrificing quality, and CPU cycles.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


leeperry said:


> OIC, so all the players sound the same to you...and jitter doesn't exist per se, nor is it audible of course? you're such a lucky guy.
> 
> I presume that all the opamps/cables and S/PDIF interfaces sound the same too, right?


 
 Jitter exists, but in most modern interfaces isn't nearly enough to be audible.  I believe there's a link to some DBTs in the science sub-forum if you're so inclined.  Still, with good reclocking at the hardware it isn't a big concern.
   
  Cables - lack of evidence and nulls out on DBT.
   
  opamps - amps in general, if built well, sound the same.  DBT tests have confirmed this in the past, at least for traditional SS implementations.  So unless you're taking a chip that's not suited for the application at all and dropping it in, or the amp itself is not sufficient to drive the cans, then it shouldn't be an issue.
   
  S/PDIF interfaces - depends on implementation, but if it's halfway decent shouldn't effect the sound.
   
  Oh no, an audiophile that requires evidence for claims!  How dare he, heretic! [/sarcasm]


----------



## MrRoderick

torr said:


> This may all be due to placebo effect, but even if it is, so what? Whether it sounds better because the output is actually different or it sounds better because you think it does, the end result is still that it sounds better to you. So, if it sounds better to you, go ahead and use it, you may get more enjoyment out of your music that way!
> 
> 
> 
> ...







 I agree on that. While I find the research efforts of the xxhighend player people quite interesting, I still don't think one should need to pay such an amount for it. As with alot of high end equipment in any media, audio or otherwise. Sometimes it seems like folks pay for the idea of a pinnacle. I'll be doing a methodical dbt later, and I'll post results here. Also, the comments on volume are intriguing, and may explain some of the qualitative aspects I've noticed. But still, my favorite aspect is how it seems faster... More... Moving. And seperated. 

 Anoher thing, from looking around, I'm thinking perhaps alot of it may be how well the app and it's output synergizes with the dac, and it's possible fluctations on the clock level. Maybe. Hahaha. Again I'm just interested in theorizing, especially when it could lead to, most importantly, the furthering of digital music as an audiophile format.


----------



## digger945

I've been listening to the Stealthplayer for a week now. I like it. I normally use Foobar.
  I'm taking it on my laptop to Canjam next week to share.
  When I've listened to Stealthplayer for a month or more I will switch back to Foobar and see if there are any noticable differences apparent. It takes time for me.
   
  "bits is bits" and "ones and zeros" means nothing without good timing. Sure, you will hear something and recognise it as your fav tune, but oh my, how it sounds when the data is timed right.


----------



## leeperry

shike said:


> Cables - lack of evidence and nulls out on DBT.
> 
> opamps - amps in general, if built well, sound the same.  DBT tests have confirmed this in the past, at least for traditional SS implementations.  So unless you're taking a chip that's not suited for the application at all and dropping it in, or the amp itself is not sufficient to drive the cans, then it shouldn't be an issue.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Well, "audiophile" has become more of an insult to me...all those moronic sites like computeraudiophile.com have ruined the term IMO. Let's replace it by "audioholic" if you don't mind, this I am...most definitely!
   
  so, let's see:
  -all the ppl rolling opamps are on meth, right? the differences are placebo huh?
   
  -did you compare different cables on headphones? did you recable headphones, ever? did you try say a K701/HD650 w/ different cables? do you honestly believe that all the ppl who hear differences in cables are clueless? or let's say more credule and weak than you?
   
  I'm not saying cables would make a drastic difference on speakers in a non-controlled room w/o room EQ...but on headphones, except if you're deaf you will hear differences(and the SQ improvement doesn't have anything to do w/ the price...I clearly agree that the markups are unjustified in the cable world).
   
  -so all the ppl hearing differences between S/PDIF interfaces are also prone to placebo? I presume you'd be happy w/ your realtek coax output? it'd be as good as a m2tech hiface, right? all the talk at the end of this white paper about clock accuracy is bs too, right? http://www.m2tech.biz/public/pdf/White%20Paper%20on%20hiFace.pdf
   
  some soundcards don't output spot-on frequencies, they just don't...c'est la vie: http://hifiduino.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-are-clocks-generated-in-musiland.html


> 5,647,218/128= 44,118.9 Hz which confirms the deviation from 44,000 Hz
> 6,144,177/128= 48,001 Hz which confirms that the sample rate is exact.


 
   
  and http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=40430#p40430


> you may end up with a 500ppm error. It is still within USB spec. So we have nothing to complain about. You get what you paid for


 
   
  -did you compare Reclock and foobar in bit-perfect WASAPI/KS? on your K601?

 -did you actually compare opamps? are all those "facts" of yours based on real world field experience? or are you just full of certitudes based on what you read on the web?
   
  many ppl feel so smart and proud of themselves by "debunking" myths...but my honest advice would be to not fall into excess, doing your homework, and not taking anything for granted...and let us know how it went 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  and you said the P word, how about the opposite..nocebo? some ppl might just as well be able to convince themselves that there's no difference...even if there is 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I still rest my case that many things in audio cannot be measured...let's say the holy "PRaT", this guy tried to explain why the PRaT sucks on that phone: http://www.stereomojo.com/GoldringDr150headphonesreview.htm


> Attack is fine on the DR150, nothing really worthy to mention about it, but decay, on the other hand, is way too fast on it. Notes tend to sound like they're continually being abruptly cut off and not allowed to end. It's actually pretty noticeable and one of the first things I noticed


 
   
  OK Mr scientist, now explain me how to measure PRaT? why is a cd3k a PRaT killing machine that makes you nod your head silly(and not just to me, mind you) and why are some *** phones boring to death? I'm awaiting your PRaT graphs btw


----------



## Shike

Quote:


leeperry said:


> Well, "audiophile" has become more of an insult to me...all those moronic sites like computeraudiophile.com have ruined the term IMO. Let's replace it by "audioholic" if you don't mind, this I am...most definitely!
> 
> so, let's see:
> -all the ppl rolling opamps are on meth, right? the differences are placebo huh?


 

 You're trying to make it sound like insulting people.  I'm not, but I would say a good many instances are indeed placebo.  First roll some opamps, level match them, and then DBT.  I've done DBT on quite a few solid state amps, and as long as they were of the same quality (nothing horrendously wrong or out of the normal) I couldn't tell a difference.
   
  This is same with lots of amps.  If solid state amps with entirely different topologies, transistors, layouts can sound the same . . . I fail to see (or hear in this case too) why an opamp should be any different if it's being properly utilized.  If you're using it wrong then there could be issues.  For example, an opamp that doesn't put out enough current needs buffers while another one may not.
   
   
  Quote: 





> -did you compare different cables on headphones? did you recable headphones, ever? did you try say a K701/HD650 w/ different cables? do you honestly believe that all the ppl who hear differences in cables are clueless? or let's say more credule than you?


 
   
  There's no example of a true DBT that shows cables making a difference except on a phono cartridge at extremely long lengths.  I've tried various interconnects myself, but never noticed a difference compared to a set of monoprice RCA cables.  Of course you can just accuse me of being tin eared, but they (cable believers) have yet to prove they're golden eared.
   
  Quote: 





> I'm not saying cables would make a drastic difference on speakers in a non-controlled room w/o room EQ...but on headphones, except if you're deaf you will hear differences(and the SQ improvement doesn't have anything to do w/ the price...I clearly agree that the markups are unjustified in the cable world).


 
   
  As I expected, you've jumped to slander my hearing.  Congrats, you've proven my point.
   
  No matter what others say you can denounce them based on their hearing - while never actually proving yours.  It's such a disgusting practice.
   
   
  Quote: 





> -so all the ppl hearing differences between S/PDIF interfaces are also prone to placebo? I presume you'd be happy w/ your realtek coax output? it'd be as good as a m2tech hiface, right? all the talk at the end of this white paper about clock accuracy is bs, right?


 
   
  Thanks for putting words in my mouth - again.  I wouldn't classify realtek as a particularly good solution as they're known to have measurement issues.  However, many other consumer grade modern interfaces do relatively well with jitter getting to levels where audibility is heavily debated.
   
  Also - everyone IS prone to placebo - even skeptics.
   
  I believe clock accuracy is important, the question is to what degree.  Since I don't want to have to worry about it I have a good DAC that handles it well.  Same with Benchmark owners.  Do we necessarily hear the improvement?  Not necessarily - but if you question it you can take the fly out with a sledgehammer anyway.
   
   
  Quote: 





> some soundcards don't output spot-on frequencies, they just don't: http://hifiduino.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-are-clocks-generated-in-musiland.html


 
   
  I don't believe I commented on soundcards at all.  Once again, cart before the horse much?  Also, you're link references sampling rate issues caused by drivers if I'm reading this right.  What was the point exactly?
   
  Quote: 





> -did you compare Reclock and foobar? on your K601?


 
   
  No, but it's already rather pointless.  Even if I did a DBT and it showed a null you could accuse me of tin ears or being deaf again.  It's up to the believers to provide evidence, not the other way around.
   
  Quote: 





> -did you actually compare opamps? are all those "facts" of yours based on real world field experience? or are you just full of certitudes based on what you read on the web?


 
   
  I've used various opamp based amps - once again rolling has rarely made a difference beyond loudness or whether something did or didn't clip.
   
   
  Quote: 





> many ppl feel so smart and proud of themselves by "debunking" myths...but my honest advice would be to not fall into excess, doing your homework, and not taking anything for granted...and let us know how it went


 
   
  The problem is you have to take some things at face values or you'll be trapped in redundancy going absolutely no-where.
   
  Quote: 





> I still rest my case that many things in audio cannot be measured...let's say the holy "PRaT", this guy tried to explain why the PRaT sucks on that phone:


 
   
  PRaT at its core (if it weren't an made-up audiophile term) would be based on transients.  Of course we can measure this, but heaven forbid the believers trust the results.


----------



## leeperry

so majkel is out of his mind, innit? http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/397691/audio-gd-discrete-op-amps-reviewed-opa-earth-opa-moon-opa-sun-v-2
   


> I believe clock accuracy is important, the question is to what degree.  Since I don't want to have to worry about it I have a good DAC that handles it well.


 
   
  garbage in, garbage out....you can reclock it as much as you like.
   


> you're link references sampling rate issues caused by drivers if I'm reading this right.  What was the point exactly?


 
   
  that Musiland cared enough to release firmware and drivers updates to fix their sloppy clock synthesis....but you can rest assured that most cheapo interfaces don't output 44100.000000 and 48000.000000 kHz 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   


> No, but it's already rather pointless.  Even if I did a DBT and it showed a null you could accuse me of tin ears


 
   
  so you're in a thread that says that a minimalist audio player sounds better than foobar, you're saying that they all sound the same...yet, you didn't try it because you're convinced that they'd all sound the same anyway? did I get this right?
   


> PRaT at its core (if it weren't an made-up audiophile term) would be based on transients.  Of course we can measure this


 
   
  great news! I think the guy who makes the measurements for headroom is on this forum and is currently building a new lab, maybe you could hint him on a procedure to measure PRaT?
   


> Of course you can just accuse me of being tin eared


 
   
  well, I disagree w/ each and every of your beliefs...and I've proved each of them wrong IRL. All the toslink interfaces I tried sounded different, all the opamps sound drastically different(like majkel and Andrea tried to explain), headphones recabling is a luck of the draw...something worse, sometimes better, and all the media players sound different to my ears...in "bit-perfect" KS/ASIO on XP SP3:
  -foobar sounds blurry and mushy
  -Reclock sounds very "in your face" and the sound is much clearer...I'll DBT them anytime you like. It's great for movies dialogs clarity, that's for sure!
  -uLilith is more laid back, the most "analog" sounding player to my ears...it just sounds awfully good.


----------



## Hybrys

I still think your Foobar is somehow setup wrong, Leeperry.  I still suggest that you get your hands on an RC copy of Win7, find a way around the date issue, and install it on a different HDD.  Even just to experiment with the sound.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


leeperry said:


> so majkel is out of his mind, innit? http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/397691/audio-gd-discrete-op-amps-reviewed-opa-earth-opa-moon-opa-sun-v-2


 

 Once again, no one is "out of there mind", but you keep shoving words into my mouth.  Maybe you would do better to keep them in yours, shut perhaps?
   
  Placebo can affect anyone.  It's well known.  Subjective impressions mean nothing compared to properly performed and reviewed DBT.
   
  Of course, discreet opamps compared to ICs have the potential for variance in their measurements - in other words a tailored sound . . . if anything were to show up in a DBT it would probably be them.  I'd have to see some RMAA results thought to make a better guess.
   
  Quote: 





> garbage in, garbage out....you can reclock it as much as you like.


 
   
  I believe Dan Lavry would disagree, at least if we're talking where the jitter is at:
   
  "_...Yet it matters very much WHERE that jitter is. It is only important to have the low jitter AT THE CONVERTER, right where the digital is converted to analog. That is the "conversion jitter" and that is the jitter that matters. Moving data around can tolerate 100 times the jitter level with no sonic impact. We call that "data transfer jitter". If we have say huge jitter on say the spdif cable, but we get to "clean it" before it gets to the critical circuitry, then we are doing fine..."_
   
_- Dan Lavry_
   
  Found in a write-up by Jude here: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/493152/low-jitter-usb-dan-lavry-michael-goodman-adaptive-asynchronous
   
  Quote: 





> that Musiland cared enough to release firmware and drivers updates to fix their sloppy clock synthesis....but you can rest assured that most cheapo interfaces don't output 44100.000000 and 48000.000000 kHz


 
   
  And your point being?  I believe I've referenced a total of ZERO soundcards.  This is something you're bringing up yourself for no reason other than building a strawman that isn't quite complete.
   
   
  Quote: 





> > so you're in a thread that says that a minimalist audio player sounds better than foobar, you're saying that they all sound the same...yet, you didn't try it because you're convinced that they'd all sound the same anyway? did I get this right?


 
   
  I'm saying I've tried various bit-perfect players and they have always sounded the same properly configured.  Yet once again the point seems to miss you entirely - it is the believers that must prove the claim.
   
   
  Quote: 





> great news! I think the guy who makes the measurements for headroom is on this forum and is currently building a new lab, maybe you could hint him on a procedure to measure PRaT?


 
   
  Pacing Rhythm and Timing is in the time domain of the music, or inherently the music itself when you get down to it.  Low transients on equipment means the PRaT should be fine.  Anything with an inaudible level of transients will be fine in terms of PRaT - pretty much all DACs and Amps that aren't severely deficient should qualify.  In terms of headphones, pretty much all are very fast with low decay - though if one really really wanted to argue they could go on about orthos and stats.
   
   
  Quote: 





> well, I disagree w/ each and every of your beliefs...and I've proved each of them wrong IRL.


 
   
  Except you haven't proven anything, just threw around anecdotes and screamed "there's yer proof heretic!"  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Quote: 





> All the toslink interfaces I tried sounded different, all the opamps sound drastically different(like majkel and Andrea tried to explain), headphones recabling is a luck of the draw...something worse, sometimes better, and all the media players sound different to my ears...in "bit-perfect" KS/ASIO on XP SP3:


 
   
  Cool, now back this up with statistically significant peer reviewed level matched DBTs.  If this is true you'll actually breed another area of study in audio.
   
   
  Quote: 





> -foobar sounds blurry and mushy
> -Reclock sounds very "in your face" and the sound is much clearer...I'll DBT them anytime you like. It's great for movies dialogs clarity, that's for sure!
> -uLilith is more laid back, the most "analog" sounding player to my ears...it just sounds awfully good.


 
   
  And here's another list of random subjective findings that you can't prove.


----------



## leeperry

opamps RMAA? here we go: http://www.jensign.com/RMAA/RMAAOpAmpTests.html
   
  your "human" technology gives almost identical measurements for LM4562 and NE5532...anyone who's rolled those 2 chips know how different they sound.
   
  so you do believe that all the differences explained by majkel in the aforementioned link are merely the fruit of his wild imagination? so when ppl hear the same things he did(even before reading his review), do you think we could call it a collective hallucination?
   
  Well, I wasn't really talking about jitter...I was mostly talking about inacurrate sample rates, due to inaccurate PLL's in the first place....many transports will output high jitter AND a slightly inaccurate sample rate.
   
  there's no claim to prove, I have nothing to sell here. You "know" that Reclock and foobar sound identical w/o even trying it...who's close-minded again? I'd even dare saying that you're not using your gear optimally and that foobar is acting as a bottleneck between you and your music.
   
  many things can act on PraT, in a qualitative order: 1)phone 2)opamps 3)cables
   
  my fav PRaT opamp is currently LT1363, because it's VERY fast and it's VERY audible: *http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/89813/lt1363-opamp#post_1042510*


> * you can definately tell these are faster chips, instrument separation is better, and smaller details are improved. At the same time bass gets a little bigger, more punchy, and the mids and highs come forward a bit*


 
  that'd be sweet if you could roll it and tell me that it sounds perfectly identical to LM4562/NE5532. I start wondering how to measure audible speed, though. This chip is the very definition of PRaT to my ears, very tight/percussive clear and defined sound. LT1364 is an all-time favorite of many rollers, it's also been successfully used in quite a bit of commercial DAC's: http://www.playstereo.com/product_info.php?products_id=686
   
  Again, it's a free world...use foobar on a cheapo transport if you like.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


leeperry said:


> opamps RMAA? here we go: http://www.jensign.com/RMAA/RMAAOpAmpTests.html
> 
> your "human" technology gives almost identical measurements for LM4562 and NE5532...anyone who's rolled those 2 chips know how different they sound.


 

 You sir do not read.  I said RMAA on the discreet chips, not the ICs.
   
  For lols though, the NE5532 is used in Benchmark DACs due to its excellent performance.  It's a matter of proper utilization - nothing more nothing less.  So your random op-amp bias is pretty misguided honestly.
   
   
  Quote: 





> so you do believe that all the differences explained by majkel in the aforementioned link are merely the fruit of his wild imagination? so when ppl hear the same things he did(even before reading his review), do you think we could call it a collective hallucination?


 
   
  Once again, stop putting words in my mouth.  It's rather libelous and not amusing in the least.  I will say that I believe a good amount of his review is indeed placebo though.  If you're wanting to claim different, you're completely free to do as suggested and prove it via a scientific method.
   
  Quote: 





> Well, I wasn't really talking about jitter...I was mostly talking about inacurrate sample rates, due to inaccurate PLL's in the first place....many transports will output high jitter AND a slightly inaccurate sample rate.


 
   
  Hm?  If it was fixed by a driver (software) how is it exactly "fixing" the PLL?  Furthermore, you've only cited one example of the inaccurate sample rate, do you have more examples of this?
   
   
  Quote: 





> there's no claim to prove, I have nothing to sell here. You "know" that Reclock and foobar sound identical w/o even trying it...who's close-minded again? I'd even dare saying that you're not using your gear optimally and that foobar is acting has a bottleneck between you and your music.


 
   
  No, I think you do need to prove this going by the temper trantrum and random accusations you've thrown around.  It's rude and condescending.
   
  I never answered whether I used reclock, I just said it's beyond what I was talking about.  You keep banging a drum towards a strawman.
   
  If you're SO interested as to whether I've used it or not, I have on a few occasions due to suggestions that it would allow me to integrate MPC for both video and audio usage - I tend to pick apps that are very customizable in settings but it means I lack a single "go to" app.
   
  I just booted up MPC with reclock, then kicked over to FB2K - both used WASAPI in exclusive mode.
   
  The differences found: none.
   
  Of course, you could also argue that I was victim to placebo expecting no difference - then again it's not really up to me to prove the non-existence of something anyway.
   
   
  Quote: 





> many things can act on PraT, in a qualitative order: 1)phone 2)opamps 3)cables
> 
> my fav PRaT opamp is currently LT1363, because it's VERY fast and it's VERY audible: *http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/89813/lt1363-opamp#post_1042510*
> that'd be sweet if you could roll it and tell me that it sounds perfectly identical to LM4562/NE5532. I start wondering how to measure audible speed, though. This chip is the very definition of PRaT to my ears, very tight/percussive clear and defined sound. LT1364 is an all-time favorite of many rollers, it's also been successfully used in quite a bit of commercial' DAC's: http://www.playstereo.com/product_info.php?products_id=686
> ...


 
   
  See comment about NE5532 in Benchmark products.
   
  If you implement an opamp in a circuit not designed for it then odds are it's going to have some problems.  This should be relatively easy to understand.
   
   
  Oh well, I'm going to leave this at that.  Feel free to try and respond, but I'm not going to answer that.  Believers are believers and science is science - they belong is separate corners.


----------



## leeperry

it's relatively easy to understand that we'll never agree on anything, enjoy foobar on 5532's then 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  RMAA on the discrete chips, your wish is my command: http://audio.an-pan-man.com/files/rmaa/earth_vs_moon_vs_sunv2_vs_lt1469.htm
   
  those 4 opamps sound perfectly different, and even a child could DBT them(yes I've heard those 4 chips personally).
   
  I dared talking about collective hallucination because I've tried most of the chips majkel commented on in that thread, and I agreed with most of his views even before reading it...and Andrea partly agrees on them too. So if it's indeed placebo, it's got to be collective and hallucinating somehow.
   
  Musiland were able to fix their sample rate inaccuracy because they used a programmable xilink FPGA chip, and to finally offer dead-on sample rates they force you to wait 3 secs for the chip to reprogrammed...but most cheap interfaces will use one single PLL and call it a day, like that 24.576Mhz(48000*512) clock on those CMI8788 chips, but its 44.1 jitter will be horrid(reason for the lame attempt on the asus st to add a clock conditioner) and some DSP's don't even use a perfect 48/44.1 matching clock, so -as m2tech explain in their white paper- you're not quite getting 44100.0000~ or 48000.0000~
   
  I've never heard a K601, I can't comment on what they would/could allow you to hear. I also dunno what was in your audio path, amp, source, opamps, PSU, interface.
   
  But it's indeed sterile, you'll keep begging for graphs and measurements for stuff that cannot be measured, and I'll keep asking you to try and compare w/ your own ears before making false assumptions.


> An _assumption_ is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.


 
  spot-on.


----------



## Shike

Once again, I suggest you take your snide and libelous comments and keep them to yourself.  I have had experience with various items you've mentioned, but it's much easier for you to accuse the ears and equipment of others isn't it?


----------



## Hybrys

You're both being silly trolls, both of you making solid AND foolish points, and anxiously waiting on the others reaction.
   
  Just sayin'.


----------



## Draca

On the contrary, I think Shike's been fairly calm and scientific in his approach and generally refrained from insulting lee. Let's try and be friendly 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
   
  @Shike: I found no difference with ReClock either and completely agree with you on SS amps.
   
  @Lee: I personally have used quite a few (four) different cables for my hd600s and found absolutely no difference in any of them. I even used one side of the steel HD25 cable and couldn't detect a difference in sonic signature on a range of different bitrates - but I might just be tin-eared... then again, I find it quite easy to detect the difference in sound when changing the position of my KRKs, so I'm not convinced this is the case. My audiologist assures me my hearing is perfectly fine.
   
  When it comes to bit-perfect/jitter I'm not convinced that there's going to be an audible difference between software players. Some have used encoded video as an analogy but as far as I'm aware there's no bit-perfect streaming of an MKV or xVid rip... so I'm not sure whether the analogy works but I might just be misunderstanding (v. possible).


----------



## Hybrys

If cables don't matter, why would multiple interconnects/extensions in a line degrade quality?  (As is easily tested.)
   
  I also REALLY don't think every opamp is the same.  That's kind of ridiculous.


----------



## ROBSCIX

I don't think all opamps are the same either, espeically considering they all have very different specifications.


----------



## chinesekiwi

Quote: 





hybrys said:


> If cables don't matter, why would multiple interconnects/extensions in a line degrade quality?  (As is easily tested.)
> 
> I also REALLY don't think every opamp is the same.  That's kind of ridiculous.


 

 Need proof of it and the methodology used i.e. length.


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





chinesekiwi said:


> Need proof of it and the methodology used i.e. length.


 

 I didn't do a very extensive test.  5 1' 'low quality' interconnects, multiple sources (volume matched), same cans, blind, only one subject.  Do one yourself if you're in doubt.


----------



## Draca

Can you explain how you connected the ICs?


----------



## Draca

Also each interconnect would need to be tested against the other to ensure there were no faults with any one in particular (e.g. soldering or weave that was more susceptible to RFI)


----------



## leeperry

shike said:


> I have had experience with various items you've mentioned, but it's much easier for you to accuse the ears and equipment of others isn't it?


 
   
  No, I haven't...OTOH the K601 is not exactly high-end, is it? if the trebles are not HD-sounding(ouuuh 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), they'll work as a bottleneck and color whatever you could feed it.
   


draca said:


> @Lee: I personally have used quite a few (four) different cables for my hd600s and found absolutely no difference in any of them. I even used one side of the steel HD25 cable and couldn't detect a difference in sonic signature
> [..]
> as I'm aware there's no bit-perfect streaming of an MKV or xVid rip


 
   
  1) I can only say that I used the cryoparts TWcu wire in quad braid, and it made my DT770/600Ω really ugly sounding...distorted bass, dead trebles. It was on the stx soundcard btw...maybe a bad combination, can't really tell. But cables do matter.
   
  Sometimes I like to plug my phone directly my DAC RCA output to get a good idea of the opamps coloring(when I roll them), and I've found different adapters(0.5ft length) to sound way different too...and odly enough, the worst sounding was a Monster haha.
   
  2) You can mux FLAC in MKV and use Reclock to play it in bit-perfect WASAPI/KS, as DirectShow cannot be made bit-perfect on Vista/W7(unlike XP when all its sliders are maxed out): http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=49350&view=findpost&p=522247


----------



## reiserFS

Quote: 





mrroderick said:


> It is a small (very small) wasapi (or, now ASIO) audio player designed to avoid contact with the Windows API.


 
  Why not just use foobar2k then, it bypasses the Windows Mixer as well when using WASAPI. Sorry, but I call nonsense on "audio players sound different!".


----------



## MrRoderick

Quote: 





reiserfs said:


> Why not just use foobar2k then, it bypasses the Windows Mixer as well when using WASAPI. Sorry, but I call nonsense on "audio players sound different!".


 

 I do use foobar2k! I've been using it for ages, (to the annoyance of all my college friends who are like What is this music thing?? when they try to play music off my laptop. hahaha) I love Foobar, its a rock solid program, especially considering the breadth of things it can do. However, to me, Stealthaudio Play simply has a better sound. A more musical sound. Again, i can't describe it, and i'm trying to get the program easy enough to use (autohotkey time!) that i can have a friend run a DBT for me, to add more 'proof'. But i don't care which is better. Its not a contest, its about the _possibility _of betterness (especiallt, as i said earlier, when it comes to digital music's capabilities). Isn't that one of the main goals of our music loving hobby? Its not about superiority and some kind of advanced correctness above others. I'm simply curious.
   
  If you guys could stick to providing possibilities, rather than pointlessly arguing, I think everyone could learn alot more. Otherwise there's not much point for the thread.


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> No, I haven't...OTOH the K601 is not exactly high-end, is it? if the trebles are not HD-sounding(ouuuh
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  With regard to the 600 ohm 770 on the STX soundcard, of course that's going to affect the frequency response of the headphone, that soundcard has nowhere near enough power to drive 600 ohms effectively - no headroom at all. You should try testing out the cable with a Burson HA-160 that can drive pretty much anything easily. I wouldn't suggest a tube amp because the harmonic distortion will colour the sound in any case (by design as Shike said).
   
  I have a series of interconnects I've tried as well but I just can't notice a difference that isn't attributable to anything else. The only time I've noticed a difference in quality of sound is shielding - my mobile phone interference seems to rip though cheap RCA cables in comparison to the shielded Van De Huls which makes sense.
   
  I think the problem is you're assuming that your hearing is infallible and not prone to placebo/confirmation bias effects - which mine is as well; I've found my HD25s to sound 'different' only on some days with my HD600 cable. The next day I do an A/B comparison however it sounds the same. It can really depend on your frame of mind and even the positioning of the actual headphone! The problem is that we aren't able to replicate something like Tyll's headphone measurement laboratory in a home setting. This is the only way we can actually say with reliability whether the cable makes a difference. As far as I'm aware Tyll hasn't yet conducted or found anything that confirms cables make a difference.

 To me cables are more an aesthetic upgrade than anything else - and some offer the shielding if you really need it, geometry provided or otherwise.
   
  I've been speaking with some Physics students here at Oxford, and they have assured me that there is not going to be an audible difference between OCC copper or silver, because they have already reached a level of conductance that is 'transparent'. They reiterated what I mentioned above - that shielding is going to make the main difference in terms of making the sonic background 'blacker' in that there will be less noise from interference of different kinds (depending on the method of shielding).
   
  To be honest, our ears are by their nature not consistently reliable in the first place so we need to default to something like Tyll's setup to try and confirm what we're hearing.


----------



## leeperry

well, when I put back the stock cable on the 770, the FR was perfect again...My very own -unverified- belief is that the manufacturers tune the driver FR depending on the cable. Play god trying whatever cable and fear the consequences. It was pretty clear to me that this snake-oil TWcu wire wasn't meant to be used on my combo at all, where the stock wire was perfectly fine. Copper is copper, and shouldn't cost the same as platinum anyway.
   
  But when plugging my phone directly to the DAC output using a short cable, I did hear -not subtle- differences between a shiny copper chinese RCA cable and a tarnished copper Monster...and Monster doesn't talk about the purity of the copper used in this cable anywhere 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I am well aware that the human ear is a poor measuring tool, but I've worked as a musician and a sound engineer long enough to know when my ears are up to the task IMHO.
   
  and I don't really agree that the more shielded a cable the better, and neither would Larry: http://www.headphile.com/page4.html


> Full shielding isn't necessarily the best sounding cable though, but neither are soundcards! It's a trade-off for you to decide… Noise shielding or better signal.


   
  and Tyll's measurements are utterly pointless to me, because of the middle ear/pinna resonances/impedance and HRTF...that are different from one individual to the other.


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> well, when I put back the stock cable on the 770, the FR was perfect again...My very own -unverified- belief is that the manufacturers tune the driver FR depending on the cable. Play god trying whatever cable and fear the consequences. It was pretty clear to me that this snake-oil TWcu wire wasn't meant to be used on my combo at all, where the stock wire was perfectly fine. Copper is copper, and shouldn't cost the same as platinum anyway.
> 
> But when plugging my phone directly to the DAC output using a short cable, I did hear -not subtle- differences between a shiny copper chinese RCA cable and a tarnished copper Monster...and Monster doesn't talk about the purity of the copper used in this cable anywhere
> 
> ...


 

 Quoting Larry on shielding is nothing more than subjective/anecdotal - he just says it's not necessarily 'the best sounding' but doesn't explicate. JPS Labs would disagree with Larry (see their Aluminata cable - ridiculously expensive for what is merely one of the better shielded cables - but very effectively shielded to all frequencies). Additionally, scientifically the less interference the truer the signal, so I don't understand your argument here...
   
  Additionally it seems that the 'tarnished copper' monster cable would possibly be damaged with regard to its ability to properly carry sound depending on how it was soldered because of the problems caused by the oxide layer which is not conductive. The comparison to the new cable is a bit disingenuous because obviously the new cable isn't damaged...
   
  Also, "My very own -unverified- belief is that the manufacturers tune the driver FR depending on the cable" - this would require a scientific understanding of how the cable affects the sound of the drivers, of which there is no empirical proof, so I'm going to have to call nonsense on that. Feel free to direct me to a research paper on driver design being influence by OCC silver as opposed to OCC copper (for example). The engineers who design the drivers and choose the cable aren't trained in subjective listening so much as acoustic physics - they'd be using models similar too but way more expensive/accurate than Tyll's.
   
  Furthermore, "and Tyll's measurements are utterly pointless to me, because of the middle ear/pinna resonances/impedance and HRTF...that are different from one individual to the other." Actually if there was a difference in cables his model would still pick it up and his dummy is moulded like the human ear. Are you suggesting that your outer ear has to be a specific shape to hear the difference in cables? This is ridiculous. Ironically this actually suggests headphone placement is what you're hearing, rather than cable replacement.
   
  I don't mean to attack your belief that cables make a difference (although I am of the opinion that a properly constructed one will sound exactly the same as the next) - I'm just suggesting there are tens if not hundreds of other factors that could be making the difference.


----------



## leeperry

well, that's the sad thing..neither that chinese OEM cable or the Monster were new...they were actually quite old, like a few years...yet the monster doesn't look as shiny as the chinese cable. Strangely the former sounds much clearer than the latter.
   
  Oh sure, cables don't make a difference and the ppl who pay for recabling are credule and clueless to the utmost? Maybe you won't find anything to say about frequency response on headphones once I quote Mr Griesinger? www.davidgriesinger.com/headphones.htm


> the coupling of high frequencies to the eardrum varies greatly among individuals.  It is influenced by the volume of the concha, the diameter and geometry of the ear canal, the eardrum impedance and other factors.  Lacking probe microphone measurements at the eardrum, the best way to equalize a headphone is by listening.


 
   I rest my case that headroom's FR graphs are meaningless and misleading to say the least...for the very reasons Mr Griesinger just explained. Check his homepage, He was Harman-Kardon/Lexicon's main DSP engineer and does lectures about audio processing.
   
  Well, I've heard opamps and cables change the soundstage and the tightness of the sound...yet, it doesn't show up in RMAA...do you trust RMMA more than your ears?
   
  in RMAA, LM4562 and NE5532 look identical...IRL they are night and day. Same goes for cables....tough to accept, I know.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


leeperry said:


> No, I haven't...OTOH the K601 is not exactly high-end, is it? if the trebles are not HD-sounding(ouuuh
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 You've insulted the hearing of those that DON'T hear what you hear various times in this thread with passive aggressive side comments (even a child could hear the difference, etc), furthermore you try to bring the "resolution" (such a false term) of equipment into this.
   
  So yes, yes you have.
   
  The K601 measures flat, has below 1% THD, and decays in line with other reference grade headphones.  They're a very damning headphone.  You can argue you don't like the sound, but that doesn't contradict the performance of it.
   
  As for HRTF, do they compensate for your hearing at concerts?  I'd think not - the job of a transducer is to reproduce, nothing more and nothing less.
   
  Also, once again, the Benchmark DACs use NE5532 chips and many love the sound.
   
   
  Also, yes, I trust RMAA more than my ears (actually, my perception).  Audio memory sucks and is easily swayed on everyone honestly - there's tons of studies into the psychology of it all.


----------



## Draca

@leeperry:
   
  Firstly let me talk about the Monster cable, if I understand correctly, what you're saying is that because you saw that one was 'shiny' and the other wasn't, you expected one to sound different, and when you tested it, they did sound different. To me, this seems like confirmation bias, but of course I can't be sure without running a DBT. Additionally, have you compared the construction of the cables to each other to check for faults and differences in shielding? The cables being old, could have developed some structural or physical faults such as the chemical reaction that results in oxidation of the copper or have dodgy solder. You should double check this especially with the monster cable by the sound of it.
   
  With regard to your headphone frequency response anecdote, unfortunately you're twisting my words. I completely accept that the shape of the ear affects the way frequencies are heard and I don't really understand how on earth you have logically connected this to cable's affecting the sound of other gear.
   
  What I am however saying that a *change* in the sonic signature that potentially could be introduced by a cable *should be able to be heard by the microphone dummy used in Tyll's set-up or Sennheiser's driver design set-up*. The shape of the ear is uniform in both cases, so it should pick up a difference (if there is one) when the cables are changed! Just because the ears aren't 'human' doesn't mean they can't detect changes in sonic signature/frequency response on the same if not a more accurate level. But there is no change found when replacing the cable!
   
  You seem to be saying that because the model has a non-human ear (which is designed to mimic the 'average' shape of the ear) it can't pick up differences in cabling. This just doesn't make sense. If the shape of the ear is kept the same, and a different cable is used, and the headphones are positioned exactly the same way, and there is no change in everything from FR to square wave then there is no difference...
   
  With regard to trusting RMAA more than my ears - yes, in fact, I do, depending on the parameters of the test. If the test remains *consistent* and is done in a thorough manner according to the scientific method then I have no reason to doubt it. My ears on the other hand are victim to change, because they are flesh and blood not metal and circuit, and worse still victim to psychological change as well.
   
  Surely you cannot be so blind to the power of the subconscious and the fallibility of the body?
   
  Additionally, one little thing that annoys me is your tone - things like "Oh sure...." and "tough to accept, I know' in the context you use them in are patronising and offensive. I don't appreciate that and I hope you can keep your emotions out of a rational discussion.


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> Oh sure, cables don't make a difference and the ppl who pay for recabling are credule and clueless to the utmost?


 

 I have paid for recabling numerous times as I've said. I never found it to make anything more than an aesthetic statement. I am currently using Lilknight's OCC Vampire copper on my HD600s over the stock cable simply because it seems to be in a configuration that offers better *shielding* and of course, looks great.
   
  Further, suggesting that I am saying people who pay for recabling (like I have myself!!!) are "clueless to the utmost" is such a great distortion of what I'm trying to say that it borders on fantasy. All I am saying is that those who hear a difference in cabling are going to be hearing either distinctly better shielding, different headphone placement (as you said, reflections on the ears do make a difference), or the other numerous psychological phenomena associated with acoustic memory (amongst many other possibilities).
   
  I think Shike and I are suggesting a similar phenomena is occurring here (to be more on topic) in the realm of bitperfect players. I am of course, open to empirical evidence proving otherwise.


----------



## leeperry

draca said:


> I am of course, open to empirical evidence proving otherwise.


 
   
  that's as good as it's gonna get: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.0;all
   
  and many ppl also love cPlay: http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CPlay.SoftwareInducedJitter
   
  even a 11yo girl can DBT XXHighend from foobar: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/2/21586.html
   
  but I forgot that jitter doesn't exist(nor it is audible, of course)...and that all the ppl who claim an audible improvement using the Hiface and/or XXHighend/cPlay are delusional


----------



## Zorlac

Foobar2000 WASAPI sounds...well...muddier to me in comparison to StealthAudioPlayer WASAPI. I have no idea if this is placebo or not, but this is what I hear. I gotta convince the wife to help me do a blind listening test now heh.


----------



## MrRoderick

Well! I did part one of a two part double blind test. Two parts, because i want to do it again with 3 plays, one on speakers to register details to note, and then the two players blind on headphones, cause there was a tough feeling to get away from upon being able to identify bits the second time around. Nonetheless, out of eight tracks, I chose the minimalist player 5 times and Foobar 3. More intriguing was the differences between the two, and what qualified better. For some songs, the differences were truly pronounced. Others, the sound was quite similar. In the end, really, it was more a preference test than a quality test, save for perhaps the factors of soundstage and some small sibilance. Foobar seemed to present a more direct crispness, but a lesser soundstage and overall presence, perhaps because the various elements of the track seemed to meld together. However, this was not exactly the case in all the songs, for instance in Taylor, by Jack Johnson, the opening riff was much more 'crisp' in the minimalist audio player, but the vocals were smoother in Foobar. Which was the opposite sort of feeling than for This Unfolds, in which the bass hits were snappy in Foobar, but warm and tight in the minimalist player. I am left a little stumped, and i guess with more to do. And further in the idea that rather than better, there is simply a difference, and it lies in preference. Then again, some of these differences may pertain to the accuracy of the original recording, and thus in the strictest of 'audiophile' definitions, is 'better'. More info tommorrow, with a detailed DBT.


----------



## Hybrys

Someone mentioned, in another thread, you should do 10-20 tests, not the 8 you did.  If you look at it, you only technically chose the minimalist once more than Foobar..


----------



## MrRoderick

indeed. tomorrow will be much more throrough.


----------



## Trogdor

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> that's as good as it's gonna get: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.0;all
> 
> and many ppl also love cPlay: http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CPlay.SoftwareInducedJitter
> 
> ...


 

  
  Please see here:
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/493152/low-jitter-usb-dan-lavry-michael-goodman-adaptive-asynchronous
   
  Where you are claiming the jitter is coming from is somewhat delusional!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Its not software that is really the issue unless as I mentioned (and Steve from Empirical Audio confirmed) in that interrupt latency or scheduler issues will cause drop outs, not small subtle variances due to jitter.  The jitter, at least with an async USB connection, is at the conversion side (the internal clock, buffer, and D/A chipset).
   
  So the idea that you are going to hear differences between two pieces of software (provided they are bit-perfect, you are not using any equalizer or mixer settings) I find hard to believe.


----------



## leeperry

trogdor said:


> Where you are claiming the jitter is coming from is somewhat delusional!


 
   
  Good! now compare Reclock and foobar in WASAPI exclusive, and tell me that they sound perfectly identical to you


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> Good! now compare Reclock and foobar in WASAPI exclusive, and tell me that they sound perfectly identical to you


 

 But I already did that.


----------



## muad

Ive got to agree with leeperry on different player sounding different. I think it's because some players try to make music sound better and fail at it miserably. I was trying out ulilith awhile back and noticed that it sounded incredibly clean compared to foobar. I was sold until I got to my test song "banana pancakes - jack johnson. The beginning of that song has some rain playing very quietly in the back ground and sounds different based on the equipment Im listening to it on. Foobar shows that detail as good as I've ever heard it. Whereas ulilith it sounded very subdued, pushed back smothered. I think the ulilith designers were intentionally drowning out the low level details to make the track sound overall clean and clear, like noise reduction. Maybe they're even doing some eq'ing. Foobar2000 doesn't polish anything, infact it sounds very honest and loyal to the original track. I think thats why some people say that foobar sounds muddier compared to other players. Some of my badly recorded stuff sounds great out of ulilith but the good recordings are losing something....   Pick your poison?


----------



## leeperry

uLilith is bit-perfect, just like Reclock...and their coders don't do any "trick" to change the sound. They're not even really willing to believe that all the bit-perfect players sound different.
   
  What you're hearing prolly has to do w/ the way the player interacts w/ your OS and audio drivers. The XXHighEnd's coder is very mysterious as he doesn't want to kill the golden goose, but he seems to have discovered a lot more than he's willing to share...and he said that the buffer size sent to the windows kernel audio drivers did affect the SQ.


----------



## JulioCat2

After hearing about reclok, yesterday i download the version 1.867 and the KMPlayer version 1.435, configure reclock for wasapi exclusive bitexact, it's a a little tricky to make it wok, but what i'm hearing now is the best sounding music ever getting out of my computer, better than foobar and stealthplayer , not night and day but better, better dinamics and resolution, i'm going to stay with reclock for a while and eliminate every placebo results, but for now and i'm trying to be as objective as i can i like what i hear from reclock, sounds better than foobar for me.


----------



## jenneth

That's an interesting observation, it sort of piqued my interest...


----------



## muad

If im using wasapi out to optical on my sound card, how much of a bearing can the os have?
   
  BTW i was using wasapi on both foobar and ulilith


----------



## HiGHFLYiN9

Forgive my ignorance, but to use Reclock, what do you need aside from the 1.867 release? Does it do kernel streaming and support ALAC files?
   
  I finally made the move from iTunes to Foobar with kernel streaming just a few days ago using the HiFace.


----------



## Hybrys

I will restate.  It's going to sound better, the more effort you have to put into it.  That's placebo.
   
  If you want to do a truly blind test, grab someone that isn't familiar with the debate, and subject them to multiple players in a DBT.  I've done it with my roommate, and he found no difference between Reclock/Foobar/uLilith.  I can do a more detailed and ACTUALLY documented one, if you'd like, but it's going to turn up the same.


----------



## JulioCat2

Quote: 





hybrys said:


> I will restate.  It's going to sound better, the more effort you have to put into it.  That's placebo.
> 
> If you want to do a truly blind test, grab someone that isn't familiar with the debate, and subject them to multiple players in a DBT.  I've done it with my roommate, and he found no difference between Reclock/Foobar/uLilith.  I can do a more detailed and ACTUALLY documented one, if you'd like, but it's going to turn up the same.


 

 Sorry but no, not at these level, we need a person with trained ears, a people how nows what to hear, for ordinary people almost everything sound "The Same".


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





juliocat2 said:


> Sorry but no, not at these level, we need a person with trained ears, a people how nows what to hear, for ordinary people almost everything sound "The Same".


 

 'Trained' ears are even more susceptible to the placebo effect because of what they know and what they think they know.  If it truly makes a solid difference,  any one would be able to hear it with a halfway resolving system.
   
  Also, I bet you $1000 I could find a hobo with better hearing than you.  <.<  That's not to say that your hearing is bad, it's to say that you don't have to be 'trained' to have good hearing.


----------



## JulioCat2

Quote: 





hybrys said:


> 'Trained' ears are even more susceptible to the placebo effect because of what they know and what they think they know.  If it truly makes a solid difference,  any one would be able to hear it with a halfway resolving system.
> 
> Also, I bet you $1000 I could find a hobo with better hearing than you.  <.<  That's not to say that your hearing is bad, it's to say that you don't have to be 'trained' to have good hearing.


 

 I'm not shure about these, people who don't now about good TV's buy the most brilliant and color saturated TV's they can or simple buy by mark, even if they have 20/20 vison.


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





juliocat2 said:


> I'm not shure about these, people who don't now about good TV's buy the most brilliant and color saturated TV's they can or simple buy by mark, even if they have 20/20 vison.


 

 Just like people still buy 1080p TVs at sizes smaller than 52", when it doesn't make a difference until that point.
   
  Comparing this to TV shopping has a few flaws.  One, no-one has anything to gain no matter which player we use.  Two, eyes can be deceived easier than your ears, unless you start talking speakers and 'show rooms'.  Three, some people like the look of brilliance or faded blacks.  I KNOW, insane.  Price also factors in heavily.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





juliocat2 said:


> I'm not shure about these, people who don't now about good TV's buy the most brilliant and color saturated TV's they can or simple buy by mark, even if they have 20/20 vison.


 

 Over-saturated TVs look hideous. It doesn't take a TV-watching master to recognize that, just someone without crappy taste. Like Bose vs. some audiophile brand. Even the untrained ear can tell the Bose sounds like crap at comparable prices, but some people with crappy taste will still prefer it.
   
  Or, better analogy: Saturated TVs are like songs heavily processed with DSPs. Sounds impressive if unrealistic, and it's not that there's no noticeable difference.


----------



## leeperry

head injury said:


> Saturated TVs are like songs heavily processed with DSPs. Sounds impressive if unrealistic, and it's not that there's no noticeable difference.


 
   
  Up to very recently, the JVC videoprojectors had grossly oversaturated gamuts....they said that they decided to do so because when they ran real world tests, most ppl prefered an oversaturated picture. On their first RS1 model, there wasn't any colorimetry/gamma option either! They would be kind enough to sell you a scaler to fix this issue, but it was very pricey.
   
  I personally like a perfectly calibrated display, and map the gamut to SMPTE-C in order to get the original colors the mastering engineer decided to use...here's a thread about it: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1157652
   
  but you cannot accurately calibrate a display without a $300 Eye One colorimeter, what's the percentage of ppl running a flat screen that use one? Most ppl will choose the most saturated TV when they're in the shop..."oh lookee, the colors are so amazing".
   
  even on AVS, some ppl love those oversaturated colors...they do have a colorimeter, they are well aware that the colors are WAY off but they find the SMPTE-C colors boring: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1038602
   
  you'll never get deep red in SMPTE-C, and the Cars hero will always been dark orangey and never as red as on the movie poster.


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> you'll never get deep red in SMPTE-C


 

 Why is that?
   
  Edit: I think you were referring solely to the context of the movie Cars in retrospect - but to confirm, yes you can indeed get a deep red in SMPTE-C if that's what was intended.


----------



## leeperry

draca said:


> you can indeed get a deep red in SMPTE-C


 
  actually I really don't think you can: http://www.gottadance.org/images/video_gamuts/NTSC-vs-P22-vs-SMPTEC_clrBg.jpg
   
  they went for the REC.709 gamut in HD for this very reason, too bad the movies are still mastered on SMPTE-C CRT's hah...and yet they try to feed us bs w/ their xvYCC extended gamut/Deep Color etc..
   
  JVC and SONY refused to give infos to the SMPTE about their patented gamuts because it would have been an open standard...so the SMPTE was forced to use a patent-free gamut, too bad its deepest red is orangey...duh. Check the 10 pages thread on AVS, it's been thoroughly discussed.
   
  I always calibrate my projectors in D65/2.4/SMPTE-C, and I have yet to see big saturated reds: http://www.adobe.com/products/adobemag/archive/pdfs/98auhtbf.pdf


> SMPTE-C has the smallest gamut


 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=14085137&postcount=97


> Primaries can be brought in electronically, but they cannot be pushed out electronically.


 


> I'm likely to use REC.709 not because I think it reproduces what they saw, but because I dislike the limited unlike real life orangish red of SMPTE-C. I don't claim that is correct though


 
   I also like how they use oversaturated REC.709 demos to sell flat screens, when all the movies are actually SMPTE-C. There's as much bs going on in the video world as there in the audio


----------



## MrRoderick

In doing some tests with my friend, i think an importance note came up, as i was saying earlier, about the differences between the players. Its hard to choose which one is better, but the truth is, they can be very, very different. The song '84 pontiac dream' by Boards of Canada sounded so different that i could tell from outside the earcups while _he _was listening. So, to rephrase, my interest is a. why they are different, and b. what can be considered the more qualitative result. And i'm soon to try reclock, to see that is, as well as do that more thorough DBT. And dear lord, lets not get started on TV's cause... yeah.


----------



## Draca

@Lee: there's still a fairly deep red at the end of the range for SMPTE-C - I only have a 17" Macbook LEDlit LCD so I can't really test that for sure. I'm going to trust you on that point though.
   
  Edit: Not all studios use SMPTE-C as their standard?
   
  However going back to the software players, any reason why you've changed your opinion in this thread compared to "http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/246554/xxhighend-player-for-vista-and-xp-better-than-foobar". It seems you've done a complete 180* spin in opinion from that thread to this one? You even denigrated the idea of 'golden ears' and clearly differentiated between opamps and the digital bit-perfect world in that previous thread.
   
  A bit weird that you're playing devil's advocate now?


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





justin uthadude said:


> Try XMplay
> It sounds great, it's very small and memory efficient;


 

 I used to use that before and loved it at first but in the end I felt that it was a little bright and lacked a wee bit of bass. Also used Jriver at the time, it was good in a luscious and rich way. I felt it enveloped me with music better. In the end, with windows 7, foobar although ever so slightly worse sounding just had the right features I needed. When I get uber cans like hd800s and up though I will not compromise on sound quality any more and will get the best sounding player out there regardless of interface


----------



## leeperry

> any reason why you've changed your opinion


 
   
  Well done, Sherlock! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  yes, I've changed my mind...because bit-perfect doesn't mean ****. I tried XXHighEnd ages ago on an M-Audio soundcard, and the sound was so different that I couldn't believe it was bit-perfect. But apparently, it was?!
   
  The M-Audio Audiophile USB card has bit-perfect WaveOut drivers(like RME and so), you can get KS in any application basically...I never really bothered w/ anything else at the time.
   
  Then I've read ppl raving about Reclock for audio: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/438010/tutorial-wasapi-support-for-kmplayer-having-a-top-notch-video-audio-player


> Comparing to foobar2k with WASAPI plug-in the difference in sound quality is HUGE ! (relatively) You don't need to listen several time to hear a little difference its really strike at you !


 
    
  and I was still very skeptical...then I asked James to fix Reclock for audio playback(a few bugs were still in the way like buffering would trim the start of each audio file, etc), and I got pretty blown away by the SQ difference 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



    
  Being skeptical is good, changing your mind after real world experiments is just as good


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> Being skeptical is good, changing your mind after real world experiments is just as good


 

 I agree with this 100%
   
  ...and I agree that foobar is not close to being the best player in the sound quality/transparency front either... I'm just using it because I like the colums ui interface and the bs2b xfeed hehehe


----------



## Freeze

I use mediamonkey. I love it.


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





mrroderick said:


> In doing some tests with my friend, i think an importance note came up, as i was saying earlier, about the differences between the players. Its hard to choose which one is better, but the truth is, they can be very, very different. The song '84 pontiac dream' by Boards of Canada sounded so different that i could tell from outside the earcups while _he _was listening. So, to rephrase, my interest is a. why they are different, and b. what can be considered the more qualitative result. And i'm soon to try reclock, to see that is, as well as do that more thorough DBT. And dear lord, lets not get started on TV's cause... yeah.


 

 MAKE SURE you're volume matching.  Since it sounds to me like you're confusing higher volume with quality.  Before I did my DBT (that turned up nothing, by the way) I volume matched each player, and had an hour sighted with each player.  Then I subjected my roommate to the DBT, and his conclusion matched mine, no differences, as he did about as good as chance and came to that conclusion aswell.


----------



## Draca

I really think a lot of the differences people are finding are volume or DSP.


----------



## leeperry

all the players we're talking about are 100% bit-perfect. Thinking is good, trying and comparing on your own gear is good too.


----------



## Draca

I've already compared, lee - and found no difference.
   
  Did you use an SPL meter when comparing yours?


----------



## leeperry

I can't say that I have, no. But I've exchanged a hell lot of messages w/ both uLilith's and Reclock's coders and these 2 players don't do any DSP whatsoever. I even helped to improve Reclock's audio conversion code as it was slightly off, and I got a professional VST plugin coder to fix it.
   
  if there's one thing you will find in those 2 players, it's a perfect audio pipeline w/ highly accurate conversions.
   
  did you try XXHighEnd? this sounds drastically different from foobar, even a child can DBT it as posted earlier.


----------



## digger945

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> and I was still very skeptical...then I asked James to fix Reclock for audio playback(a few bugs were still in the way like buffering would trim the start of each audio file, etc), and I got pretty blown away by the SQ difference
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Agreed. We really gotta try stuff to know what it's gonna sound like.
  KMplayer with Reclock is.... different, for sure. I just downloaded everything and have listened for maybe an hour. Noticably smooth, it is.
   
  I must have something set wrong somewhere. The volume goes up and down a little sometimes, especially at the beginnning of a song.


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> I can't say that I have, no. But I've exchanged a hell lot of messages w/ both uLilith's and Reclock's coders and these 2 players don't do any DSP whatsoever. I even helped to improve Reclock's audio conversion code as it was slightly off, and I got a professional VST plugin coder to fix it.
> 
> if there's one thing you will find in those 2 players, it's a perfect audio pipeline w/ highly accurate conversions.
> 
> did you try XXHighEnd? this sounds drastically different from foobar, even a child can DBT it as posted earlier.


 
   
  Sorry but you need to use an SPL meter. Otherwise the differences you've supposedly heard are worth nothing.


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





digger945 said:


> Agreed. We really gotta try stuff to know what it's gonna sound like.
> KMplayer with Reclock is.... different, for sure. I just downloaded everything and have listened for maybe an hour. Noticably smooth, it is.
> 
> I must have something set wrong somewhere. The volume goes up and down a little sometimes, especially at the beginnning of a song.


 

 Yes kmplayer does sound smoother. I really liked its sound except some aac files changed in levels quite a bit compared to foobar and other players. Its as if there were some hidden replaygain thing going on.
   
  About the levels argument.... more experienced ears can automatically volume match by listening to the vocals volume for example and matching from there. If the other frequencies are lower in volume like the bass or treble compared to another player at the same vocal volume level then the players don't sound the same... simple as that. The spl meter talk is just for enhancement for those that are less experienced with this stuff and don't know what to focus on when listening.


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





donunus said:


> Yes kmplayer does sound smoother. I really liked its sound except some aac files changed in levels quite a bit compared to foobar and other players. Its as if there were some hidden replaygain thing going on.
> 
> *About the levels argument.... more experienced ears can automatically volume match by listening to the vocals volume for example and matching from there.* If the other frequencies are lower in volume like the bass or treble compared to another player at the same vocal volume level then the players don't sound the same... simple as that. The spl meter talk is just for enhancement for those that are less experienced with this stuff and don't know what to focus on when listening.


 
  THIS GUY HAS MAGIC EARS, EVERYONE.
   
  Seeing as I've been a live sound technician and sound designer for seven years, but can't tell a difference between the players in sighted or blind tests, it must just be my inexperience, right?
   
  If Reclock is doing something different with volume control, THAT is where the difference is coming from.  Not some magical bitperfect transaction.  And if Reclock isn't doing it, it's your sugar-injection.


----------



## JulioCat2

Donunus, you need to be sure you're bypassing all KMP audio processing, The KMP audio transform filter must be desactivated.


----------



## leeperry

draca said:


> you need to use an SPL meter. Otherwise the differences you've supposedly heard are worth nothing.


 
   
  "louder" bit-perfect, that's a first 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   


juliocat2 said:


> Donunus, you need to be sure you're bypassing all KMP audio processing, The KMP audio transform filter must be desactivated.


 
   
  Yes, and use ffdshow in 32bit float


----------



## Hybrys

I'm going to try XXHighend and Minimalist/Stealth right now, 1hr sighted listening tests, then some DBT tomorrow.  I'll report what I find, of course.
   
  By the way, if you want an actually fair comparison to Minimalist, you'd have to setup Foobar to buffer fully to memory, like I do.
   
  And Minimalist barely works.  It was louder than Foobar, felt more detailed and wider.  Only worked for 30 seconds of a song.  Superlame.  I'd be willing to bet that after volume matching at my amp, it would be similar, if not the same.
   
  And XXHighend doesn't work at all.  What a surprise.  And they actually want you to pay for this thing?


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





donunus said:


> Yes kmplayer does sound smoother. I really liked its sound except some aac files changed in levels quite a bit compared to foobar and other players. Its as if there were some hidden replaygain thing going on.
> 
> About the levels argument.... more experienced ears can automatically volume match by listening to the vocals volume for example and matching from there. If the other frequencies are lower in volume like the bass or treble compared to another player at the same vocal volume level then the players don't sound the same... simple as that. The spl meter talk is just for enhancement for those that are less experienced with this stuff and don't know what to focus on when listening.


 

 No, no matter how 'experienced' *you* think you are, you are still victim to the neurological limits of human hearing and audiological memory. I suggest you watch the AES Audio Myths segment featuring Ethan Winer amongst others: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ


----------



## Head Injury

People volume matching, if you use ReplayGain in Foobar make sure to turn it off. That was my mistake. And, obviously, max the software's volume. If both players are bit-perfect, they should be the same volume when all ReplayGain/DSPs are turned off and program volume maxed.
   
  If they aren't, would the volume clue us in on which one isn't bit-perfect? The louder or the quieter one?


----------



## leeperry

hehe, anyway it's the same ole' same ole'...non-believers always look for all the excuses in the world to make believers doubt what they're hearing.
   
  we're sorry you can't hear any diff, we really are...no hard feelings I hope 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   


> would the volume clue us in on which one isn't bit-perfect? The louder or the quieter one?


 
   
  I've been traumatized by the loudness war, up to the point that I'll always prefer the quietest one hah.


----------



## Hybrys

That's actually a good question.  Which one IS bitperfect?  Mind you, we can just, for the moment, consider that bitperfect digital audio doesn't exist, and rate each player as we hear them.
   
  Between four test tracks, I found no differences using Minimalist/Stealth.  Still can't get XXHighend to work.  So, I'm not even going to consider it.


----------



## MrRoderick

In regards to volume matching, I don't have an spl reader or something fancy to check, but the levels sound the same, and I have all dsp's turned off in foobar. Admittedly the volume might be different, but more importantly, yhe song I referenced literally did not sound the same. The slow rolling hit had a totally different resonance an mood. Also, there is a bug with stealthaudio right now, with the whole stopping thing, so I have been (and suggest)using the earlier 'Playwasapi' release. I've been stacked with alot of other things so I haven't been able to devote more time to that next test. But hopefully tonight I can. I'll post my results, and then finish this off because people are just slinging wild comments at each other. It's not that big a deal, and a little decorum really goes a long way to allow others to seriously consider your statements.


----------



## Hybrys

So, you are using the version BEFORE this update in the change logs.  Congrats, yours REALLY DOES SOUND DIFFERENT.  And isn't bitperfect.
   
  StealhAudioPlayer_0.1.0
  "Fix for broken SQ of StealthAudioPlayer_0.0.7 (More on this Later)"


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





juliocat2 said:


> Donunus, you need to be sure you're bypassing all KMP audio processing, The KMP audio transform filter must be desactivated.


 
   

   
   I thought I did that before when i used kmplayer but for some reason, there are a select few aac albums that just have a lower volume with this player compared to others. I just did what that tutorial thread did before about setting up kmplayer and reclock.



  Quote: 





hybrys said:


> THIS GUY HAS MAGIC EARS, EVERYONE.
> 
> Seeing as I've been a live sound technician and sound designer for seven years, but can't tell a difference between the players in sighted or blind tests, it must just be my inexperience, right?
> 
> If Reclock is doing something different with volume control, THAT is where the difference is coming from.  Not some magical bitperfect transaction.  And if Reclock isn't doing it, it's your sugar-injection.


 

 LOL, and so this type of argument starts THE CREDENTIALS THE CREDENTIALS... I won't even go there hahaha


----------



## leeperry

I forgot to mention that Reclock passes all the bit-perfect HDCD/DTS tests, even when converted to PCM24 through 32float. I don't think ppl realize how accurate the audio pipeline is in Reclock 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  and this guy is also mentally challenged I presume? http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/340451/lilith-audio-player/165#post_6497697


> The difference in sq between uLilith and the other audio players I've tried is simply too clear and obvious


 
   
  google is full of that kind of testimonials if you dare searching 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I could scan a copy of my sound engineer diploma, but I've got nothing to prove...nor to sell, besides I'm not so much of a troll feeder myself.
   


donunus said:


> I thought I did that


 
   
  do this : 

 then this: 

 and make a profile for lossy audio in ffdshow, and force 32fp output:


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





donunus said:


> LOL, and so this type of argument starts THE CREDENTIALS THE CREDENTIALS... I won't even go there hahaha


 

 MAGIC EARS should be your top credential.  Seriously, if your ears automatically volume match for you, you need to get that s*** tested and documented.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> and this guy is also mentally challenged I presume?


 

 The way you twist everyone's words repeatedly is incredibly infantile.
   
Looks like you need some help for your mental deficiencies.


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





mrroderick said:


> In regards to volume matching, I don't have an spl reader or something fancy to check, but the levels sound the same, and I have all dsp's turned off in foobar. Admittedly the volume might be different, but more importantly, yhe song I referenced literally did not sound the same. The slow rolling hit had a totally different resonance an mood. Also, there is a bug with stealthaudio right now, with the whole stopping thing, so I have been (and suggest)using the earlier 'Playwasapi' release. I've been stacked with alot of other things so I haven't been able to devote more time to that next test. But hopefully tonight I can. I'll post my results, and then finish this off because people are just slinging wild comments at each other. It's not that big a deal, and a little decorum really goes a long way to allow others to seriously consider your statements.


 
   
  I highly recommend watching this to understand the importance of SPL level matching and the nature of our auditory system and how easily fallible it is with regard to hearing supposed 'differences': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
   
  It will open your eyes (and ears) to the importance of following the scientific method when claiming a difference in software players that are 'bit-perfect'.
  
  @leeperry: I'm getting really sick of your holier-than-thou attitude. You may have 5800 posts, but that doesn't make you any more qualified than me, Shike, Hybrys or Head Injury. You may also have a sound engineer 'diploma' (from where if you don't mind me asking?) but you are still human and therefore do not have ears calibrated to the levels of a SPL measuring device or FR analyser.
   
  Actually, one way in which to test the output of the bitperfect players being different could be a null test could it not? If anyone has the ability to do this thoroughly that'd be very interesting.


----------



## leeperry

head injury said:


> The way you twist everyone's words repeatedly is incredibly infantile.


 
   
  hehe, calling anything you can't disprove placebo is not about infantilism, it's about cluelessness.
   


draca said:


> It will open your eyes


 
  I was hoping it'd make you shut it tbh 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  figures/measurements, there they are: 
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.0;all
http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CPlay.SoftwareInducedJitter
   
  all the testimonials of ppl saying that bit-perfect players do sound different, these are my proofs...my real-world proofs! where are yours? besides, your rescue squad is too exhausted.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> hehe, calling anything you can't disprove placebo is not about infantilism, it's about cluelessness.


 

 How is that related to my comment about your straw man wordplay?
   
  Done feeding the troll and out of this roundabout thread. And just when I was tempted to try uLilith, too. Have fun getting through to this guy, people.


----------



## leeperry

head injury said:


> just when I was tempted to try uLilith


 
   
  oh darn', one missed sale...I'm sad, what am I gonna tell my boss? please try it, please please please


----------



## Draca

@lee I'm done with you too, really disappointed to see this level of childishness and ignorance from someone who's been on head-fi since 2004. Those links you repeatedly post have already been refuted.
   
  Snide comments like "I was hoping it'd make you shut it tbh 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




" really begin to annoy me after 9 pages...
   
  (my) penultimate word:
   
  I think the real problem with leeperry and other 'believers' is a genuine misunderstanding of how to actually go about measuring and engage in valid listening trials. leeperry doesn't use an SPL meter, suggests that subjective testimonials from random people on the internet who also don't have the correct equipment to conduct the right trials are valid evidence for the difference in bit-perfect playback software, and further, twists the words of anyone who refutes his assertions by morphing any scientific discussion into insulting and victimising the 'believer'. The problem is realistically just one of education... I am absolutely certain that once someone understands the fallibility of audiological memory they will understand the necessity of technology such as SPL meters and methodologies such as DBT/null tests.


----------



## leeperry

oh, now all the naysayers(possibly deaf too?) are gone...that makes me a sad panda 


   
  so OP, how are those DBT going then?


----------



## Head Injury

FInal post here:
   
  Did try uLilith anyway. Heard no difference that can't be tossed up to placebo. In fact, listening to the track I was testing with ("High and Dry", Radiohead) right now on Foobar, it sounds better 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Good example of placebo: After testing the opening kickdrum and the first cymbal crash several times on both and hearing nothing different, I listened a little longer into the song with uLilith and heard underlying instrumentation I hadn't heard before! Excited, I switched to Foobar. Not only did I hear that instrumentation just as clear, but the bass sounded more forceful and textured! What can I possibly conclude?


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> oh, now all the naysayers(*possibly deaf too*?) are gone...that makes me a sad panda


 

 Pathetic and detestable.


----------



## leeperry

oh, look what you did now:


----------



## Trogdor

leeperry, the problem is you offer a religious argument, everyone else offers a scientific one.  As with all religious arguments, yours relies on some unknown that you yourself can't define but claim is there.
   
  Bottom line:  DBT/ABX your stuff.  If you believe there is a huge difference, more power to you.


----------



## leeperry

well, I've posted jitter measurements and a lot of technical infos here: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/493678/a-better-sounding-alternative-to-foobar2000-or-a-musing-in-the-realm-of-bit-perfect-streaming/120#post_6675431
   
  Are they being discredited because jitter doesn't exist? Reality is merely an illusion, you know. I wonder what Patrick82 would think.
   
  some ppl with the right gear to measure jitter also made striking discoveries with cables: http://www.stereophile.com/features/368/index3.html
   
  hard to deny, huh? so cables can add jitter, but not computers? Am I getting this right?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> well, I've posted jitter measurements and a lot of technical infos here: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/493678/a-better-sounding-alternative-to-foobar2000-or-a-musing-in-the-realm-of-bit-perfect-streaming/120#post_6675431


 

 Do you have a link that suggests excessive jitter is the cause of sound differences in bit-perfect players? And/or any page that measures the jitter of different bit-perfect players?
   
  Does this thread have the potential to become scientific again?


----------



## donunus

Actually I agree with Leeperry that Ulilith has a different sound. I didn't like it as much as I did kmplayer while Leeperry loves it. I'll just say I am not sure if it is due to placebo or not because I didn't do any scientific testing but what is weird is when I described what I heard with ulilith during my comparison with foobar, Leeperry and I agreed on the sonic characteristics of the differences. I can't remember the details of the notes that I took when I compared them but I do remember exchanging PMs with leeperry about it and I thought Ulilith just wasn't the type of sound I was looking for. Itunes also has a different sound... slightly harder and edgier than the softer yet lusher sounding foobar. I thought Jriver also had a lush type of sound but was engaging and less dry and had a more startling 3d feel when used with asio. 
   
  I am not arguing that what I'm saying is fact, it is just my observation. No need to argue, I just want to contribute to the thread and say what I feel about the sound coming from different players because some people do hear the same characteristics of the differences I'm talking about too.


----------



## leeperry

Yes, Reclock is too upfront for me on music...but it's fantastic for movies dialogs clarity! I like the laid-back sound of Ulilith better, besides Reclock can't do gapless...deal breaker.


----------



## Draca

"Yes, Reclock is *too upfront* for me on music...but it's fantastic for movies dialogs clarity! I like the* laid-back* sound of Ulilith better, besides Reclock can't do gapless...deal breaker." - leeperry
   
  Rofl.
   
  I'm watching this thread purely for the entertainment value of random audioph00l adjectives now.


----------



## Head Injury

Well, I came back for the science. So are you going to offer up any more actual evidence? Otherwise I'm leaving again.
   
  Also, if jitter is just noise, how does too much of it or a lack of it become "lush", "dry", "3-D"?
   
  Also, funnily enough, I found uLilith the opposite of "laid-back", if I could call it anything. When first testing, the difference I thought I heard was a quicker and more powerful attack. So I guess you've just reinforced my belief in that experience as pure placebo.


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> do this :
> 
> then this:
> 
> and make a profile for lossy audio in ffdshow, and force 32fp output:


 

 I think I remember having the first 2 covered. Its the last one I didn't check. Do you have a link to that tutorial thread again Lee? I am an idiot with the new search function  I'll do some listening tests again but this time my gear is different. If the differences that I heard before between players still apply to the new gear then I am inclined to believe in myself more than believing it is just placebo


----------



## donunus

Head Injury, 
  In all fairness we are not in the sound science forum. This is what audiophiles do, have fun while discussing their observations. No need to make it all clinical. Of course I can try to back it up with scientific evidence but in the end If it is placebo that makes me enjoy my music then so be it hehehe I hope you can also see Leeperry's and my angle on the subject.


----------



## leeperry

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/438010/tutorial-wasapi-support-for-kmplayer-having-a-top-notch-video-audio-player
   
  I'd advise using MPC instead, because KMP takes forever to open...but as long as you disable all their built-in filters, you should be fine.
   
  the latest ffdshow can be found here: http://www.xvidvideo.ru/ffdshow-tryouts-project-x86-x64


----------



## MrRoderick

First, i was not using an earlier stealthaudio, but an earlier version of the player project, hybrys. Second, the idea is on the origin of,  importance and the nature of bit-perfect streaming for my own, and in hope, others, edification. But apparently everyone has too strong of feelings of being_ right_ about something incredibly obscure and nearly irrelevant to almost everyone else. Thus i gained some knowledge that my curiosity sought, but i am disheartened by you guys.
   
  If it is the volume output, and that really affects the audio the way it does (without it really sounding louder to me), okay. I'm.. fine with that. I don't care. I enjoy the sound. I never, as very obvious in the _title _of the thread, meant to brazenly purport that the minimalist player is _the _best. Just something that sounded better to me. And in general, i take my audio equipment and playing choices very slowly and carefully, so it is a little aggravating to be told that i am simply a misguided dunce with 'sugar pills'.
   
  I guess there's no way for me to close a thread i started, but i'd like to. really now... i'd hazard that most of you are a good deal older than me as well...


----------



## Hybrys

I take that back, they look the same.  Ran it through a system then re-recorded them, and they look the same.  I can upload pics, if you'd like.  If my stupid Audacity hadn't have crashed...


----------



## leeperry

mrroderick said:


> I guess there's no way for me to close a thread i started, but i'd like to.


 
   
  ask the mods, I don't see why that wouldn't be possible.
   
  yes, saying that you hear differences between cables/players/transports often ends up in an endless wave of naysayers trying to convince you that it's just a bunch of 0 and 1 and that you'd need a prescription for that mental illness of yours. I've heard cables/opamps/transports/"bit-perfect" media players changing the sound and I've finally found my ideal combo that sounds too awesome to be put into words, but sure..it's my imagination


----------



## Hybrys

Oddly enough, I'm a believer in everything else on that list, except the players.  >_>


----------



## donunus

The bitperfect part like wasapi might actually bypass the os limitations(mixer, among other things) and make the music bitperfect on that end but the players all can have their secret mix hidden from our adjusting capabilities to make their players have an edge or a flavor over others. Remember for example that the foobar eq and volume control can still be used even with wasapi enabled... What does this tell us? Well, Its telling us that wasapi cannot do "crap in crap out"... They could have something tuned with the player to sound the way it is even with all effects turned off because they can. After all wasapi won't stop it. All wasapi is making sure is that the data going into the player(foobar in this case) is bitperfect.


----------



## leeperry

but uLilith and Reclock *are* bit-perfect...they don't "add" any DSP whatsoever...even their coders don't believe that bit-perfect players can sound different. XXHighEnd I find it hard to believe, I'd need to see a DTS/HDCD live test in video to believe it


----------



## donunus

With reclock I did notice that kmplayer didn't allow the eq to be adjusted so that one might be different to just straight wasapi on foobar. I agree but some other people here will just say that as long as it is wasapi/asio/ks, that it is automatically bitperfect.


----------



## donunus

Alright Leeperry... I'll try ulilith one more time with the latest enhancements hehehe. What is their link these days? and with the latest version, what steps do I have to take to ensure that it is bitperfect? Last time it was an ftp link that you gave so if some links change I don't wan't to criticize it even though I don't have it set correctly


----------



## leeperry

http://www.project9k.jp/download/uLilith/2010-05-21_Core2.7z
   
  ASIO/WASAPI = bit-perfect...but if you check the XXHighEnd measurements link I posted, its author makes it clear that bit-perfect doesn't mean **** as far as realtime audio rendering is concerned


----------



## donunus

asio/wasapi is bitperfect but what i meant was with players like foobar, the wasapi is only used to ensure the data going into the player is bitperfect but manipulation or inherent tweaking of the players own sound/eq/effects affects what comes out of the player so what we get as output is not bitperfect anymore.


----------



## donunus

Oh by the way, I'm using windows7 ultimate x64... what would be the difference between getting these two?


----------



## leeperry

oh...core2 has been compiled w/ ICL11 and is optimized for Intel CPU's.
   
  sure, but if you don't force resampling/use VST plugins/lower the volume, uLilith will be bit-perfect...and in Reclock if you leave the sample rate/bit-depth untouched, you will be bit-perfect too. Actually all the bit-depth conversions in Reclock are bit-perfect as well, 16int>32int, 16int>32fp etc etc
   
  Reclock bases its timings on HPET and runs a small WASAPI buffer in realtime priority, so it takes over the computer to play the audio stream.


----------



## donunus

That I can believe... so now all we have left that could go wrong in the chain is the real time audio streaming out of the usb to the dac, usb to spdif conversion before processing, etc... 
   
  So I will install the x64 core version then and try it out thanks


----------



## donunus

Ok so I started listening to some tracks from Bad Lieutenant's Never Cry Another Tear and then Jazz at the Jawnshop with ulilith and and compared it with foobar... both using wasapi and ulilith set at 16bit so that they are equal in the settings sense so far as i know.
   
  With the bad lieutenant CD I couldn't tell a difference except maybe feeling that foobar gave ever so slightly more bass but this easily could have been placebo since I haven't listened to it for days yet to make sure that it is consistent. With Jazz at The Pawnshop, ulilith seems to give a more startling effect on the sax in specific parts of songs when compared with foobar which seemed ever so slightly more muted in dynamics. Still again not anything scientific so still could be placebo. Only time will tell If i can consistently tell these differences. Now when I tried ulilith before with a different dac, the differences were bigger. I have a feeling that the dac being used also matters in its sensitivity to the settings of a players bit depth and other parameters. I like what I am hearing with ulilith with my current setup more than foobar. I sure hope its placebo because ulilith cant display all my badass album art


----------



## donunus

Listening to more music and ulilith seems more forward in the mids which gives a better presence which is probably why the bass of foobar seems a little more in your face.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


leeperry said:


> but uLilith and Reclock *are* bit-perfect...they don't "add" any DSP whatsoever...even their coders don't believe that bit-perfect players can sound different. XXHighEnd I find it hard to believe, I'd need to see a DTS/HDCD live test in video to believe it


 
 Cool,
   
  So the only dev that DOES believe they can sound different is the one that has potential monetary gain?
   
  You don't say . . . .


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





shike said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> leeperry said:
> ...


 

 Pwned.


----------



## nick_charles

If one had 2 PCs a recording device and a little bit of time it wouild be trivial to measure the differences between the different software players or heaven forbid record some samples from each and test them in a controlled fashion, come to think of it I have 2 PCs and a recording device...


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> If one had 2 PCs a recording device and a little bit of time it wouild be trivial to measure the differences between the different software players or heaven forbid record some samples from each and test them in a controlled fashion, come to think of it I have 2 PCs and a recording device...


 

 A null test would be great if you could do this


----------



## donunus

2 pcs wouldn't be a valid test unless they are the same exact specs... actually a recording from the same pc of a ulilith output vs foobars output recorded with audacity might be a better test. I'm willing to bet that you will see a difference in the response between the 2 players playing music where the differences can be heard.


----------



## leeperry

ok, your turn to play with the boys donunus


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





donunus said:


> 2 pcs wouldn't be a valid test unless they are the same exact specs... actually a recording from the same pc of a ulilith output vs foobars output recorded with audacity might be a better test. I'm willing to bet that you will see a difference in the response between the 2 players playing music where the differences can be heard.


 

 I think he meant using one PC to record and one PC to use for playback, not sure why this would be a problem. There's also no reason why the same PC couldn't be used afaik.
   
  Edit: due to leeperry's continued childish patronising I've added him to my ignore list. Donunus thank you for maintaining a rational and genuine tone in contrast.


----------



## donunus

Listening again and I swear foobar dries out the inner detail of recordings compared to ulilith. Whether this is measureable or not is the question hmm. It cant be placebo anymore once ive pinpointed details that I cant hear with foobar. I'm listening even just to an old rock recording, Iron Maiden's Where Eagles Dare right now and with ulilith I get to hear some room reverb effects that foobar dries out. I'm not sure if its due to more detail capability or just because of the slight boost in its mids. Maybe if its due to a boost, it would be easily measureable and compared but if its due to the difference in detail that is much harder to get a valid comparison in measurement because you would have to get a screenshot of the exact microsecond of the song playing for both players. How is that even possible? remember we are not measuring a constant sounding test tone here, we are measuring music that changes every gazillionth of a second.


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





donunus said:


> Listening again and I swear foobar dries out the inner detail of recordings compared to ulilith. Whether this is measureable or not is the question hmm. It cant be placebo anymore once ive pinpointed details that I cant hear with foobar. I'm listening even just to an old rock recording, Iron Maiden's Where Eagles Dare right now and with ulilith I get to hear some room reverb effects that foobar dries out. I'm not sure if its due to more detail capability or just because of the slight boost in its mids. Maybe if its due to a boost, it would be easily measureable and compared but if its due to the difference in detail that is much harder to get a valid comparison in measurement because you would have to get a screenshot of the exact microsecond of the song playing for both players. How is that even possible? remember we are not measuring a constant sounding test tone here, we are measuring music that changes every gazillionth of a second.


 
   
  Our ears are not as sensitive as a 32 or 64bit DAW (see the Audio Myths link in my sig for a demonstration by Ethan Winer) conducting a null test, so the answer is, if there is a difference, there won't be a null output and hence it will be easy to tell.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





donunus said:


> Listening again and I swear foobar dries out the inner detail of recordings compared to ulilith. Whether this is measureable or not is the question hmm. It cant be placebo anymore once ive pinpointed details that I cant hear with foobar.
> 
> *That's the problem with placebo. Once you've convinced yourself that one sounds more detailed than the other, the brain can and will ignore whatever it wants to in order to maintain that conclusion. If placebo can convince the body to get healthier, I'm sure it can convince the ears that something that is there actually isn't.*
> 
> ...


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





draca said:


> A null test would be great if you could do this


 

 Bizarre !
   
  I just tried recording samples from both players and somehting very odd is happening. I used as a test file a preciselya 32K samples long white noise segment. Foobar outputs the desired 32K samples consistently , lilith outputs over 35K samples(1), I am using Cool Edit pro for the recording and it is doing tbis consistently. Both players are outputing a digital stream via a Musiland USD01 and the outputs are recorded digitally via an Edirol UA-1EX. The sending PC is a Windows Vista 32 bit Professional, Foobar is using ASO, Liith - I cannot read japanese so i have no idea what its config is but meaningful comparisons are impossible...
   
  1. More precisely a recording from Cool Edit Pro records a white noise pattern of over 35K samples consistently !
  2. As a disclaimer i am using the same PC for play and record but even so, something is a bit screwy here !
   
  Going to try it with 2 pcs instead
   
  Bizarre !
   
  I just did this again, this time using separate PCs for play and record, again using the Edirol for record and the Musiland for play. Again the Lilith player outputs a stream that is over 3K samples bigger than it should be. I am at a loss to explain this...


----------



## ROBSCIX

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Bizarre !
> 
> I just did this several times with a 32K samples white noise sample. Foobar outputs the desired 32K samples consistently , lilith outputs over 35K samples(1), I am using Cool Edit pro for the recording and it is doing tbis consistently both players are outputing a digital stream via a Musiland USD01 and the outputs are recorded digitally via an Edirol UA-1EX. The sending PC is a Windows Vista 32 bit Professional, Foobar is using ASO, Liith - I cannot read japanese so i have no idea what its config is but meaningful comparisons are impossible...
> 
> ...


 

 Since you have everything wired up there, why not throw in another player such as Winamp running ASIO or KS?  See how it compares.


----------



## leeperry

nick_charles said:


> I just did this several times with a 32K samples white noise sample. Foobar outputs the desired 32K samples consistently , lilith outputs over 35K samples


   
  using the Musiland ASIO drivers? in "High Precision" mode?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> using the Musiland ASIO drivers? in "High Precision" mode?


 


 Why would this affect Lilith but not Foobar ? Foobar is working correctly but Lilith is not. I am using 1.0.5.0 drivers and ASIO 1.0.1.2 for Musiland under Vista 32
   
  Solved it, the musiland was resampling to 48K, I set it back to 44.1 and Lilith works correctly now


----------



## leeperry

nick_charles said:


> Why would this affect Lilith but not Foobar ?


 
   
  This was just a question....and yes foobar sounds much worse than all the other players, and yet they're all bit-perfect 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  maybe that AP measurement tool would make the skeptical weight their options..


----------



## donunus

nick_charles,
   
aaahhh maybe that accounts for the difference in sound... Just for kicks, like ROBSCIX said, can you try if itunes or any other player you are using measures exactly the same as either ulilith or foobar?
   
  Oh, whoops you solved the problem hmm...
   
  Head Injury,
  Technically you can be right about the placebo but usually my mind doesn't work this way since I've done so many listening tests like this. Comparing mp3 vs flacs for example, Ive done a 12 to 14/15 so many times comparing a flac vs lame v2 using foobar abx when I knew the sample well and knew what to look for. I can usually tell mp3 and flac in very fast cymbal hits out of silence. There is usually a pre-echo there sort of like a whuuush ping sound instead of just a ping sound coming from the flac file. Very subtle but I can still hear that and confirm with foobar abx. Now with ulilith and foobar, the differences are bigger than lame v2 vs flac except maybe for the v2s lack of top end extension which gives itself away with some recordings like some old coltrane album I tried. The point I'm trying to make here is that placebo happens to people more when just listening to the overall gist of the sound without actually knowing what segment and detail of the sound to listen for. Once a person finds what part of the music he/she feels is different sounding they can usually confirm it with a foobar abx in the case of flac vs mp3. Now with this here... player vs player, theres no way I can confirm with an abx test since we are using different players... so in the end you are right Head Injury. It all boils down to what makes a person happier 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. I know and am confident in what makes me happy and thats all that matters in the end.​


----------



## donunus

Nick_Charles,
  i was just wondering about the 48khz thing. Did ulilith decode a 44.1 khz file to 48khz automatically or was your test signal a 48khz one? Now i'm worried that it automatically upsamples all my stuff to 48khz. Or was it just your soundcard/dac settings that needed adjustment?


----------



## leeperry

there's an option to forbid resampling in uLilith donunus 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  and the sample rate you read in its GUI is the one being sent to your audio drivers...set it to ASIO, allow only 48kHz and enable resampling: you'll read 48kHz in uLilith's GUI.


----------



## donunus

what about wasapi?


----------



## leeperry

if you uncheck the box that allows resampling, don't use VST plugings/internal DSP and leave the volume at 100%: you will have bit-perfect audio sent to your audio drivers.
   
  afterwards, if your audio drivers are set on a fixed sample rate...that's out of uLilith's control, and that's most likely what happened to nick_charles.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





donunus said:


> Nick_Charles,
> i was just wondering about the 48khz thing. Did ulilith decode a 44.1 khz file to 48khz automatically or was your test signal a 48khz one? Now i'm worried that it automatically upsamples all my stuff to 48khz. Or was it just your soundcard/dac settings that needed adjustment?


 

 The sample was a 44.1khz one, the USB to SPDIF device was resampling to 48Khz but this did not affect FooBar, but Lilith in combination with the resampling in the USB/SPDIF device output a stream that the recording software/hardware (both set to 44.1khz) interpreted as being about 10% bigger than it really was, it still does not make much sense to me, but changing the sample rate to 44.1 for the USB/SPDIF fixed the anomaly.


----------



## thuantran

@nick_charles: Supposedly lilith output was upsampled to 48KHz then with 32000 samples you will have 32000 * 48000 / 44100 ~34829 samples . Still not over 35k samples, weird.


----------



## donunus

Leeperry is this what you are talkin about? The sample rate conversion part unchecked?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





donunus said:


> Leeperry is this what you are talkin about? The sample rate conversion part unchecked?


 


 How did you get an english language UI mine is japanese..


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





thuantran said:


> @nick_charles: Supposedly lilith output was upsampled to 48KHz then with 32000 samples you will have 32000 * 48000 / 44100 ~34829 samples . Still not over 35k samples, weird.


 


 1K = 1024 or 2 ^ 10, 32k = 32768,  32768 * 48000 / 44100 =  35665 ( not over 35K, my mistake, sorry, it is almost 35K) (34.89K)


----------



## Trogdor

Quote: 





draca said:


> "Yes, Reclock is *too upfront* for me on music...but it's fantastic for movies dialogs clarity! I like the* laid-back* sound of Ulilith better, besides Reclock can't do gapless...deal breaker." - leeperry
> 
> Rofl.
> 
> I'm watching this thread purely for the entertainment value of random audioph00l adjectives now.


 

  
  That's right.
   
  The article leeperry sites has a very nice conclusion to it:
   
  "The measurements presented here are far from the last word in quantifying a transport's technical or musical performance. Instead, this article should be considered a primitive first step toward understanding jitter and its effects on sound quality. We need a concerted effort by critical listeners and audio engineers to understand transport jitter—and to correlate measured data with its subjective effects on the musical presentation. Only then will jitter be eliminated as a source of variability in the quality of digitally reproduced music."
   
  But regardless:
   
  If all the programs you are talking about are bit-perfect which again means that all the bits in the file reach the other side of the cable unmodified, I don't quite understand how leeperry is hearing any differences other than placebo.  If I take the same hardware, same interconnects, same file of bits and I use program X and program Y to play them and both of these programs send every bit out the USB interface, again where is the difference?  That is what leeperry has not explained to the folks who are skeptical.  Are the program using different driver interfaces?  Are the programs coded in such a way that would not send the bits out the interface in a timely fashion (just poor code in the I/O path)?  What is the difference?
   
  leeperry, do a simple ABT test with a friend.   Go to your client, get a sample file you think you can positively distinguish between program X and program Y.  Stick to one hardware setup (doesn't matter which as long as the bit path is the same between both programs).  Have a friend open up both applications (have nothing else running on the client for this test). 
   
  You get to turn around.  I even encourage you to train your ear for the differences by playing the sample on both setups a bunch of times before the test.  When you are ready, she can enter the room, click one of them, you don't know.  After the sample (for whatever duration you decide as the test), she stops it, you write your results.  Repeat 20-30 times.  Let us know the results, I do trust you to be truthful.
   
  If you have a relatively long cable, it would be easier since you can literally be in separate rooms for the test.


----------



## wavoman

Trogdor's protocol is perfect, and better than doing classic A/B/X.  Here, you will be presented with a long sequence of A's and B's in random order, and you classify each one as you hear it:  A or B.  You write down your answer silently, do not call it out to your friend.
   
  Your friend should flip a coin each time: heads she plays A, tails she plays B.  She writes down her sequence of course.
   
  You can listen as long as you like to each random sample.  You can even ask to hear A again or B again correctly identified any time you like (then the random trials continue).  If you take a breather and ask to hear the samples correctly identified, your friend should note this on the record of the trials she is keeping.
   
  You have avoided in this way most of the objections raised against blind testing.
   
  Flip the coin 25 times a session, and repeat for 4 sessions -- that would be ideal.
   
  Post the results -- the full sequences of plays and classifications (not just the totals).  We have plenty of statisticians here who can compute the significance for all to see.


----------



## nick_charles

Some odd findings:
   
  When I ran FooBar and the ASIO driver for the Musiland the fooBar output was way off. There were deviations from the reference of over 11db at some frequencies, disabling the ASIO driver in FooBar fixed this and the playback was as close to identical to the reference as makes no difference.
   
  When trying to record from lilith into Cool Edit Pro starting Lilith caused CEP to blip nastily, further the recorded file was now 2000 samples shorter than it should have been, I tried this 5 times allowing CEP time to recover but each time the recording came up short.
   
  Will try one more using a 2 PC setup
   
  Frankly quite puzzled by all this...
   
  reran using separate play and record PCs
  ------------------------------------------------------------
   
  Foobar behaved itself and output exactly 32768 samples no problem, Lilith output 31260 samples i.e 1508 samples shy of the target i.e about 0.0342 seconds lost from the end. Without knowing more about why this is happening it seems impossible to reccomend this player.


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Some odd findings:
> 
> When I ran FooBar and the ASIO driver for the Musiland the fooBar output was way off. There were deviations from the reference of over 11db at some frequencies, disabling the ASIO driver in FooBar fixed this and the playback was as close to identical to the reference as makes no difference.
> 
> ...


 

 Very interesting findings...


----------



## donunus

depending on the dac used via usb, latency settings matter quite a bit for example... Those are other things to factor in this music player sound quality saga


----------



## donunus

By the way, Foobar has a slightly tighter bass than ulilith IMO but again the mids seem more analog if thats the right word on ulilith. Maybe because the mids have a slightly more forward presence and the bass is a little less snappy that it seems more analog hmm. It could all be placebo though... I really want foobar to sound better because of the interface darnit 
   
  For a lot of music, the differences are too small that I may as well really call placebo.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





draca said:


> Very interesting findings...


 


 One to puzzle about over a pint of Morrells. Too many variables though, could be Vista, could be my setup, could be the player, could be ASIO, could be the hardware, not reading Japanese does not help, though I do have an old pal (an LMH graduate) in Japan, maybe I will call in a favour and get a translation...


----------



## donunus

why is your ulilith in japanese? maybe download another build? the one like mine perhaps


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





donunus said:


> why is your ulilith in japanese? maybe download another build? the one like mine perhaps


 


 Link ?


----------



## Marantz

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Link ?


 

 I think he has downloaded lilith and not ulilith by mistake.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Link ?


 

 I think this is where I downloaded mine.


----------



## leeperry

nick_charles said:


> Link ?


 

 the latest a the bottom: http://www.project9k.jp/download/uLilith/
  
  I took care of the english translation, but english is not my native tongue...so lemme know if you see errors.
   
*@donunus:* yes, that's the one...now go ahead and try to justify why you think uLilith sounds better, besides you've used many more audiophool words than I did


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> the latest a the bottom: http://www.project9k.jp/download/uLilith/
> 
> I took care of the english translation, but english is not my native tongue...so lemme know if you see errors.
> 
> *@donunus:* yes, that's the one...now go ahead and try to justify why you think uLilith sounds better, besides you've used many more audiophool words than I did


 


 Many thanks for the link, that works very nicely ! now I can adjust the settings and see if that makes a difference..optimized settings , best lilith capture to date, Lilith now a mere 206 samples or 1/220th of a second short


----------



## Zorlac

Guys...someone posted an interesting link the other day that may help us find the true answer. Only problem is I am not sure how to get the hardware/software to do it.
   
  Take a look:
   
http://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/reading-sample-rate/


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> *@donunus:* yes, that's the one...now go ahead and try to justify why you think uLilith sounds better, besides you've used many more audiophool words than I did


 

 Actually I desperately want foobar to sound better because of the interface


----------



## leeperry

tell me about it, uLilith doesn't allow custom mixing matrixes(foobar and ffdshow do)...so I cannot use the Logic7 5.1>stereo downmix matrix on my 24/96 5.1 lossless SACD rips....ah well, uLilith's coder told me he'd implement it when he has time, so no biggy


----------



## ROBSCIX

Surprised nobody has asked what source people were using when hearing their differences or not hearing them.


----------



## donunus

I think I posted earlier that I thought the differences were bigger before using a different dac/amp/ and headphones but I never got into detail and comparing an old system to this new one won't really be valid since its been a while. Anyway I am not even sure if it was my havana dac, my emu0404usb or my valab that I was using along with my ldmk2 (with various tubes) before when I tested ulilith. Headphones back then were either the Audio Technica AD900 or the Sennheiser HD580. Now my system is even more simple and minimalistic, I'm just using a Nuforce Udac mostly out of its headphone jack to power my beyer dt150s using velour pads.


----------



## leeperry

donunus said:


> I thought the differences were bigger


 
   
  DBT or go home!
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  darn it's funny to be on the skeptical side again


----------



## donunus

waaahahaha  I'm alternating between foobar and ulilith this month and decide by the end of june which one is the winner hehehe


----------



## regal

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> but uLilith and Reclock *are* bit-perfect...they don't "add" any DSP whatsoever...even their coders don't believe that bit-perfect players can sound different. XXHighEnd I find it hard to believe, I'd need to see a DTS/HDCD live test in video to believe it


 

  
  Lee, I'm afraid you let the cat out of the bag with this post.   Asking to see a video feed of a live DTS/HDCD test comfirms that you don't have the equipment or energy to do this yourself.
   
  This tells me that these different "bit perfect" software players you are praising haven't been validated to be bit perfect on _your _hardware/software combination.  I don't know how many times I've been told something was bitperfect only to test it and find it wasn't on my rig.
   
  Get Windows 7 and a $100 DTS home theater reciever and get back to us.  I'll explain the Win 7 thing after you've cooled down.


----------



## leeperry

hehe my regal friend, you didn't make it to the new ignore list sadly(<fixed>)...you called me a shill for Burson a little while ago, now I'm a shill for free software I presume? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  the HDCD/DTS tests have been done for Reclock, and uLilith's coder has done all the tests in the world on his side...now you do your homework, as I said earlier I couldn't care less that ppl use those players...as far as I'm concerned you guys can listen to 64kbit MP3 on a Realtek in WMP, it can't possibly be any worse than foobar


----------



## donunus

Regal,
  What is the windows 7 thing? As for me, I did notice that windows 7 makes the differences between players less obvious than they were when I used xp.


----------



## leeperry

it's the latest OS from m$(or so I heard 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), regal has wonderful secrets to learn us about it: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/06/17/improving-audio-glitch-resilience-in-windows-7.aspx


----------



## shimm

Quote: 





robscix said:


> Surprised nobody has asked what source people were using when hearing their differences or not hearing them.


 

 Well, i'd say in my system (XP, Essence ST) even mp3 sounds great with MPC/ReClock.


----------



## regal

Notice Mr Perry declined to perform the bitperfect test on his rig, he doesn't understand the simple concept that computer transport & software have to be TESTED prior to deeming them bit perfect.  Why?  Because all motherboards, sound cards, and installations are different. 
   
  Just because a player is bitperfect for one does not mean it is going to be bitperfect on everyones setup. 
   
  So his whole argument while may be true doesn't hold any water till he tests to show that he _is_ comparing bitperfect outputs from each software music player.
   
   
  The M$ blog sums up the Windows 7 thing.


----------



## shimm

Crazy idea maybe: two players are bit perfect for sound recording programm, _but not_ for sound device [SD].
  In this case we should record outputs of players first, if they both are identical - record outputs of SD for these players and compare them.
  If they are different, we should check which one is closer to original.


----------



## regal

Exactly there are a lot of sound cards out there that are not bit perfect with foobar or any other software. Some soundcard drivers will output bitperfect with one piece of software and not another,  I've seen it. 
   
   
  Lee's been popping his mouth off  without a baseline to prove anything and as he says he doesn't care.  He doesn't post to help folks learn or find better software,  he just wants to start a war.
   
  No one has all the answers but to say one bit-perfect software player sounds better than an other you should make sure they are both out-putting bit-perfect before you start a campaign. 
   
  I personally think there is some merit to the theory but someone more knowledgable than lee needs to do the critical listening. JMHO


  
  Quote: 





shimm said:


> Crazy idea maybe: two players are bit perfect for sound recording programm, _but not_ for sound device [SD].
> In this case we should record outputs of players first, if they both are identical - record outputs of SD for these players and compare them.
> If they are different, we should check which one is closer to original.


----------



## shimm

Quote:


> Exactly there are a lot of sound cards out there that are not bit perfect with foobar or any other software. Some soundcard drivers will output bitperfect with one piece of software and not another


 
  Of course, we should use KS/WASAPI for comparation in both cases and sources 44/16. If there are another parts of sw/hw that make differents in personal systems, then all these talks about player's "bitperfectness" have no sense.
  Quote: 





> Lee's been popping his mouth off  without a baseline to prove anything and as he says he doesn't care.  He doesn't post to help folks learn or find better software,  he just wants to start a war


 
  I don't agree with this. I don't know any another person in the net who posts proof links as mach as leeperry.  
  You guys just haven't seen real trolls here...
  Quote: 





> I personally think there is some merit to the theory but someone more knowledgable than lee needs to do the critical listening


 
  I agree this time, but there is that knowledgable person? Anyone??


----------



## leeperry

shimm said:


> I don't agree with this. I don't know any another person in the net who posts proof links as much as leeperry.


 
   
  even when you show highly technical proofs to those ppl, they still play dumb...or maybe they don't play


----------



## Shike

Quote:


leeperry said:


> even when you show highly technical proofs to those ppl, they still play dumb...or maybe they don't play


 
 That's funny - you haven't provided a single piece of definitive proof.


----------



## regal

Links on the net are what get you in trouble,  perfect example here is Lee saw a post that this software player passed a DTS test on some guys system,  then he makes the leap of faith that it means its bit perfect on his rig and everyones computers.
   
  Personally I could do some testing this weekend. Bit Perfect output is a passion of mine has I have a large collection of 44.1khz DTS and HDCD encoded material along with several HDCD DACs and a home theater reciever that decodes DTS and HDCD.
   
  I also have a dual boot computer with WIn7x64 and XP.  The upgrade in SQ I got going to Win 7 is the reason I believe there to be merit to the theory that different bitperfect software may sound different.  However the issue isn't jitter,  its micro second dropouts that are barely heard but make the music grainy.  I suspect that with Win 7 there will be no differences,  with Xp there will.   So thats my hypothesis.  Testing is the only way to learn one way or the other.
   
   
  Quote: 





shimm said:


> Quote:
> 
> I don't agree with this. I don't know any another person in the net who posts proof links as mach as leeperry.


----------



## donunus

ulilith does seem grainier than foobar but the graininess seems to contribute to this extra reverb detail I'm hearing. I'm not sure what it is. Foobar seems cleaner but a little more boring in the mids. Now as to which one is more bitperfect I have no idea. This graininess is the analog sounding analogy i was referring to in one of the earlier posts. Thats also what  heard before with ulilith.


----------



## regal

The problem is if you don't know if its bit perfect it just doesn't really mean much.  With Ozone Izoptope VST I can make any software player sound fantastic,  but thats mastering not being a transport.  A transports function is to reproduce the CD bit for bit nothing more.
   
  I did a quick setup of the stealth audio player.  It refuses to decode flac for whatever reason, so I had to use wav files.  I guess you need to know DOS.  Anyway it passes the bit-perfect test using ASIO on Win 7X64 EMU0404 PCI with my mother board, etc, etc.  I can't do any quality comparisons today as I am working on my amp.   It is an interesting little program to be so small is an advantage.


----------



## regal

You have to put the flac.dll in the same folder as the stealth audio player,  then it will play flack files anywhere with a right click open with.  Pretty cool.  Back to the putting my amp back together.


----------



## Draca

Thanks for all the fascinating information regal!
   
  @nick_charles: any developments in your testing?


----------



## leeperry

donunus said:


> ulilith does seem grainier than foobar


 
   
  OK, what chunk size if I may ask?
   
  like pigeon grain? 

  or finer maybe? 


   
  I start wondering how to measure audio graininess, I'll get back to ya on this!


----------



## Zorlac

I really think we are going to need help from a hardcore DIYer that is willing to install Twisted Pear Audio's Audio Controller 1 (AC-1)and have it read the sample rate directly from the DAC's DPLL register values. This will tell us exactly what the difference is between OSes, drivers, software players, etc., etc.
   
  Here are the two links again about the AC-1:
   
http://www.twistedpearaudio.com/forum/default.aspx?g=topics&f=41
   
http://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/reading-sample-rate/
   
  PS: Wish I had the knowledge to implement this myself!


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> OK, what chunk size if I may ask?
> 
> like pigeon grain?
> 
> ...


 

 It is sort of like a subtle version of those vinyl rips we were talking about. Like comparing a new beatles remaster vs an old vinyl rip. The old vinyls are undoubtedly grainier than the new remasters but are more pleasureable to listen to sometimes. The differences are so subtle here though with the players when using windows 7 that I won't object to anyone saying that it is placebo.


----------



## leeperry

donunus said:


> The differences are so subtle here though with the players when using windows 7


   
  Real men use XP. They keep bloating the whole OS since Vista...more background processes doing god knows what sneakily in the background and hogging your system, more bloat in the video department w/ that pesky Aero hogging the VSYNC, more bloat in the audio engine...like forcing you to set a fixed sample rate, now who came up w/ such a dumb idea?? m$ are just doing it wrong, they wanna market the MacOS ppl. Not to blame them, these are the ppl paying for software....they want a dumbed down GUI, m$ delivers.
   
  Many ppl prefer KS in XP over WASAPI in W7, duh.
   
  W8 should be out soon enough, maybe they won't screw up again...many ppl prefer Vista over W7 too hah. I'm the local admin of my box, I want to control each and every background process running on my system.


----------



## donunus

dunno about the whole bloat thing on the OS front. All I'm saying is that I did notice a difference in sound when changing from OS to OS. xp to vista then to w7. Again, people can call it placebo since I did not do any scientific tests. With XP I thought my players had bigger differences in sound against each other.


----------



## leeperry

the differences between players on XP are hard to miss, except for the deaf/nocebo ppl that is


----------



## leeperry

and I still rest my case that it's not a matter of the other players sounding "better" than foobar, it's just foobar that's....foobar'ed: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/multimedia/display/asus-xonar_9.html


> Foobar works inaccurately which can be easily demonstrated with measurements.


 
   
   bit-perfect ASIO in foobar? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   


> The choice of the software player is important for sound cards


 
   
   you don't say 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  as Michel Audiard made Jean Gabin say in "Les Grandes Familles": "_I'm not against apologies, I'm even willing to accept some_" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
http://www.michelaudiard.com/dialogues/dialoguesLesgrandes.htm


----------



## muad

lol you hack! That test was done with asio 0.9. and the version is at 1.2.7 now.... retest or go find somewhere else to troll
   
  this is wrong!
   
  Quote: 





> Foobar works inaccurately which can be easily demonstrated with measurements.


 
   
   
   
  this is what it actually says!
   
  Quote: 





> the version 0.9 ASIO playback plugin for Foobar works inaccurately which can be easily demonstrated with measurements.


----------



## donunus

My comparisons by the way were made using wasapi on foobar under w7


----------



## muad

Im using the same as you, and I don't think I could pass an abx test between ulilith and foobar if the volumes were matched....


----------



## leeperry

muad said:


> That test was done with asio 0.9. and the version is at 1.2.7 now.... retest


 
   
  sorry, I don't use foobar...It makes my ears bleed for some reason 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  they have to prove that they are finally bit-perfect now(about time?), why should I prove that they aren't? you got it backward my little friend.


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Real men use XP. They keep bloating the whole OS since Vista...more background processes doing god knows what sneakily in the background and hogging your system, more bloat in the video department w/ that pesky Aero hogging the VSYNC, more bloat in the audio engine...like forcing you to set a fixed sample rate, now who came up w/ such a dumb idea?? m$ are just doing it wrong, they wanna market the MacOS ppl. Not to blame them, these are the ppl paying for software....they want a dumbed down GUI, m$ delivers.
> 
> ...


 

 Real men DON'T use XP, seeing as it has no more security updates.  Also, you can turn off Aero, and control every process.  I should know, since at one time I had only six running on my netbook.  Also, you keep talking about having to set a single sampling rate in Win7.  But, WASAPI bypasses that.  Mine's set to 24/96, but I've tested it to output 16/44.1 when I had a file playing via WASAPI.
   
  Many people?  o.O  Who are these people?  Were they blind tests from the exact same hardware?  Not through emulation layers?
   
  Windows 8 should enter beta in July 2011.  Also, polls have shown that many people prefer Win7 over Vista/XP.  And you can control each and every background process.  It's called the services applet.


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





muad said:


> Im using the same as you, and I don't think I could pass an abx test between ulilith and foobar if the volumes were matched....


 

 Isn't the volume automatically matched at 100% for both players (meaning both at 0db at 100% volume)? If not then isn't that already a sign that they don't sound the same?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





draca said:


> Thanks for all the fascinating information regal!
> 
> @nick_charles: any developments in your testing?


 

 No more yet, Lilith still refuses to output the reference sample correctly, it trims off the last 220th of a second, I am still messing about with the settings, this time in English thanks to LeePerry, will update if get better results...


----------



## leeperry

donunus said:


> Isn't the volume automatically matched at 100% for both players? If not then isn't that already a sign that they don't sound the same?


 
   
  huh oh...looks like someone opened Pandora's box.
  


nick_charles said:


> No more yet, Lilith still refuses to output the reference sample correctly, it trims off the last 220th of a second, I am still messing about with the settings


 
   
  tried to change the mode from crosfeed to gapless? in ASIO/WASAPI/DS? in FLAC and WAV?
   
  FWIW, I do get gapless audio...I can't hear any glitch in gapless albums using ASIO4ALL.


----------



## donunus

also could the crossfading volume in ulilith possibly be the reason for those tweaky samples?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> tried to change the mode from crosfeed to gapless? in ASIO/WASAPI/DS? in FLAC and WAV?


 


 Using gapless and WASAPI and wav


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





muad said:


> lol you hack! That test was done with asio 0.9. and the version is at 1.2.7 now.... retest or go find somewhere else to troll
> 
> this is wrong!
> 
> ...


 
   
  Nice find muad!
   
  Love how leeperry has been shown to be intellectually dishonest about pretty much everything...


----------



## donunus

I was using gapless too but every time you cue a track it would still fade in the music. Its gapless between tracks though.


----------



## leeperry

nick_charles said:


> Using gapless and WASAPI and wav


 
   
  Might wanna try FLAC, I think WAV is decoded through DirectShow and there are some known issues w/ WavPack through DS for instance...FLAC/APE are 100% gapless for me in ASIO.
   


donunus said:


> I was using gapless too but every time you cue a track it would still fade in the music. Its gapless between tracks though.


 

 Yes, seeking is also making use of fade in/fade out...you can disable this "mixer" in lilith but not in uLilith. Gapless still does work.
   
  Can't tell on W7, but usually they have "(with Mixer)" in the renderers options.


----------



## donunus

again and again my ears tell me that foobar has more recessed mids than ulilith. I need to get a check up. Placebo levels are super high. I really do believe that it could be placebo but my ears are not allowing me to hear foobar as the one with more mids even if I do some mind control. Foobar consistently has an edginess in the higher part of the mids making it more aggressive even though less forward while ulilith has a more forward midrange right smack in the middle
   
  EDIT: I can understand by what leeperry meant by ulilith being more laid back while some others said at first its more forward. Its the upper mids that are more forward with foobar while the lower mids I hear ulilith as being more forward. Its like foobar=digital, ulilith more analog. Very minute differences here compared to comparing an analog vs a digital rig but those are the the directions these player gravitate towards in character.


----------



## leeperry

donunus said:


> even if I do some mind control.


 
   
  maybe you just need some EXtreme Ear RESolution 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   


donunus said:


> foobar=digital, ulilith more analog.


 
   
  I really think I'm having a bad influence on you...but yes, I fully agree


----------



## darkswordsman17

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> sorry, I don't use foobar...It makes my ears bleed for some reason
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 Wait, so you trash foobar this whole thread, but you don't even use it? Doesn't that make pretty much all of your comments worthless then? So, what exactly were you arguing? It couldn't possibly have been anything pertaining to foobar that these other people are discussing since you don't even use it. 
   
  They have to prove it, but you don't have to disprove it when you're the one trashing it? What kind of logic is that?
   
  Too bad you didn't say that earlier, it would have certainly saved a lot of other people's time in responding to you.
   
  Quote: 





muad said:


> lol you hack! That test was done with asio 0.9. and the version is at 1.2.7 now.... retest or go find somewhere else to troll
> 
> this is wrong!
> 
> ...


 

 Yay, nothing like editing it to say what you want.
   
  leeperry do you have something to gain by trashing foobar and building up these other programs? I'd hope so, otherwise, what's the point of doing stuff like this?


----------



## leeperry

darkswordsman17 said:


> what's the point


 

 oh, I'm here for the fun 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 coz it's hard to deny that all the players sound different, have you read all the testimonials I've linked? Have you compared those players personally? The OP said he found a good player and usually those threads end up in 10 pages of "this is placebo, you're a nutcase that needs medical attention"....can you feel the winds of change? all the software I'm discussing is freeware btw.


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> maybe you just need some EXtreme Ear RESolution
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Sometimes though with beat driven music I prefer foobar because the beats seem snappier. The bottom line for me is that they are different and sometimes just like the vst plugins you prefer one effect over the other. As far as proving it is different on my system to everyone that is reading this, I'm afraid I don't know how to prove it further than just my listening.


----------



## JulioCat2

To me and my system, after several days of testing, the best player is MPC with Reclock and MadFlac, i try Foobar, Ulilith, KMPlayer, StealthPlayer, XXHighEnd all of them claim to be BitPerfect all of them sound different all of them pass the HDCD flag intact (i don't know if this is a good bitperfect test) so for the moment MPC is my favorite sounding player.


----------



## leeperry

juliocat2 said:


> To me and my system, after several days of testing, the best player is MPC with Reclock and MadFlac


 

 Yes, agreed! if it supported gapless that's what I'd be using...this is the tightest sound you can get on a PC, period.


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





juliocat2 said:


> To me and my system, after several days of testing, the best player is MPC with Reclock and MadFlac, i try Foobar, Ulilith, KMPlayer, StealthPlayer, XXHighEnd all of them claim to be BitPerfect all of them sound different all of them pass the HDCD flag intact (i don't know if this is a good bitperfect test) so for the moment MPC is my favorite sounding player.


 

 Link? and is there any special configurations I have to make sure are right to make sure i get the best quality?


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





donunus said:


> Link? and is there any special configurations I have to make sure are right to make sure i get the best quality?


 

 Just download Media Player Classic, madFlac, and the latest reclock.


----------



## donunus

whats the HC version here? Is this the same thing? http://mpc-hc.sourceforge.net/
   
  I just downloaded the 64 bit version. I hope it works with reclock


----------



## Hybrys

You know, it took me a SECOND of reading.  MPC is a discontinued project.  MPC-HC continues the development of MPC under a different project manager.


----------



## donunus

yah I know they are the same thing but sometimes specific versions sound better


----------



## leeperry

MPC can be found here(you don't need the "HC" version): http://www.xvidvideo.ru/media-player-classic/
   
  You can't use the x64 version because Reclock is 32bit only, and there's also a XP compatibility mode in Reclock if you wanna try KS instead of WASAPI Exclusive


----------



## donunus

Leeperry, Thanks. You see people complain that you are not helping the community and with smart alecs like hybrys no one complains. Go figure. Instead of posting a useful answer when someone asks a question you are being told that He read it in a second and that they are the same.


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





donunus said:


> Leeperry, Thanks. You see people complain that you are not helping the community and with* smart alecs like hybrys* no one complains. Go figure. Instead of posting a useful answer when someone asks a question you are being told that He read it in a second and that they are the same.


 

 Wow. Just wow.
   
  The reason why Hybrys said what he did was because you asked a redundant question. The page you linked explains exactly what the HC suffix meant:
   
  "This project is based on the original "Media Player Classic" and was created after Gabest, the original author, stopped working on it. Many new player features have been integrated in this player, such as..."


----------



## donunus

Well yah, my question was about how to set it right to make sure I am listening to how its supposed to sound best and was making sure that the version I linked would work like the mpc version they were talking about. leeperry answered it by saying that I should not use reclock with the 64 bit version which is all I needed to hear.
   
  EDIT: Sorry if I didn't get my question across very clear. English is not my first language


----------



## regal

Ok good post,  but you are batting 1 for 2,  which Operating System are you using ?
  
  Quote: 





juliocat2 said:


> To me and my system, after several days of testing, the best player is MPC with Reclock and MadFlac, i try Foobar, Ulilith, KMPlayer, StealthPlayer, XXHighEnd all of them claim to be BitPerfect all of them sound different all of them pass the HDCD flag intact (i don't know if this is a good bitperfect test) so for the moment MPC is my favorite sounding player.


----------



## donunus

mpc is nice at first listen. The first thing I noticed is that is is less fatiguing than foobar because its as if there is less edginess to its sound. similar to what i remember using kmplayer and my impressions on them before


----------



## donunus

could the differences just be due to the mp3 decoding codecs used for each player? Now after some more listening Ive pinpointed that Foobar is a little edgier because I notice it is more dynamic. The mpc actually is close in tonality to foobar but less dynamic. This actually explains why I think that ulilith sounds a little more analog than foobar. 
   
  Leeperry you should try foobar one more time with the latest version and see if you can agree with my findings. But then again were not using the same computer and OS. Still worth a shot though


----------



## leeperry

uLilith does 64bit float MP3 decoding using the LAME libraries, MPC uses libmad(if you use ffdshow you can select other decoders like libavcodec)....libmad has a few bugs w/ VBR but I like how it sounds...and you can set libmad to output 32float very easily in MPC(it's better to let Reclock take care of the final float>integer conversion).
   
  I already gave my impressions on all those players, I tried foobar 1.01 IIRC.


----------



## shimm

@donunus
  1. its not mpc's thing, its reclock's. MPC itself sounds worse then f2k.
  2. when new "bit perfect" driver for Essence ST' has been released i've immediately tried it with f2k 1.02. I was hoping it finally got close to ReClock. But no luck - it still far from it. I mean i would love to use f2k (and i was using it for ages in past), but now i can't while PP doesn't pay any attention to the best existing audio rendering technologies.


----------



## Hybrys

I've been thinking of trying to build a kind of DirectShow wrapper for Foobar.  If someone can definitively prove that Reclock has a positive effect on audio (or wants to pay a 'wage' for the finished working product), I'll get to work on it.


----------



## thuantran

Well, have u looked at foobar SDK, last time I checked, newer foobar does not allow 3rd party developer to write an output component (output component API is private), which is the only way I can think that can bypass foobar available output methods. Do you have other ideas?


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





thuantran said:


> Well, have u looked at foobar SDK, last time I checked, newer foobar does not allow 3rd party developer to write an output component (output component API is private), which is the only way I can think that can bypass foobar available output methods. Do you have other ideas?


 

 I do have some ideas.  Either somehow modifying an existing component, or some kind of data capture method.
   
  It seems possible.  I think I can get it working with an older version of Foobar via a DirectShow wrapper made in '08.  Trying in in F2K leaves it choking for a second, and the Reclock icon flashing.  An update to this, the component is made with 0.9.3, and 'works' in that version,  Still haven't gotten it to play FLACs through Reclock.  You can give it a try, though.  DS and Winamp 2 bridge found below.  Through some effort, you might be able to find an old version of the Winamp2 DShow output plugin, and get reclock to work through that bridge.  I'm going to bed.
   
  http://pelit.koillismaa.fi/plugins/index.php
  http://www.oldversion.com/Foobar2000.html


----------



## ROBSCIX

Well if some people with an idea of what they are talkaing about tries to help with development of these players then it is a good thing for people all around.


----------



## thuantran

I actually have 2 other ideas, but they are in violation of foobar license agreement:
   
  - A fake DSP component that write fake data downstream and you use null output as your audio renderer in foobar. As long as you're the first one in the DSP chain, you supposedly get the untouched audio data and what you do with it is up to you. I haven't looked hard enough, but I don't think foobar is capable of stopping this.
  - Reverse engineering the current available output plugin to find the services (methods) were used to pass data from foobar core to the output component then write a new output component. Someone did this actually http://acropolis.lokalen.org/2006/10/foobar2000/my-foobar2000-components/ ,  the component is hidden somewhere on his site. It's a DirectSound one though.
   
  @Hybrys: Did you mean the Winamp DSP bridge or what? Please be more specific. But tbh, I think your way introduce more variations instead of reducing them.


----------



## ROBSCIX

Well it would depends on how Foobar handles the stream and where the DSP's are introduced.  You can always make a suggestions to the authors or in the forums.


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





thuantran said:


> I actually have 2 other ideas, but they are in violation of foobar license agreement:
> 
> - A fake DSP component that write fake data downstream and you use null output as your audio renderer in foobar. As long as you're the first one in the DSP chain, you supposedly get the untouched audio data and what you do with it is up to you. I haven't looked hard enough, but I don't think foobar is capable of stopping this.
> - Reverse engineering the current available output plugin to find the services (methods) were used to pass data from foobar core to the output component then write a new output component. Someone did this actually http://acropolis.lokalen.org/2006/10/foobar2000/my-foobar2000-components/ ,  the component is hidden somewhere on his site. It's a DirectSound one though.
> ...


 

 Yes, the Winamp DSP bridge, or the newer Visualizations bridge.  Yes, it adds more variations, but it should be the same Foobar data transmission anyway.
   
  The fake DSP is my main idea.  It wouldn't be 'releasable', but, it might be possible.  I just don't get why no-one has done it.  You can grab the source for the VST wrapper as a base for sending the data stream to an outside application and work from there.  You also have to figure out the method that triggers Reclock in the first place, and add that to the component aswell, if it so supports it.
   
  Reverse engineering the output component might also be a decent idea.  From my glance at WASAPI as an API, it shouldn't be too complex.  Along with this, reverse engineering any of the components should actually be rather easy, since there's a document method for building then.  (IE: SDK)  All we'd have to do is guess and test interface calls that are still private.


----------



## ninjikiran

To beat a dead horse reclock sounds slightly louder, its VERY slight but even so its a noticeable gradation.  That is the best opinion I could come to without placebo taking effect which it did multiple times in favor of both using WASAPI exclusive mode.
   
  Never noticed any difference between native ASIO, and WASAPI.
   
  All that could be placebo as well, but if it is not immediately noticeable than it is really a non factor.  I just go with what sounds best and in this case of Reclock + MPC vs Foobar(since I find them just about the same besides that small volume bump), I think foobar has a better system for playlist so I stick with it.
   
  As for opamps, it really seems to just depend on the kind of upgrades you make.  I find opamps to be more bandaids to fix  annoyances on the lower end of the scale(Like piercing highs, and annoying s's, listening to Doom Train on my default opamp was painful, but on my newer opamp it is no longer painful to me ears(no more cringing).  Never tried higher end, larger and better designed opamps though.
   
  excuse the grammar and overused commas, I am not 100% atm.


----------



## regal

I compared the Stealth Player vs Foobar ASIO,  both verified bitperfect.  Win 7x64 8GB Ram, Q9550, Emu 0404 PCI.    I could not distinguish one player from the other.


----------



## leeperry

ninjikiran said:


> As for opamps, it really seems to just depend on the kind of upgrades you make.  I find opamps to be more bandaids to fix  annoyances on the lower end of the scale


 

 It all depends on the quality of your PSU...using opamps on a cheapo SMPS, or worse a computer shared PSU is indeed about polishing a turd.


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





regal said:


> I compared the Stealth Player vs Foobar ASIO,  both verified bitperfect.  Win 7x64 8GB Ram, Q9550, Emu 0404 PCI.    I could not distinguish one player from the other.


 

 what about foobar asio vs foobar wasapi?


----------



## ROBSCIX

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> It all depends on the quality of your PSU...using opamps on a cheapo SMPS, or worse a computer shared PSU is indeed about polishing a turd.


 


 Hmm, I wonder why many internal soundcards measure better then their external counterparts for noise...etc?  While power is a factor, it is no where near as bad as some people make it out to be. If it was the PC would never start up!


----------



## ROBSCIX

Quote: 





ninjikiran said:


> As for opamps, it really seems to just depend on the kind of upgrades you make.  I find opamps to be more bandaids to fix  annoyances on the lower end of the scale(Like piercing highs, and annoying s's, listening to Doom Train on my default opamp was painful, but on my newer opamp it is no longer painful to me ears(no more cringing).  Never tried higher end, larger and better designed opamps though.
> 
> excuse the grammar and overused commas, I am not 100% atm.


 

 Opamps can be used ot fix issue with the spectrum but they can also be used to tune your sound to your personal taste or gear.  Many sources these days come with sockets as they are mean to have higher grade opamps installed.  If your DAC or soundcard has opamp sockets, I would suggest you do some research into the topic as you can get great gains with small investments with regards to opamps.


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





robscix said:


> Hmm, I wonder why many internal soundcards measure better then their external counterparts for noise...etc?  While power is a factor, it is no where near as bad as some people make it out to be. If it was the PC would never start up!


 

 They measure great.  In a lab.  In a perfect scenario.
   
  And sometimes it IS so bad that PCs just fail.  Back 5 years ago, the first thing you'd check was the PSU, then the HDD.  Unstable rails, capacitor failings... etc.  They're getting better now, but one could argue that it's because of better power tolerance in components, not general quality of PSUs getting higher.


----------



## ROBSCIX

Quote: 





hybrys said:


> They measure great.  In a lab.  In a perfect scenario.
> 
> And sometimes it IS so bad that PCs just fail.  Back 5 years ago, the first thing you'd check was the PSU, then the HDD.  Unstable rails, capacitor failings... etc.  They're getting better now, but one could argue that it's because of better power tolerance in components, not general quality of PSUs getting higher.


 

 No they measure great for noise, on peoples desks in a less then perfect scenario.  It can be that bad sure, but modern PC PSU's are nowhere near that bad.  People that just regurgitate another post saying "internals are bad" with no clue about electrnoics or power system do little to help anybody.  They do nothing but spread more bad information based on misuderstood or bad information.
   
  You can measure an internal card even using simple RMAA and do the same with an external unit.  In some cases the card can measure better for noise etc...the point being if the noise is just so bad that it is induced into the card, where is it? -it should show up in simple measurments but it doesn't.  In kow a few guys that went with external linear PSU's to their internal cards for comparison and yet they noticed little to no gains.  Power is a factor but not as bad as many suggest it is.  Not to mention all the power cleaning circuitry in the system or card.
   
  There are good and bad examples of both internal and external.  One is not universally better for any reason.
   
  Anyway, this topics is a bit off topic from the orginal idea.


----------



## donunus

Is it possible at all that ASIO makes foobar seem to have a faster bass response than WASAPI?


----------



## leeperry

donunus said:


> Is it possible at all that ASIO makes foobar seem to have a faster bass response than WASAPI?


 

 The XXhighend coder(or cPlay, can't really remember) said that he really hated the sound of ASIO and really prefered WASAPI, he said there was a very clear color added to the sound. Ah well, it think it's about time we put an end to this pointless thread as noone here as the right gear to measure jitter anyway 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 : try all the players, and pick the one you prefer:
  -some can't hear a difference
  -some find Reclock "tighter" and "clearer"
  -some find foobar too harsh and amusical
  -some like the sweet sound of uLilith
  -some like the no-bs GUI of StealthPlayer
  -some find cPlay to sound better than anything else they've heard before
  -some say they can DBT XXHighEnd's different "modes"(they're all said to be bit-perfect BTW)...one thing's for sure XXH does something to the audio!


----------



## regal

Quote: 





donunus said:


> what about foobar asio vs foobar wasapi?


 

  
   
  Foobar Waaspi was not bitperfect with my system/soundcard therefore not a valid comparison.    People just don't get that,  you don't know if you are bitperfect till you test it!
     Hence why I say Lee is full of BS.


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





regal said:


> Foobar Waaspi was not bitperfect with my system/soundcard therefore not a valid comparison.    People just don't get that,  you don't know if you are bitperfect till you test it!
> Hence why I say Lee is full of BS.


 

 I'm sorry if it has already been mentioned before. How do I test on my system if foobar/wasapi and foobar/asio is bitperfect? Does it involve just looking at the waveform recorded from audacity or is there a special software that just analyzes if playback has no loss, etc...?
   
  And one more question, Is it possible in windows 7 to get bitperfect out of directsound?


----------



## regal

I don't know about Win 7,  but surprisingly the directsound usb driver from XP plays bit perfect on some USB transports, so I imagine in some cases yes.

 To test bit perfect with I'd say about 99% accuracy  play a HDCD thru your software player and see if the HDCD lights up on your HDCD decoding DAC/reciever.  Or download a DTS encoded wav file  stream that to a DTS home theater reciever (static= not bit perfect,  music=bitperfect.)   Its a simple concept that must be done empirically (a big word for Perry so I better explain.)    YOU CANNOT DEDUCE ASSUME OR THEORIZE THAT YOUR SYSTEM IS PLAYING BIT PERFECT IT MUST BE TESTED.
   
   
   
  Quote: 





donunus said:


> I'm sorry if it has already been mentioned before. How do I test on my system if foobar/wasapi and foobar/asio is bitperfect? Does it involve just looking at the waveform recorded from audacity or is there a special software that just analyzes if playback has no loss, etc...?
> 
> And one more question, Is it possible in windows 7 to get bitperfect out of directsound?


----------



## leeperry

donunus said:


> Is it possible in windows 7 to get bitperfect out of directsound?


 
   
  Nope, only on XP/2k when all the sliders are maxed out:  http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=49350&view=findpost&p=522247
   
  Vista/W7 are so obviously major improvements in the audio department


----------



## regal

Yea if you licke clicks, glitches, and micro-second misses in your audio XP is GRREAT.   Why do you always resort to HydrogenAudio like its the Bible,  why is it so difficult for you to test your system first hand?  I don't get it. 
   
  BTW your new avatar is much more appropriate to your personality.  Clint E. you ain't.
   
   
  Quote: 





leeperry said:


> Nope, only on XP/2k when all the sliders are maxed out:  http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=49350&view=findpost&p=522247
> 
> Vista/W7 are so obviously major improvements in the audio department


----------



## donunus

I downloaded a dts file with a wav extension and no matter if i played it using wasapi asio or directsound with foobar it was all static. vlc player played music. Is that saying vlc is bitperfect or is it just saying I am missing the codecs to play that file in foobar?


----------



## leeperry

I never get any glitches on XP, so I wouldn't know what you're talking about tbh 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  well, Dogbert existed before hydroponic-audio luckily, he's a major driver engineer that wishes to remain anynymous: http://code.google.com/p/cmediadrivers/
   
  and yes, most hydroponic ppl seem pretty deaf to me...their forum is like a religion that likes to debunk audio myths(KMixer's distortion's inaudible, jitter doesn't exist, all the cables sound the same, yada yada)...why don't post about your "harsh sounding" digital coax cables there?


----------



## regal

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> .why don't post about your "harsh sounding" digital coax cables there?


 


 I never said it was,  but was asking if it is possible,  psychoacoustics isn't a physical science last ime a looked


----------



## regal

Quote: 





donunus said:


> I downloaded a dts file with a wav extension and no matter if i played it using wasapi asio or directsound with foobar it was all static. vlc player played music. Is that saying vlc is bitperfect or is it just saying I am missing the codecs to play that file in foobar?


 


 You did the test correctly.  _As configured_   your system is not bitperfect output with VLC.  That doesn't mean we can generalize,  it is why I say everyone must test.  It also explains why you may prefer the sound of VLC over foobar (mastering could be being added behind the scenes.)   But it is not a good way to compare software players if one is bitperfect and the other not.  Catching on?   I am an old hat with this as my system requires true bitperfect output,  not "well the guys on hydrogenaudio set up the player like this and got bit perfect."


----------



## Hybrys

Don't you need the Foobar DTS decoder component first?
   
  http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_input_dts


----------



## regal

No if you did that you aren't testing anything but your players ability to decode!   
   
  Try to understand the concept of what you are doing when you do the DTS test.  If you need brushed up on the science behind it I can fill you in,  it will be a lengthly post.  I am glad that you are looking into it though thats better that half the buffons who claim bitperfect output from their computer.
  
  Quote: 





hybrys said:


> Don't you need the Foobar DTS decoder component first?
> 
> http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_input_dts


----------



## donunus

ahh ok so the only reason why vlc is playing the file is because it has these movie sound codecs built in and foobar doesn't. and I do prefer foobar over vlc by the way  vlc is a little dark and congested in comparison


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





regal said:


> No if you did that you aren't testing anything but your players ability to decode!
> 
> Try to understand the concept of what you are doing when you do the DTS test.  If you need brushed up on the science behind it I can fill you in,  it will be a lengthly post.  I am glad that you are looking into it though thats better that half the buffons who claim bitperfect output from their computer.


 

 Well, I've done it before in other media players. (Not on this laptop, I don't have DTS/digital output capabilities)  It's passthrough testing, right?  But, I was fairly sure that VLC has an internal decoder for DTS; it's not just a passthrough.  Also, you need a digital output and a receiver that can decode/lock to DTS signals for this test, don't you?  Just to clarify.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


leeperry said:


> I never get any glitches on XP, so I wouldn't know what you're talking about tbh
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Actually, it sounds like a forum actually asking for proof of claims.
   
  Sounds reasonable to me.  Oh - and they acknowledge jitter existing, the question is and always will be for a select few whether it's audible or not.
   
  @Hybrys
   
  Yes, you need to get a DTS lock and have a receiver or processor that confirms it.


----------



## leeperry

donunus said:


> vlc is a little dark and congested


 
   
  vlc only support DS, so no bit-perfect possible >XP. vlc does everything poorly, no idea why it's so famous.


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> vlc only support DS, so no bit-perfect possible >XP. vlc does everything poorly, no idea why it's so famous.


 

 ,,,What?  VLC doesn't even support DSound.  waveOut, PORTAUDIO, and DirectX outputs.  Plus you can link Reclock to it.


----------



## Trogdor

leeperry: They ask for proof.  It distinguishes the audiphiles from the the audio-phools.  And all cables (EDIT: well shielded) do sound the same until someone PROVES differently!
   
  I have already challenged a bunch of folks to DBT/ABX both their audio program (still waiting leeperry for your results) and cables.  I even called out one vendor at a meet to prove it and well, let's just say he couldn't distinguish his cable from a radio shack one.


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> vlc only support DS, so no bit-perfect possible >XP. vlc does everything poorly, no idea why it's so famous.


 

 Its so famous because without configuring anything or adding extra codecs to windows it makes watching any movie format foolproof


----------



## regal

Quote: 





hybrys said:


> Well, I've done it before in other media players. (Not on this laptop, I don't have DTS/digital output capabilities)  It's passthrough testing, right?  But, I was fairly sure that VLC has an internal decoder for DTS; it's not just a passthrough.  Also, you need a digital output and a receiver that can decode/lock to DTS signals for this test, don't you?  Just to clarify.


 

 Yes you must have a home theater reciever that Decodes DTS,  its 2011 and unless you are under the poverty level or under 30 years old you have one !  Connect it digitally,  no DSP's or any other software decoding working in the software on your computer.   If you hear music/soundtrack and not static,  turn your volume down on your software and your music should turn to static,  You now have proven beyond reasonable doubt bit perfectness.


----------



## regal

I just did see a page back,  and again no audio program DBT/ABX is worth a grain of salt without first a DTS test on each program,  why is this so hard to understand?
   
  People have so little understanding that I think I will have foobar setup with Ozone and master the crap out of a piece and DBT/ABX vs a simple bit perfect player.   Folks will pick the mastered material 100-1,   the point is unless you prove bitperfect before the DBT/ABX the test is meaniless.
  Quote: 





trogdor said:


> I have already challenged a bunch of folks to DBT/ABX both their audio program (still waiting leeperry for your results) and cables.  I even called out one vendor at a meet to prove it and well, let's just say he couldn't distinguish his cable from a radio shack one.


----------



## leeperry

hybrys said:


> VLC [..] you can link Reclock to it.


 

 no, you cannot use Reclock in VLC AFAIK, it's been thoroughly discussed on the Reclock forum:
http://www.spicygreeniguana.com/home-cinema-hifi/106470-i-do-not-manage-reclock.html
http://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?t=26942
   
  KMP does everything vlc does, just better...vlc is worthless, and KMP does many things vlc would only dream about(like seamless playback on up to 100 video files)
   
  I like to plug my phone directly to my DAC to get a good idea of the sonic color when I roll opamps, and I've got 3 short RCA>minijack adapters that sound *way* different...so much for all the cables sounding the same haha.
   
  Do you honestly believe that all the ppl who pay for recabling are mentally challenged? I can DBT those 3 adapters anytime anywhere...but well, it's same as w/ opamps and media players...there's the ppl who don't have wooden ears, use transparent-enough gear and try....and there's the ppl who seem religious about the fact that everything sounds the same hah. Either they have untrained ears(yes you need to train your ears for subtle changes) and/or crappy gear, or as a last resort a bad case of nocebo


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> I like to plug my phone directly to my DAC to get a good idea of the sonic color when I roll opamps, and I've got 3 short RCA>minijack adapters that sound *way* different...so much for all the cables sounding the same haha.
> 
> Do you honestly believe that all the ppl who pay for recabling are mentally challenged? I can DBT those 3 adapters anytime anywhere...but well, it's same as w/ opamps and media players...there's the ppl who don't have wooden ears, use transparent-enough gear and try....and there's the ppl who seem religious about the fact that everything sounds the same hah. Either they have untrained ears(yes you need to train your ears for subtle changes) and/or crappy gear, or as a last resort a bad case of nocebo


 

 The only way I can see rolling of opamps making a difference is if they're oscillating in the circuit or were designed wrong (oscillating) from the beginning, at least on ones that measure within the range of audibility from one another.
   
  As for your recabling response, let's see how you attack us again:
   
  Attack 1)  Put words in our mouths
  Attack 2)  Wooden Ears
  Attack 3)  Our gear
  Attack 4)  Denial / Ego
  Attack 5)  Untrained ears
  Attack 6)  Our gear (again)
  Attack 7)  Denial (again)
   
  What was this about not attacking the criteria of other users?  You would also notice that none of those claims should impact your ability to do a valid DBT anyway, but you just take this as an opportunity to attack others again.  I doubt I'd consider a DBT from you without a few unbiased 3rd parties overseeing it now - I don't trust your maturity to release untampered results should you fail it.  You tend to instill distrust with your actions honestly.


----------



## regal

Why don't we keep this as software player vs software player SQ thread.  Cables have another forum.   I suspect the software player myth can be shot to death pretty easily, or we could all be pleasantly surprised.
   
  Cables is a never ending spiral,  I'm a trained engineer and can't rule out cables although I've never spent more than $20 for one.   This new software voodo is easily dispelled or proven valid.
   
   
  Quote: 





shike said:


> The only way I can see rolling of opamps making a difference is if they're oscillating in the circuit or were designed wrong (oscillating) from the beginning, at least on ones that measure within the range of audibility from one another.
> 
> As for your recabling response, let's see how you attack us again:
> 
> ...


----------



## Shike

Quote:


regal said:


> Why don't we keep this as software player vs software player SQ thread.  Cables have another forum.   I suspect the software player myth can be shot to death pretty easily, or we could all be pleasantly surprised.
> 
> Cables is a never ending spiral,  I'm a trained engineer and can't rule out cables although I've never spent more than $20 for one.   This new software voodo is easily dispelled or proven valid.


 
 That really wasn't the point of my post.  He keeps attacking others rabidly without a single shred of evidence.  If you note, he also includes audio players and not just cables in his swipes at us.


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> http://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?t=26942


 

 You're trying to fault VLC for jerky playback in a NIGHTLY build?  You do understand programming life cycles, right?
   
  I've never had a problem with it.  Infact, I like the interface better than KMP/MPC, and have no reason to switch.


----------



## donunus

I like vlc too. For movies for laptop use, vlc's simplicity is unparalleled. AVI, mpg movies arent that great sounding anyway for me to care about the smallest of differences with bitperfect, directsound, etc...


----------



## b0dhi

Quote: 





regal said:


> I suspect the software player myth can be shot to death pretty easily, or we could all be pleasantly surprised.


 
   
  Agreed. This is one of the easier audio questions to resolve. All it would take is someone with a DAC where the clock is generated at the DAC end rather than the PC end, and which is digitally isolated from the PC. Such a DAC would be impervious to any possible software, PC or transport related effects. If someone using such a DAC thought software players sounded different, we'd know it was placebo.


----------



## regal

Quote: 





shike said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> regal said:
> ...


 

 10-4 and agreed


  
  Quote: 





donunus said:


> I like vlc too. For movies for laptop use, vlc's simplicity is unparalleled. AVI, mpg movies arent that great sounding anyway for me to care about the smallest of differences with bitperfect, directsound, etc...


 


 Yes for watching avg, mpg movies bitperfect doesn't typically matter.    But if it is encoded with DTS or AC3 having a bitperfect playback can give you true surround sound from your reciever.  Even Prologic can be f-up by not having a bitperfect playback.    I don't know of any multimedia players that are bitperfect as I don't use my computer for movies yet.  The AVS forum has good info.


----------



## donunus

Isn't kmplayer with reclock bitperfect with movies? anyway, I dont have a home theater receiver with dts which is why I got confused with the whole argument earlier with the static with dts files  I'm still in the stone age with my stereo integrated amp hehehe


----------



## donunus

BTT Is there some kind of receiver dts input simulator software of some sort where we can test the bitperfect thing? That would be a cool piece of test software 
   
  For now, Ive got to bring my laptop to a friends place just to test all my players using wasapi and asio to check for bitperfect output... Also, since I am using a nuforce udac I am assuming the coax out of the udac should be fine for testing. If it never registers as bitperfect with any player using either asio or wasapi then I will now doubt the D to D conversion inside the uDac from usb to coax.


----------



## leeperry

b0dhi said:


> All it would take is someone with a DAC where the clock is generated at the DAC end rather than the PC end, and which is digitally isolated from the PC.


 
   
  Well, the cPlay coder says that players sound different due to software jitter within the windows kernel...I really don't see what the DAC you are describing could do about that as the clock has to be generated from the computer...you cannot send a S/PDIF signal w/o clocking, and the XXHighEnd coder has measured jitter from foobar and his player and they were drastically different...he even found that foobar was always using the same "pattern". Trying what you just said would be like eating soup w/ a fork(besides being completely impossible). We need someone w/ the right gear to measure jitter to work on all those players...but I guess we won't find someone to do that anyway.
   
  if you find Reclock/foobar/XXHighEnd to sound exactly the same on XP(using bit-perfect KS/ASIO) or on W7(from what donunus says), I think it's time to question your gear and/or your hearing tbh.
   
  here's something to train your ears: http://www.moultonlabs.com/full/product01/
   
  It learns you how to identify resonant frequencies by ear etc etc....so until someone comes up w/ independent jitter measurements like on those two links....we can spend another 50 pages making fun at one another..."you lunatic placebo clown" <> "you tin ears nocebo deaf fruitcake" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CPlay.SoftwareInducedJitter
   
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.0;all
   


donunus said:


> I like vlc too. For movies for laptop use, vlc's simplicity is unparalleled. AVI, mpg movies arent that great sounding anyway for me to care about the smallest of differences with bitperfect, directsound, etc...


 

 watching movies w/o Reclock(taking care of perfect smoothness in 48/96Hz) makes my eyes bleed...I cannot stand dropped frames


----------



## regal

So you are using the uDAC as a transport?  
   
  Quote: 





donunus said:


> BTT Is there some kind of receiver dts input simulator software of some sort where we can test the bitperfect thing? That would be a cool piece of test software
> 
> For now, Ive got to bring my laptop to a friends place just to test all my players using wasapi and asio to check for bitperfect output... Also, since I am using a nuforce udac I am assuming the coax out of the udac should be fine for testing. If it never registers as bitperfect with any player using either asio or wasapi then I will now doubt the D to D conversion inside the uDac from usb to coax.


----------



## regal

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> if you find Reclock/foobar/XXHighEnd to sound exactly the same on XP(using bit-perfect KS/ASIO) or on W7(from what donunus says), I think it's time to question your gear and/or your hearing tbh.


 


 Guy just doesn't grasp the concept.  There is no such thing as "bit perfect KS/ASIO"  Bit perfect comes from the hardware and software- computer to the digital out.  I have seen plenty KS and ASIO setups that weren't bit perfect.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> Well, the cPlay coder says that players sound different due to software jitter within the windows kernel...
> 
> *And has yet to prove it of course.*
> 
> ...


 

 Responses in bold.


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





shike said:


> Responses in bold.


 

 Well said.


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> watching movies w/o Reclock(taking care of perfect smoothness in 48/96Hz) makes my eyes bleed...I cannot stand dropped frames


 

 This sort of hyperbole and sensationalism has been making my brain bleed for the last 21 pages.


----------



## leeperry

well I cannot stand dropped frames, I really can't...it completely ruins my movie experience! I watch movies on a big projection screen and I want them butter smooth from start to end...Reclock is a god bless, I'm sorry for you if you watch your movies in 60Hz...we all have different standards I guess, don't be offended to have low ones, you should be proud as anything will fit you...how convenient! I also hate to watch movies on a display that's not perfectly calibrated...and I'm far from being the only one either.
   
  many ppl love the d2k and the Pro750, to my ears they are ***** ****. you can mod a d2k as much as you like, you'll still be polishing a turd(as Uncle Erik would say)


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> well I cannot stand dropped frames, I really can't...it completely ruins my movie experience! I watch movies on a big projection screen and I want them butter smooth from start to end...Reclock is a god bless, I'm sorry for you if you watch your movies in 60Hz...we all have different standards I guess, don't be offended to have low ones, you should be proud as anything will fit you...how convenient! I also hate to watch movies on a display that's not perfectly calibrated...and I'm far from being the only one either.
> 
> many ppl love the d2k and the Pro750, to my ears they are ***** ****. you can mod a d2k as much as you like, you'll still be polishing a turd(like Uncle Erik would say)


 

 May I suggest you see someone about your passive-aggressive issues?


----------



## leeperry

well, you're pretty much all on my ignore list tbh...this is a sterile discussion, we all have different gear/hearing capabilities/standards..."_ignorance is bliss_", remember? I'm glad you like to watch movies in 60Hz on an uncalibrated display and use foobar for music....as least you're not picky, women like that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  that Draca guy always tries to catch me wrong in the video department...hehehe, good luck I'd say...I'm not exactly talking out of my *** when it comes to colorimetry and calibration(I've learned from the best 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




).
   
  You need to train your eyes to catch bad colorimetry or the usual problems found on LCD videoprojectors(vertical banding, shading, misconvergence, etc etc)...reason why I prefer DLP. It's the same w/ audio, majkel can hear large differences between all those opamps...just like Andrea, SpudHarris or me: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f6/audio-gd-discrete-op-amps-reviewed-OPA-earth-OPA-moon-OPA-sun-v-2-a-397691/
   
  all those opamps sound very different, and I agree w/ almost everything majkel wrote...maybe they'd all sound the same to your (untrained) ears? then you're a lucky guy, coz you can use the cheapest 5532/4580 and live happily ever after! Being picky and having high standards is not fun...at all 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  but pay attention to how those opamps sound, get some good phones and you will start hearing major differences...and maybe then, you'll realize that cables/opamps/media players all sound different...coz they do, they just do. I can find zillion testimonials for those 3 things w/ ppl hearing huge differences...now go train your ears, learn an instrument or whatever. Rome wasn't built in a day.


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> well, you're pretty much all on my ignore list tbh...this is a sterile discussion, we all have different gear/hearing capabilities/standards..."_ignorance is bliss_", remember? I'm glad you like to watch movies in 60Hz on an uncalibrated display and use foobar for music....as least you're not picky, women like that
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 This is just laughable now. You have not listened to anyone's opinion but your own, regal has been pointing out the problems with your claims of bitperfect on your system for the last three pages yet you're still talking about opamps - which I've never brought up...
   
  I have only said that software players and cables will sound the same. That's it.
   
  One continual thing you fail to grasp is testimonials are not equal to proof.
  Secondly, ad hominem does not make you look good.
   
  My ears need no training. If you understood cognitive science and audiological memory you might understand the fallacious nature of suggesting such a thing.
   
  Since you asked, I do play four instruments.
   
  Aside from your inferiority complex, is there anything else you would like to add?


----------



## b0dhi

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> Well, the cPlay coder says that players sound different due to software jitter within the windows kernel...I really don't see what the DAC you are describing could do about that as the clock has to be generated from the computer
> *No it doesn't.*
> 
> ...you cannot send a S/PDIF signal w/o clocking
> ...


 

 Answers in bold.
   
  I would've thought you guys would jump at the chance to eliminate these PC/Software/Jitter related effects.


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





regal said:


> So you are using the uDAC as a transport?


 

 I guess you could call it a transport since I'm not testing my soundcards optical out. Its basically a dac but if I use its coax out then it shouldn't get to the dac section yet but be just like a usb to coax(D to D) converter coming from the laptop.


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





b0dhi said:


> Answers in bold.
> 
> I would've thought you guys would jump at the chance to eliminate these PC/Software/Jitter related effects.


 

 You definitely have ME curious.  What DAC is this, and what 'technology' applies this?


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> if you find Reclock/foobar/XXHighEnd to sound exactly the same on XP(using bit-perfect KS/ASIO) or on W7(from *what donunus says*), I think it's time to question your gear and/or your hearing tbh.
> 
> 
> 
> watching movies w/o Reclock(taking care of perfect smoothness in 48/96Hz) makes my eyes bleed...I cannot stand dropped frames


 

 On the first one I dont find any of the players I tried to sound the same, just more similar on w7 than they were on xp. 
   
  On the second one, I didn't notice the difference in dropped frames with avi files when just watching with a laptop screen. Maybe the avis are already too lossy to notice  When I watch movies on my TV, I use my dvd player anyway instead of using the pc so getting picky with the picture quality is not a software issue for me.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> well, you're pretty much all on my ignore list tbh...this is a sterile discussion, we all have different gear/hearing capabilities/standards..."_ignorance is bliss_", remember? I'm glad you like to watch movies in 60Hz on an uncalibrated display and use foobar for music....as least you're not picky, women like that
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Responses in bold.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote: 





hybrys said:


> You definitely have ME curious.  What DAC is this, and what 'technology' applies this?


 

 In these DACs, the clock is generated in the DAC itself and sent back to the PC. This effectively makes the PC just a data source, and jitter of signals outside of the DAC become unimportant (so long as they don't result in data corruption).
   
  In terms of technology, there is some murky water. Most DACs that have the clock generated at the DAC use "Asynchronous USB". However, there is apparently considerable difficulty in getting this to actually work, possibly involving having to rewrite the commonly used firmware. I haven't done a lot of research into USB, but I know these guys do support true asynchronous USB. I know other DACs claim to have asynchronous USB transfer but I would confirm it before buying anything. I designed my own DAC, and it uses Ethernet, so I'm not very familiar with the USB implementations. Firewire can also apparently do it.


----------



## shimm

Quote: 





b0dhi said:


> In these DACs, the clock is generated in the DAC itself and sent back to the PC.


 
   
  always wondered if its possible to disable that feedback and note any difference


----------



## leeperry

donunus said:


> I didn't notice the difference in dropped frames with avi files when just watching with a laptop screen.


   
  Once your eyes are trained, you cannot stand droppped frames. watch some NTSC videos w/ Reclock on your laptop...then disable it, if you dare


----------



## donunus

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> Once your eyes are trained, you cannot stand droppped frames. watch some NTSC videos w/ Reclock on your laptop...then disable it, if you dare


 

 I will critically watch movies and compare but the good thing about this is that I don't have the videophile disease so it doesn't really matter to me much even if I could see the difference. With sound, its a different story, I am more paranoid about that hehehe


----------



## donunus

Just setup kmplayer again and I'm not getting any audio... I am a fool and this turns me off fast  What did I do wrong? I set it up with reclock and clicked use only if it fails to play with system default in the decoders part but this ffdshow setting I cannot find


----------



## leeperry

hehe, setting KMP to your exact liking, and making automatic profiles in ffdshow audio/video takes FOREVER. It's good practice to offen backup the registry entries for KMP/fffdshow/Reclock so you can always revert to a working config and start again. You can easily mess everything up w/ a single wrong option 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  you can make automatic profiles in ffdshow, make one for lossy audio, one for lossless and force the former to output 32float:


----------



## regal

Just answer a simple question why do you refuse to test you rig and prefered player for bit-perfectness?


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





shimm said:


> No. And mod can explain this to you easily, if you itself not smart enough for that. BTW, who goes to oxford, plays "four instruments" and not able to read or understand rules? I think it's some cleaner.


 

 Relax. The post you quoted, ironically, was sarcastic - sarcasm can be hard to convey over a text medium.
   
  You seem to be perry's fanboy, hence the the phrase 'ghost account'. The connotations were more important than the denotation.


----------



## regal

Eq's, dithering, reverb, compression all sound different depending on the algorithm used,  you are grasping at straws trying to save face,  give it up and move on to you next cause to beat up on newbies or something you may have a chance with them.


----------



## Draca

As for EQ, I use various solutions all the time when I'm mixing in Logic or Ableton. I just use Logic's inbuilt Audio Units but various commercial and freeware offerings present different results because they use a variety of math to colour the sound.
  
  Quote: 





leeperry said:


> “A FOOL, AM I! I’LL SHOW THEM WHO’S THE FOOL! I’LL SHOW THEM ALL! AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAH!!!”
> 
> 
> *thunder*
> ...


----------



## donunus

gotta admit one thing though... foobars eq is really garbage if you try boosting anything at 6db or above. Its as if you hear microphone feedback or something with basically any frequency boosted.


----------



## leeperry

well, even that very VST plugin sounds horrid in foobar using George's wrapper...anyways


----------



## ROBSCIX

Quote: 





donunus said:


> gotta admit one thing though... foobars eq is really garbage if you try boosting anything at 6db or above. Its as if you hear microphone feedback or something with basically any frequency boosted.


 

 Many built in EQ in different players are not that good.  Well not when you compared them to higher grade studio based direct X, VST..etc based effects.  Try out some of those they may be what you are after.


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> well, even that very VST plugin sounds horrid in foobar using George's wrapper...anyways


 

 Answer regal's question pl0x.


----------



## Hybrys

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> well, even that very VST plugin sounds horrid in foobar using George's wrapper...anyways


 

 Someone really should rewrite the VST implementation...  Meh, I don't use VSTs.


----------



## ROBSCIX

The DirectX and VST based effects were originally meant for studio applications.  They are used with wrappers to use with music players...


----------



## regal

He won't because he is full of BS and knows very very little about computer audio,  other than regurgitated hydrogenaudio posts he is pretty useless for information.
  My guess is he is a shill for this "free" player he likes so much that shows trojans with my virus scanner,  probably getting kickbacks.
  Quote: 





draca said:


> Answer regal's question pl0x.


----------



## leeperry

Michel Audiard said "_I don't talk to ********, it instructs them_"...It's a damn shame you guys can't hear differences though, better luck next time


----------



## thuantran

You know, it must be placebo but I think threads with leeperry in it are much more informative.


----------



## Draca

Quote: 





thuantran said:


> You know, it must be placebo but I think threads with leeperry in it are much more informative.


 

 I think it's the rational, informative reaction to his intellectually dishonest idiocy that results in such an observation being made.


----------



## shimm

I've been trying Win7 (i have to because of bitstream with ATI 5).
  I don't need my Essence ST anymore cause it does sound as bad as everything else here. Even HDMI audio has same sound that i can't say about XP. I didn't expect it will be *so* bad.


----------



## Mad Max




----------



## doctorcilantro

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
   
  Quote: 





hybrys said:


> I've been thinking of trying to build a kind of DirectShow wrapper for Foobar.  If someone can definitively prove that Reclock has a positive effect on audio (or wants to pay a 'wage' for the finished working product), I'll get to work on it.


----------



## doctorcilantro

I'm not clear what you mean by digitally isolated?
   
  If I clock my DAC to my dedicated word clock, and my Lynx AES16 (transport) to the same clock, of course I still have to pass the bitstreamed digital audio data (via AES) to the DAC.
   
  I assume you just meant the clock being isolated?
  
  Quote: 





b0dhi said:


> Agreed. This is one of the easier audio questions to resolve. All it would take is someone with a DAC where the clock is generated at the DAC end rather than the PC end, and which is digitally isolated from the PC. Such a DAC would be impervious to any possible software, PC or transport related effects. If someone using such a DAC thought software players sounded different, we'd know it was placebo.


----------



## JohnHype

Done by a Romanian, nice


----------



## theveterans

Check the date. You're necro posting.


----------



## Schonen

Can't download it cos google. I block most google domains with the Hosts file. Will get it later in Linux, thx. If it doesn't have library support then I won't use it much.


----------

