|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.220.119.106
In Reply to: RE: SSRC posted by cpuaudio on June 14, 2008 at 13:03:43
I listened to SSRC much longer and at 24/96. I actually realized how inferior it was just a few seconds of listening. I have no customers using this to my knowledge. Like myself, they all found it inferior to SRC with Foobar 0.8.3.
If you are using Foobar 0.9.x, then this is a different story. The SRC for this version is not good.
I do not use ASIO, ASIO4ALL or Kernel Streaming with my products anymore. These are not necessary with my products, even with XP.
Steve N.
Follow Ups:
I agree on SSRC. However, ASIO sounds better than Direct Sound xx. If KS works with the card, then I prefer it as there does not seem to be as much of a buffer size dependency issue.
with a lower jitter source i'm now finding directsound under vista is superior to ASIO and even more so to KS. ASIO sounds good with cplay and with the pro editors but my best results of late have been with xmplay's wasapi in exclusive mode, noticeably smoother and less grainy than ASIO, less fatiguing and most importantly just sounds more musical. with this setup i'm also finding upsampling benefits far less obvious, a different sound rather than a better one even with a dcs974 doing the SRC. right now straight 44.1 via an m-audio box -> pace car -> dcs954 is giving me the most enjoyment of my cd's. i'll probably change my mind next week :)
Which ASIO do you like? Is is for Foobar 0.9.x?
Blind tests on multiple systems with multiple subjects have confirmed for me that it sounds exactly the same as 0.9.x. Have you ever tried blind testing the two versions yourself?
The only major code change to SRC in the past 4 years happened a few months ago and will hopefully soon be available in a new version for 0.9.x (there were no significant changes in the various versions for 0.8.3, despite claims to the contrary by "audiophiles" who were amusingly ignorant of what was really changing in the code between versions while making fantastic claims about the amazing differences they were imagining to hear between the versions).
I have tried virtually every version of Foobar 8.x and 9.x, with so many versions of ASIO I lost count, I've not heard much difference between versions.From another time (a couple of years ago) when PCs had much lower processing power this may have been true. Computing power has grown exponentially over the last year alone, this may have changed things.
There are folks who cling to those things from the past that they become accustom to and in their mind these will always remain superior.
I prefer to keep an open mind and let my ears be the deciding factor.
A month or so ago, fmak posted that he had conversion errors trying to decode a FLAC file that had been encoded with a newer FLAC version than that of his decoder. I don't remember the exact details, but I believe it was a high res file.
Well, just recently I lent a friend of mine a data CD of FLAC files, encoded with FLAC version, 1.2.1, which was the latest the last time I checked. These were all 16/44.1k files. He tried burning an assortment music CD with some of the files I sent him, but had a decoding error when converting some of the FLAC files to WAV. It turns out that he was using an older version of flac.exe than what I encoded them with. I told him to update to the latest flac.exe, and that fixed his decoding problem.
So now you have old foobar versions floating around with old libFLAC libraries statically linked to the executable. Guess what? There is now no longer a guarantee that the old libFLAC will properly decode FLAC files created with the latest FLAC encoder. So I suppose you could maintain both old and new versions of flac.exe. Decode with the newest, and re-encode with a version no newer than that used by the libFLAC of foobar 0.8.3. Have fun with that one.
Flac or Foobar 08. So many better players and codecs out there.
I didn't need blind tests. It was obvious to me. Like I said, many of my customers have confirmed this as well. Maybe you dont hear any difference in your system. I hear a difference in my system.
Your lack of using ASIO maybe one of the factors in your poor experience with SSRC using XP. I have tried the 8.x versions of Foobar and most of the older build versions of ASIO, I was not able to tell much of a difference. Also you where running a much lower upsampling rate. The improvement going from 96k to 196k in detail and dynamics was impressive. Even moving from 176k to 192k made a noticeable improvement.One advantage of Foobar 9.x is the compatability with the newer version of ASIO that allow channel mapping, critical if you are using an external interface and Spdif fed DAC.
The other nice features of 9.x is the customizable interface.
But if what you have is working for you...great enjoy!
Frankly, ASIO has problems too. Buffer dependency and different sound for different versions. All the major pro software players also sound different using ASIO (other programming factors also??)
What's the point? Every power cord and interconnect I've heard sounds different - but some sound better then others. Because Nordost or Synergistic Research cables sound different doesn't make them bad.
If ASIO has such major problems why does every major ProAudio equipment maker and most recording studios use ASIO on their PCs? The Buffer dependency issue affects latency which for recording session is a major pain, but for ordinary listening it really doesn't have much impact (other then slowing the response of the control commands).
Many would argue (see other threads) that ASIO is far superior to XP K-mixer and even the new audio stack in Vista. The best part is ASIO is independent from MIcrosoft and allows improvement and adaptation over time. I'm sure MS would love to get rid of ASIO, but the user base is just to large and many would move to AAPL or LINUX.
IMO, if you follow the lead of the "pro audio" guys, you will never reach audio nirvana IME. I've modded a few of their products - not impressed frankly.
I would agree the analog outputs of even the higher end equipment leaves a lot to be desired; switched power supplies, SS opamps, lower quality caps, ics and wiring.
This is the reason for using an external DAC. There are few companies that make decent equipment Apogee, RME, Digitools, Pyramix (with the excellent DXD standard). One benefit of using seperate equipment for the computer conversion and DAC allows greater flexiblity.
It may be on your equipment and the way it interfaces with the PC may very well sound best with the 8.x versions of Foobar.
I have tried SSRC with all different ASIO versions. My older products used M-Audio drivers, so they needed ASIO to bypass Kmixer. This was with XP. Now with Vista, the story may be entirely different, although even with Vista I doubt if SRC will outperform the older SRC.
SSRC is more sharp sounding, maybe even more detailed, but vocals are just too nasal and edgy to sound natural IME.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: