 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
129.33.19.254
In Reply to: RE: I'm not competent enough to explain in details, but in short - ... posted by Dynaudio_Rules on December 22, 2009 at 09:48:10
... Intel's C++ compiler, that cics uses, for instance, will take advantage of particular set of instructions, only if it's implemented exactly in the same way as in Intel's own CPU. Even then, I've read accusations that Intel-compiled code that utilizes SIMD demonstrates inferior performance on non-Intel CPUs (can't vouch whether it's true).
That's why for AMD processors, which support DIFFERENT set of instructions that they call SSE4a I believe, some other compiler would have to be used, for example GCC.
Follow Ups:
But I don't hear all these frequent 'vast' improvements to cPlay. They just skew hf/lf balance/clarity one way or the other. In the end, none of the versions sound totally right to me. In fact, I much prefer the sound using KS with Foobar on various sound cards, choosing the best combinations of settings I find. And oh, no real time oversampling 'cause none of them sound much good compared to offline or proper hardware upsampling (not CS or TI asrc chips).
But I don't hear all these frequent 'vast' improvements to cPlay.I believe you've mentioned that before. I seem also to recall that, back last summer, you had trouble getting the then-current version to work and abandoned it ("I give up"). One wonders if that and your antipathy to its author necessarily wins you a place in the ranks of objective judges of the program's merits (or demerits).
FWIW my recollection is that claims of "vast" differences between this or that version were made by their users, not their author. I found that the reported differences ranged from negligible to marked but that there was consistent progress overall. I recently compared one of the last of the first series with a recent one from the second series and it was night and day.
OK, 50-odd betas is going some but it's a hobby project, after all. What amuses me is how some criticise cMP2 with a venom normally reserved for Microsoft but seem unable to offer much to better it.
I much prefer the sound using KS with Foobar on various sound cards, choosing the best combinations of settings I find.Which is fine. Foobar is a good program, easy to install and configure. In my setup, it's not a patch on cMP^2 but I hesitate to insist that everyone agrees with me.
Edits: 12/22/09 12/22/09
I have no bias. You need to read cPlay's version Readme for these stepchange improvement claims.
I have the equipement to hear very subtle changes in sound, and this is what I hear with versions of cPlay. I would use it if it were good, but then who would want to evaluate properly 33 versions plus variants. Typically it takes me several months to come to conclusions about adopting software/hardware.
It is interesting that there are no actual audio reviews of this player, just claims by a few. Certainly the statements about -145 dB resamplers and that the system beats the dCS one costing $67000 is just DIGITAL FANCY. Claiming 51 pS jitter in a PC system without sophisticated dejitter measures is another one.
No one has addressed these points which I have made on the package.
Yes, some cPlay versions don't work on some PCs and cics was unable to diagnose cures. Miraculously the next versions or couple of versions would then work for all the ones I have.
I have no bias.
On several occasions and despite requests to behave better, you have questioned the motives and ethics of the program's author. If that doesn’t suggest a degree of antipathy, I don't know what might.
You need to read cPlay's version Readme for these stepchange improvement claims.
The Readme files for cPlay series 2 have expanded from version to version but the core text has not changed. It starts with “The new 2.x series of cPlay represents a step change in processing performance”. In other words, there are significant differences between cPlay series one and series two, some of which are described as “important factors for high quality audio playback”. That seems a reasonable point. I can find no claims about incremental sound quality enhancements in the files.
I have the equipement to hear very subtle changes in sound, and this is what I hear with versions of cPlay.
That is a solipsistic argument and thus, because it is (logically) impossible to refute, essentially meaningless. In any case, you have AFAIK much the same equipment as cPlay’s author so I’m not clear what your point is.
As you seemed not to know why there are processor-dependent versions of the software (“How does ssse4 or whatever help audio performance?”), one wonders if the subtle changes you detect, though too subtle for the rest of us, are not, pace Dawnrazor, as much down to inconsistent use of the various versions as anything else.
Typically it takes me several months to come to conclusions about adopting software/hardware.
Sadly, it takes you rather less time to air strident but muddled remarks on software you do not intend to adopt. It is easy to show that these do not withstand scrutiny. That wouldn’t matter except that they inform what verges on an idée fixe .
It is interesting that there are no actual audio reviews of this player, just claims by a few.
It is unusual for emerging hobby projects to receive reviews in the mainstream audio media but there are links to some on the cMP^2 web site. I don’t think they are very helpful but reviews they are.
Certainly the statements about -145 dB resamplers and that the system beats the dCS one costing $67000 is just DIGITAL FANCY.
I can’t comment on resampling but find nothing in the cMP^2 documentation to the effect that “the system beats the dCS one costing $67000”. The closest it comes to that is a note on the web site:The best of these [CD Transports] are magnificently engineered and perform superbly but can cost as much as $20,000and another that:[The text] describes how to build and configure a PC system costing around $1,000 (including a quality soundcard and case) that does not merely match but exceeds the performance of the very best CD transports.Which last seems a bit of harmless hyperbole and too diffuse to be worth getting excited about.
True, there is (Chapter 3) a description of tests on a Scarlatti reclocker on a setup that probably cost as much as my house but, as they were performed using Foobar (cPlay had yet to be written), they may be irrelevant here.
Claiming 51 pS jitter in a PC system without sophisticated dejitter measures is another [DIGITAL FANCY].
For long enough your complaint was that there were no measurements to back claims about the cMP^2 project. That was clearly misleading and you have since segued into reporting that proffered measurements are fanciful on the tenuous grounds that you know better and that unspecified but “sophisticated” dejitter measures are needed.
This seems to miss the point that the project comprises a lengthy series of more or less “sophisticated dejitter measures” in software and hardware. Of course, it’s perfectly fair to debate the efficacy of those measures but, absent competent measurements to the contrary and/or a critique of the test methodology, your remark is bluster, no more.
No one has addressed these points which I have made on the package.
I certainly have. Time and again.
Yes, some cPlay versions don't work on some PCs and cics was unable to diagnose cures.
No, it was you that gave up, not cics. Your remarks about mysterious “cures” are disingenuous: you just don’t seem happy configuring software. It’s a common problem.
cics ? censor ?
I don't read your long winded assertions.
If you don't like them, don't read my posts.
If you don't like them, don't read my posts.You insist on writing nonsense about a project you know next to nothing about. You question the integrity of those who contribute to it. Now you want immunity from criticism for your nonsense.
You also question my locus standi (as it were). Since some of the text you misquote was either written or edited by me, I am entitled to correct the record.
Please understand that if you persist in talking erroneous tosh on this site on topics that interest or concern me, I reserve the right to point it out. When you talk sense, I leave you alone. If that's censorship, so be it.
Edits: 12/23/09
That is what you are. Period.
Ryelands is kicking your ass with facts and pointing out your lack of command of those facts, and you resort to name calling and insinuation.
Nice Fred. Way to show off that superior intellect of yours.
Fred,I do think your axe to grind against cics is getting in your way of getting the most out of cplay. Heck, you even refuse to show your settings to see if you have it set up correctly!
And in the context of this post, it doesnt matter your feeling of cplay. Get a cpu that can handle sse4 instructions and compare the sse2 version of cplay with the same version using sse4 instructions.
If you need new hardware to do this then that goes a long way to explain your results as well.
Edits: 12/22/09
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
