For what its worth, and this may possibly be the reason why I hear a difference and others dont, is that I use a USB> SPDIF converter.
I am unable to test jitter, as I dont have access to the test equipment.
I strongly suspect that the USB>SPDIF conveter is sensitive to jitter.
When I use cPlay in CMP mode there are less processes/windows servies/ os bloat, running in the background and this gives a dramatic improvement to the sound.
The next point I will make is that there are fairly regular updates to the CMP software. cMP² | CPlay / Download I have been using it for many years, and each version of the software sounds different to me. My favourite sounding one is b37 becuse it sounds detailed but also "musical". b38 and b39 to me, sound a bit more "sterile" and overall less enjoyable. But on the CMP forum there are a few people who think these newer versions are a big upgrade. Audio Asylum Thread Printer I think I am one of the few people who use CMP with a USB>SPDIF converter and I think this is why I prefer b37. It seems most other users have the juli@ soundcard.
If you tried CMP + cPlay on a dedicated dual boot computer with operating system tweaks and implimenting minlogon and using Advanced RAM allocation, and still thought there was no difference you should try again with a newer version of cPlay.
cPlay with CMP appears "sonically" to me to be a lower jitter source than simply using foobar or Jriver etc. the reasons for this is reducing the processes and OS bloat to achieve lower jitter cMP² | CMP / 03Jitter
You can probably tell I'm not one of the "bits are bits" brigade, I do belive that lower jitter must be a reason for the better sound quality of CMP and cPlay. If not for this one reason, I have no other explaination for it.
At least the jitter measurements of cPlay are listed on their website (on the link above) , which is more that can be said for other software players, or CD transports for that matter.
Lastly, why would cics (developer of CMP) dedicate so much time (years) to the continual upgrading and refinement of this free software project if it was no better than foobar? Why do people use it if it does not sound better than foobar? Are they mad? Am I mad? - (No)
If foobar is as good as it gets, I dont want to play the audio game anymore.
We need people like cics to push the limits and give us better sound.
Denying that CMP is better is not forwarding or encouraging the development of better replay sources. It is also discouraging others to try free software that does sound better!
If people think that there is no difference between software players then they must also belive that all CD transports sound the same. And if you dont think that CD transports sound the same, then why dont you?
Being doubtful will not give you the answers. Trying different things will give you the answers!
I suggest making your own interconect cables using the same brand of RCA jack and different easily available wire. Please do your own experiment between CAT5, 7mm multistrand mains cable, and some generic shielded cable, also try some 1mm solid core copper.
Then If you want to do a slightly more expensive test, get some silver plated wire and make some interconnects. ( FWIW I dont like the sound of silver plated wire)
If you can't hear any difference at all, like nothing, then I would be extremely surprised.
I have already done these tests for myself, and I could hear a difference. Sometimes its a massive difference and somtimes its a small difference. But there is certainly a difference.
If you are talking about commerical cable companies making wild claims about their sonic performance I agree that being sceptical is a good defense mechanism against having your wallet raped.
Last edited:
I use cPLAY exclusively. Tried Foobar2000. Same soundcard, M-Audio Delta44, same pc, same FLAC files. The difference is tremendous. I'm so satisfied with cPLAY that I've abandoned my CD player and Pre-amp.
Needless to say, the power amps and speakers must be of a certain quality, otherwise it'll be quite difficult to tell the difference.
Needless to say, the power amps and speakers must be of a certain quality, otherwise it'll be quite difficult to tell the difference.
Just a little hint - I have been involved in in audio, hifi, hi fidelity, hi end since I was 16. Actively building components and just listening to music. That is roughly 46 years ago. I have tried various turntables, speakers, amps cartridges tonearms, preamps, equalizers, digital converters, I have build my own speakers, preamps, modified phono preamps, build active speaker sysytems including the crossovers, build passive systems. I have usually build my own cables, single ended and balanced, including speaker cables of various configurations and compared the bunch with commercially available hi end cables costing multiple times what I build from scratch.
I have used flatcable (goertz) and other whatever so called hi end crap is out there and in the end determined that the only real and not imagined differences I was able to hear repeatedly and reliably are:
Phono Cartridges
Tonearm/cartridge combos
phono preamps (noise)
turntables (rumble, susceptibility to resonances from speakers)
Loudspeakers
Room influences
Sitting position
EQuing
have heard minor differences between cd players - very minor
I have heard:
no differences between amps/preamps driven within their parametres driving a given speaker
between different cables be it power, interconnnects or speaker cables
between flac file played from any of the players I used: foobar, monkey, winamp, dbpoweramp, VLC etc.
between cd and flac files
I build most of my cables using canare L4 quadstar cable for balanced, and run at present bluejeans cable for spdif and subwoofer feed to my speakers. I prefer BJ cable due to their use of canare RCA connectors - which i found the best in positively connectin to a jack. My xlr's are neutrik, because they are the easiest to set up.
I sold several bryston amps from 2Blp to 4bst including a bp25 preamp to exchange for a self build media player and a set of hypex class d amp with DAC included.
I am happy I did, now having boxed up over 2000 cd's and have fast access to my library through the media server that acts as a hub for other computers in the house with several TB of storage.
You can appreciate that I am doubtful of claims after farting around almost 1/2 a century in hifi.
Last edited:
I believe you. Some people can hear the difference , some can't. For myself, what is important is to respect others position. Hi-Fi is for one's enjoyment. As long as it works for you, that's all that matters.
Well, I have almost 20 years playing with hifi. (not that such things matter, as a child could hear a difference and say inocently "that one sounds better" )
Having read what you have written, I certainly wont doubt that you personally hear no difference. I cant tell you what you do or don't hear. And likewise expect that you can respect if I do hear a difference.The sound is in the ear of the listener
All this discussion leads me to think that some people must percieve sound vastly differently to others.
I can hear a difference between flac and wav.
I can only speak from my own experience, but this point was made very clear to me recently with a new set of headphones. These are marketed as reference headphones by Shure and are extraordinarily detailed and bring out nuances that my Sennheisers don't. The Senn's are very nice musically but tend to hide source defects like compression artifacts which is a good thing if done well without sacrificing SQ which the Senn's do. The Shure's let you know about every little thing which is a good thing if the source is good, but not so good if not. That's why I continue to use both. (also the Senn's are open and the Shure's are closed). Anyway, with the Shure's I can hear subtle differences that I would not have before, even with good speakers.
As to the original post, GOM is the only player I heard that was bad and it was bad. Not subtle. Bad. Distorted. Maybe it's been fixed by now, I don;t know. I have not compared players as you all have so this has been interesting. I'm using Foobar right now which is fine. Sounds like feature set is the most important difference in general though.
The most important to me is the ability to use my Android phone and tablet as Wifi remotes around the house.
Others are ripping with built in error correction, the GUI, and the ability to play tracks directly from RAM instead of the hard drive.
FYI, there is a free 30 day trial...if you don't like it, nothing is wasted except for some of your free time.
How does that page show cPlay does really achieve lower jitter? I see only theoretical background (generally well known, found on many other places on internet) and a measurement of one specific HW setup with cPlay. I would expect a comparison chart for foobar on the same HW setup.
This is the problem of most claims regarding "sonically superior" players. They never give the meat, only the sauce.
Sorry but that proves nothing. "Hearing a difference" is a very illusory information.
Decoding flac to wav takes about 1% of my ancient Athlon 1800XP. On windows you have almost no control of what other processes are running at the moment of the listening test (if it was a proper test at all) and each can take significantly more CPU than the flac decoding.
At least they give something. Unlike others.
That's a question for cics - not one for me to answer.
Why are you debating what I can and cant hear? you are not going to convince me of anything. I use my ears to decide. You can use theory to decide what you hear if you want but, I suggest you go and try the software rather than debating theory, and let your own ears decide. Then, if you cant hear any differences, minor, or major, then fine, you have your answer. But no debating will convince me I hear otherwise.
And, its seems that you have not read enough of the cPlay website otherwise you will have your answers about windows processes.
What I wrote I have quoted above, you will note that I said "appears "sonically" to me to be a lower jitter source"
And I'm sorry if have been unclear, but it is cics that makes either directly or indirectly the assertion that reducing processes and OS bloat achieves lower jitter. I believe this theory based on what I have heard. I was just trying to give an overview, and possible reason as to why CMP sounds better to me. It sure would be good if someone on this forum could do some tests so we will all know for sure.
Last edited:
What cics describes on cMP² | CMP / 07Optimisations , cMP² | CMP / 08AutoRuns and cMP² | CMP / 09Kernel is just scratching the surface of running processes/threads on the CPU. Device drivers have threads, filesystem drivers have threads, the windows GUI shell has many threads, windows itself have very likely services out of control by the user, very likely hidden, purposefully unlisted in the "process viewer" of windows. I do not believe taking those user-space steps within the scope of what microsoft allowed to the users will give you any control of CPU in levels of single percents which is what flac decoding consumes.
You know this for sure, or you just "suspect"?
I feel that you have missed the point, no one is arguing that it takes very little processing power to decode flac. The assertion or implication made by cics is that reducing background tasks and unnecessary processes reduces jitter.
Fair enough to ask these questions, but have you tried the software?
If you have not tried the software, why not?
OK, but then let's say "this is what the author of the player says", not that "the reason for my impression is the lower jitter". Sorry, I know I am being picky, but repeated claims become "truth" easily and people generally do not distinguish between these two.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.