quality of media players - Page 4 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > PC Based

PC Based Computer music servers, crossovers, and equalization

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16th June 2011, 08:10 AM   #31
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Torpoint
I can't believe someone can be so blatant as to say that they cant hear the differences between good and poor amplifiers. Maybe if the source is so crap they will all sound horrible. There is definitely a lot of difference between a budget amplifier and a high end amplifier.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2011, 08:52 AM   #32
phofman is online now phofman  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pilsen
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
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
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2011, 09:05 AM   #33
phofman is online now phofman  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pilsen
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
I can hear a difference between flac and wav.
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2011, 09:26 AM   #34
erin is offline erin  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: http://www.makeitpossible.com/
Quote:
Originally Posted by phofman View Post
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.
At least they give something. Unlike others.
That's a question for cics - not one for me to answer.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2011, 09:31 AM   #35
erin is offline erin  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: http://www.makeitpossible.com/
Quote:
Originally Posted by phofman View Post
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.
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2011, 09:36 AM   #36
phofman is online now phofman  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pilsen
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
At least they give something. Unlike others.
That's a question for cics - not one for me to answer.
Well, you were the one saying "to achieve lower jitter", check your post. Sorry.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2011, 09:47 AM   #37
erin is offline erin  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: http://www.makeitpossible.com/
Quote:
Originally Posted by phofman View Post
Well, you were the one saying "to achieve lower jitter", check your post. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
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
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 by erin; 16th June 2011 at 09:55 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2011, 09:52 AM   #38
phofman is online now phofman  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pilsen
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
And, its seems that you have not read enough of the cPlay website otherwise you will have your answers about windows processes.
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2011, 09:57 AM   #39
erin is offline erin  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: http://www.makeitpossible.com/
Quote:
Originally Posted by phofman View Post
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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2011, 09:59 AM   #40
phofman is online now phofman  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pilsen
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
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.
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.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Media players with acceptable 2 channel audio quality? nighthawk Digital Line Level 6 17th September 2010 05:45 PM
HD Media players Martin Prothero PC Based 14 27th February 2010 10:18 PM
media players fetching lyrics rick57 Digital Source 10 28th October 2006 04:31 AM
Windows media players ~ interface, data, sound Q rick57 Digital Source 3 24th October 2006 01:32 AM
Dlink wireless media players Sandor Digital Source 1 9th January 2006 12:20 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:48 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2