I'm removing several rules-breaking posts. Any further name calling or insults will result in SinBin time.abzug said:
It would be so useful if some of the more sceptical among you would actually take a listen to the software and test the claims being made.
Mani.
manisandher said:
I don't need to be sceptical, I'm using Vista64 on the THPC, which XX won't run on, I think,,,,, well it may do now,,,, except I want to use my sound card in it,,,,,, but on his forum, he doesn't recommend using sound card,,"driver issues",, put in a different post he seems to forget that,,,,,,!
I am not looking at resampling data ie 16/44k1 to 16/48,16/96,24/48,24/96 etc.
I was interested in 16/44k1 hdd files bitperfect out via 16/44k1 out via spdif.
If all data is bitperfect 16/44k1, in/out, how can it be different?
Compensate for noise in pc?
Compensate for latency? is not USB, or just set process prioity.
I just think everyones question is.
If two signals out are bitperfect, what has changed between the source and output data, to make it sound different?
The answer is "just trust me"
EE's cannot understand that
ps i'm not an EE.
Has it been confirmed by someone independent that XX is bit-perfect?
if Win Vista treats analog and SPDIF outputs equally (I have no idea), such a proof would be trivial.
Sorry if this has already been resolved here.
if Win Vista treats analog and SPDIF outputs equally (I have no idea), such a proof would be trivial.
Sorry if this has already been resolved here.
I have no problem with the claim of bitperfect.....
One question thought..
If the data file are the same 16/44k1, but played thought two different engines.
Both outputs are bitperfect 16/44k1.
then why do they sound different?
One question thought..
If the data file are the same 16/44k1, but played thought two different engines.
Both outputs are bitperfect 16/44k1.
then why do they sound different?
How long does it take to install Vista? I have a copy and an extra hard drive, and maybe a few hours to spend investigating. Does Vista allow recording physical loopback, i.e. SPDIF out -> SPDIF in?
I tried XXHE on W2K. It seems to be louder than where I typically have my Foobar set at, and there is no software volume control. Otherwise no obvious difference. Hardware is M-Audio Revolution 7.1, T-amp clone, $25 speakers.
Mr. XXHE posted a statement up at his forums where he said that XXHE eliminates the effects of room echo. I find that rather suspicious.
I tried XXHE on W2K. It seems to be louder than where I typically have my Foobar set at, and there is no software volume control. Otherwise no obvious difference. Hardware is M-Audio Revolution 7.1, T-amp clone, $25 speakers.
Mr. XXHE posted a statement up at his forums where he said that XXHE eliminates the effects of room echo. I find that rather suspicious.
I certainly did not say that. But please quote me if I did.
That too, I never said, say, and will say. It's what you make of it probably because things go beyond your understanding.
In audio many, many things are beyond our understandings, but slowly we start to learn. If you can't understand and therefore not try, right there it stops.
Btw, I'd love discussions about people not hearing any difference. I don't see much use in, say, prooving there can't be a difference without listening, while just the same the differences are there (for people who do listen).
Can't we put it kind of another way around :
I hope we can agree upon different CD drives (I mean the box without internal DAC) sound different, right ? What do you suppose the salesman of the worse drive is to tell you ? "the drive of the competition reads less errors" ?
Or may it be so that this is just accepted as the one being "better" than the other and A. we do not (want to) understand plus B. we don't call either of the manufacturers to testify why ...
Or did you think all those drives sound the same as well ?
I tend to put it somewhat more harsh : if some of you guys SAY you don't hear the difference between Foobar, JRiver, XMPlay with capabilities of bit perfect playback, then
a. your system doesn't allow you to hear it;
b. your ears suffer from a hopefully temporary desease;
c. you did not listen at all.
Your choice.
But I think it is obvious that when you indeed hear the difference, the "discussion" goes kind of different.
Please remember why I started developing XX ... I got crazy from the all differently sounding players and couldn't understand why ...
Of course I know exactly what my software does, and I know what changes sound. I do NOT say that at this moment I understand why ...
If you can't live with such an "explanation" please let it rest. 🙂
Here too : please first listen whether it can be true, then measure for bit perfectness, and *then* try to say this again.
Btw, please note that I also said on my forum that this effect is (sadly) less since 0.9t. Ok ?
Of course you know too that $25 speakers isn't exactly what to take for comparison. BUT if you hear a difference anyway (which is what you said), try to explain what you hear. Or why for that matter. But don't forget to measure the being bit perfect first.
Oh, I think W2K is bit perfect anyway (once the volumes are out of the way), so that should make it more easy.
PS: What you would hear on W2K is just Direct Sound ...
It's basic physics. Room reflections depend entirely on the speakers and room. The only way their audible effect can be influenced it is by DSP. I don't need to listen, since your comment is equivalent to me claiming the Earth is flat, and would you please measure it to confirm.
abzug said:
Dam, the world isn't flat???????????????🙁 🙁 🙁
I'm going to have to shorten the distance for my holidays
XXHE said:
I would say you need to read your own replies in your forum and make your own judgement..
I know there are things in audio that we cannot explain yet
but is it to everyones ears or just a few.
Everyone hears differently, whether physically or mentally.
a: Do you recommend i upgrade my pye 3 in 1 system then
b: My head hurts
c: Still trying with sign language from my speakers.
As for your chioce..
Yes it's your choice, if you hear differences, and you know where in the the software these differences take place.
then you should know what you are changing!
Then say how this equates to a bitperfect audio signal
allan
ps
I hope you are using the same 16/44k1 bitperfect tracks for input and output?
If they have been resampled then that could be something different.
the third engine of XXHE is bitperfect in the sense that the sound isn't processed by either the XXHE or the kmixer before it is passed to the driver. if the driver avoids sound processing, too, then the final output on the SPDIF port is bitperfect.phofman said:
that being said, I strongly advise against using or even buying XXHE. Free programs, such as foobar2000 or winamp in conjunction with a KS or ASIO output plugin, perform absolutely identical while being mature and stable.
Would you all agree that until someone proves the bit-perfection (of all the softwares mentioned) this whole discussion has no point?
PS: Sorry, I did not see dogber1's post.
PS: Sorry, I did not see dogber1's post.
The easiest way to test whether a player is bitperfect or not is to play a flat wave file which contains DTS compressed data at 44.1kHz sample rate. If the receiver can decode the resulting stream, then it wasn't modified and hence the player and the driver must be bitperfect.
With this method, I've tested XXHE, foobar, winamp, the windows media player and the windows media center with the results I've outlined above.
With this method, I've tested XXHE, foobar, winamp, the windows media player and the windows media center with the results I've outlined above.
dogber1
something about that statement doesn't quite seem right.?
The data has to match bit for bit, whats picked up of source, to whats been given to the output driver and looped back in.
something about that statement doesn't quite seem right.?
The data has to match bit for bit, whats picked up of source, to whats been given to the output driver and looped back in.
the basic idea of the DTS method is that DTS frames are detected by their header and they are tested against an embedded checksum before decoding, so when bits in the frame are modified, detection and/or decoding fails.
One can have modifications that still produce a valid DTS stream (a trivial proof of this is that there exist more than one valid DTS streams in the world, such as when you encode a different piece of music).
HHXE could detect DTS streams and pass them umodified or modified in a way leaving valid DTS streams to thwart the test you described.
But even simpler an explanation is that DTS decoders are robust to some amount of errors. Indeed, consumer equipment tends to be designed to fail as gracefully as possible when encountering error situations, so a checksum failure as you describe resulting in termination of decoding simply makes no sense from a product design standpoint. What's worse--the player failing upon the tiniest glitch, or ignoring the error and continuing?
HHXE could detect DTS streams and pass them umodified or modified in a way leaving valid DTS streams to thwart the test you described.
But even simpler an explanation is that DTS decoders are robust to some amount of errors. Indeed, consumer equipment tends to be designed to fail as gracefully as possible when encountering error situations, so a checksum failure as you describe resulting in termination of decoding simply makes no sense from a product design standpoint. What's worse--the player failing upon the tiniest glitch, or ignoring the error and continuing?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.