Is Vista really capable of bit-perfect output?

[robinhelen]

It still sounds good

Having skimmed through this topic it seems that everyone is chasing the technicalities and reasons. I discovered the software today installed it and said wow in 1 second, asked the wife and she agreed. it is streets ahead of foobar in MY SETUP. I don't actually care why and appreciate 3000 hours of work from someone who evidently does understand. Many thanks for improving my enjoyment of music for a mere 70 euro.
My setup:
windoze xp
DDDAC 12X TDA1543 nos DAC
Trends TA10 very heavily modded.
World Designs WD25T speakers

when it plays 24/96/88.2 and there is a LINUX version I will be extatic LOL.

 

[ackcheng]

May be off topic but if you want linux, Have a look at the linux audio thread.

 

[abzug]

Re: It still sounds good

nos DAC

🙄

 

[awpagan]

Looks like the thread got sidetracked....

OK now then.
Is Vista or Vista64 capable of bitperfect output?

with or without asio?

Only looking at spdif out.

 

[b-square]

This was answered right at the start. With ASIO: yes. Without ASIO: no.

 

[manisandher]

But also with XXHighEnd (using Engine #3)... which does not use ASIO.

Mani.

 

[awpagan]

This was answered right at the start. With ASIO: yes. Without ASIO: no.

But also with XXHighEnd (using Engine #3)... which does not use ASIO.

Mani.

I went off and did a bit more research and found more questions..

I have vista64 on a htpc mainly to view HD broadcast channels. (at present)

If I turn off all of vista's re-processing, is the output, bitperfect?
Or Is there another process/driver within vista64 that fudges the bits?

Any music I store is ripped by DBpoweramp with AccurateRip.
CD only, at present ripped, 16/44.1

Also looked at the XXHighEnd forum.....

Why so much ram for processing a music file.
The CD is already ripped bit perfect onto hdd.
If it's being reprocessed for output, then isn't that defeating the purpose of bit perfect.
Maybe he's compensating for a NOS dac?

To much "just trust me" on that site!

 

[XXHE]

Why so much ram for processing a music file.

Because it plays from memory.

To much "just trust me" on that site!

Thanks.

 

[awpagan]

Because it plays from memory.



Thanks.

Hi XXHE
But don't they normally play from memory?

allan

 

[abzug]

No, most players stream from the drive and use RAM as a buffer.

 

[ackcheng]

What is the difference between "playing from memory" and "using RAM as a buffer"?

I think this is interesting as Cics transport is also working along the same principle, I think. If they are physically locating in the same place. Why would one sound better than the other?

 

[phofman]

What is the advantage of playing purely from RAM? Sound card and USB host controller communicate through DMA anyway, i.e. it is only a question of timely delivery of enough data to RAM for the DMA to run continuously. Sure, if there is not enough data, there is an audible dropout (xrun).

If you load a large file (100s of MB) to memory, memory pages untouched for a while (farther to the end of the file) will probably get swapped-out to disk.

Perhaps there are some peculiarities which someone experienced might be willing to clarify.

 

[awpagan]

No, most players stream from the drive and use RAM as a buffer.

Yes memory as buffer.

Buffer the whole track to memory is a waste of memory.

Unless theres some other processing taking place.


allan

 

[dogber1]

I've just completed a small article about bitperfect playback which covers the basics:

http://code.google.com/p/cmediadrivers/wiki/Bitperfect

imho, XX-HighEnd is badly written and not even remotely worth its price - there are much better players for audiophile users which are well-engineered and free, e.g. foobar2000.

 

[XXHE]

That depends on your ears I'm afraid.

And imho your driver is poorly written because it doesn't respond well to shutting off the soundcard/DAC in exclusive mode.

From your small article :

But so far, there is only one usable player that I'm aware of: XM-Play.

... which just plays not bit perfect and in Shared Mode on my soundcard and sounds lousy to my ears.

But your ears are better, I'm sure.

 

[dogber1]

the bug with the DAC will be fixed with the next version which is shortly due. it occured when applications improperly closed exclusive mode streams without stopping them first.

... which just plays not bit perfect and in Shared Mode on my soundcard and sounds lousy to my ears.

that's because you set the buffer size too large.

But your ears are better, I'm sure.

no, but my scope beats both our ears.

 

[ackcheng]

dear dogber,

can you share the scope pictures you measured from both players. This will make things clear for everyone here

 

[dogber1]

ackcheng, the results are that the output with foobar2000 with the KS output plugin, XM-Play with with WASAPI output plugin running in the so called "exclusive mode" and XX-HighEnd using its third engine are identical bit by bit - from this point of view, differentiation in quality can be done between each of these players.
So it boils down to other criteria, and I chose foobar because it's free of cost, stable, has a sensible interface and lots of supported formats.

 

[XXHE]

the bug with the DAC will be fixed with the next version which is shortly due. it occured when applications improperly closed exclusive mode streams without stopping them first.

Thank you for that.
Might it help : I'm fairly sure the playback is properly stopped, *but* of course I'm dealing with the user concerned and his judgement on matters (and on the latest version).
Anyway, I don't think I can try and do more than I already did.

Thanks.

PS:

So it boils down to other criteria, and I chose foobar because it's free of cost, stable, has a sensible interface and lots of supported formats.

Fair enough. 😉

 

[XXHE]

differentiation in quality can be done between each of these players.

Can be done, or can't be done ?