Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Lilith Audio Player
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lilith Audio Player - Page 3

post #31 of 441
7/5/08 at 7:06pm
Thread Starter 
Your so off topic and I've already proven to you how a program can be better than another program at doing the same thing, I think everybody can agree with me. Also your taking things wait out of hand here, and we definitely need to jump back on topic. It is to share your opinion on the player, which you can't use. So I suggest you go over your friends house and try it and then come back and post again.

Also quoting everything I say does not make it wrong.
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #32 of 441
7/5/08 at 7:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enthusia View Post
Like I said before this is my opinion, please read the messages before.
No, that's stupid. I don't feel like going over this in detail, because I've already elaborated in depth about how prefacing claims with "it's my opinion" doesn't change the fact that what you're saying is NOT an opinion.

If I say "The sky is green... that's my opinion," then I have not made an opinion even if I said that I just did. I made a claim, a claim that is either true or false.

You've made a claim, not a truth, that the audio quality is better in Lilith than in Foobar. Note, this may have been an opinion, had you not actually said that it sounds better, because by using that in reference to two programs that are, with regards to audio quality, equal, you're setting up a verifiable claim (is Lilith better at decoding the audio than foobar or not).

Finally, just because people update programs does not mean they're making it sound better. It's most often fixing bugs and updating the user interface, sometimes it's optimizing and compacting code, etc. etc. There are several reasons for updating, but it's 100% of the time NOT to make something "sound better" (unless there was some massive defect in the audio decoding aspect, which would violate decoding standards... despite that, I've never seen it happen in practice).
Reply
post #33 of 441
7/5/08 at 7:10pm
I was quoting it so I could respond to particular points. This is why there were multiple quotes in each post.

You have consecutively failed to explain why, or how, it sounds better. Nobody will try and argue that reduced memory overheads or faster decoding aren't improvements - they blatantly are. But you are totally failing to explain how this program sounds better.

~Phewl.
Reply
post #34 of 441
7/5/08 at 7:15pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcrown View Post
No, that's stupid. I don't feel like going over this in detail, because I've already elaborated in depth about how prefacing claims with "it's my opinion" doesn't change the fact that what you're saying is NOT an opinion.

If I say "The sky is green... that's my opinion," then I have not made an opinion even if I said that I just did. I made a claim, a claim that is either true or false.

You've made a claim, not a truth, that the audio quality is better in Lilith than in Foobar. Note, this may have been an opinion, had you not actually said that it sounds better, because by using that in reference to two programs that are, with regards to audio quality, equal, you're setting up a verifiable claim (is Lilith better at decoding the audio than foobar or not).

Finally, just because people update programs does not mean they're making it sound better. It's most often fixing bugs and updating the user interface, sometimes it's optimizing and compacting code, etc. etc. There are several reasons for updating, but it's 100% of the time NOT to make something "sound better" (unless there was some massive defect in the audio decoding aspect, which would violate decoding standards... despite that, I've never seen it happen in practice).
Woah woah woah, calm down there. I never said that updating a program will always sound better, I said updating a program would make it better, so stop putting words in my mouth.

Quote:
You have consecutively failed to explain why, or how, it sounds better. Nobody will try and argue that reduced memory overheads or faster decoding aren't improvements - they blatantly are. But you are totally failing to explain how this program sounds better.
As for me failing in explaining how the Lilith is superior than the Foobar2000, well the only reason I can give is that you haven't tried it yet. Other than that there's really not much more to say.
Reply
post #35 of 441
7/5/08 at 7:18pm
Come on guys. If he thinks it sounds better what is the problem with that? This is just one guys opinion. I do not see why he have to explain what makes it sound better to him.
I always welcome new software to try out, and are thankful to the OP for sharing, but I am not sure if I want to recommend something on this board if I get bashed because a small detail in how I write my post...
Reply
post #36 of 441
7/5/08 at 7:19pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks nor_spoon, now I will try to keep the programs I like to myself, it seems as though people don't like it when someones shares their opinion. I guess I might be violating their space? Although this is my thread.
Reply
post #37 of 441
7/5/08 at 8:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nor_spoon View Post
I do not see why he have to explain what makes it sound better to him.
Because he came on here trying to tell the world that it was better. If I were to say to you that I think bitter tastes better than lager, then it'd be pretty pointless trying to push that argument without me listing what makes it better to my tastes. If I were to try and tell the world that I thought Toyo tyres were better than a Michelin, nobody would take me seriously unless I could make comment on how they handle in the wet, how they compare in terms of useful tyre life, or how they worked when pushed toward the limit in the dry.

This thread exists because of a claim made. It is nobody elses fault if the original poster can't produce any supportive evidence to back up his claim.

Nothing against the guy, nothing at all. But it's not exactly overflowing with anything to support the beliefs he chose to share with a whole forum...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enthusia View Post
Thanks nor_spoon, now I will try to keep the programs I like to myself, it seems as though people don't like it when someones shares their opinion. I guess I might be violating their space? Although this is my thread.
No need for that, but only praise them where you can back up your claims. It'd be a different story if you preferred the UI or media database function, but to rave about it having better sound quality... you're asking for troubles on an 'audiophile' forum .

~Phewl.
Reply
post #38 of 441
7/5/08 at 8:26pm
Thread Starter 
I understand, but when somebody just comes out to you and starts disrespecting your opinion, not calling out any names here, its only instinct that you try to defend yourself. Although I still believe Lilith is an awesome player, causing such a stir over such a small topic is not wise and definitely time consuming. I am just glad all this ended here, we can all keep our opinions and still be friends.
Reply
post #39 of 441
7/6/08 at 8:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enthusia View Post
Woah woah woah, calm down there. I never said that updating a program will always sound better, I said updating a program would make it better, so stop putting words in my mouth.
I was saying that because your original context of "better" was related to sound quality. Either way, that was a tangential point - my main point is that what you're saying is not an opinion, but a claim. They're two distinct entities.

So stop putting opinion in bold!
Reply
post #40 of 441
7/6/08 at 2:47pm
Well, i don't know how this Lilith Sound Player program works but it sounds better than Foobar2000, to me, at least. However Foobar2000 is good too but i guess i'm sticking to Lilith for the time being.

On the side note, the sound quality will be improved by updating Lilith.

Just navigate your way to, C:\Program Files\Project9k\Sound Player Lilith 0.991b and open the "Online Update" file. It takes about 2 updates which is very fast to be fully updated though.
Reply
post #41 of 441
7/6/08 at 5:29pm
Thread Starter 
Nice find LightZY, I didn't even know that myself, I will add it to the main post.
Reply
post #42 of 441
7/6/08 at 9:04pm
If it does actually sound better than foobar2000, there must be a technical reason for it.

Either foobar2000 is doing something wrong, or Lilith is using some sort of DSP. Does anyone know which it is?
Reply
post #43 of 441
7/7/08 at 7:31am
I really wonder here why are you guys attacking OP?
is Foobar is the ultimate absolute (nothing can be better)?
what about professional recording player then?

lets put it this way, why is foobar sounds better than other(winamp, etc)?
isn't it just ASIO (said by you guys), well just put the same ASIO to the other and they will all sound same right? even foobar writer said foobar is not an improvement in soundwise

I'm not familiar with multimedia player, but isn't decoding job is done by the codec? so the decoding result quality will depend solely on the codec, isnt it?
And then it is the player job to manage the decoded file to be send to DAC, and I think this step is what makes difference, it can something like bit-perfect stuff or memory management to ensure the data will be sent on time, something like those

Unless you guys really understand how the program works and gives results, I don't think you can make such a claim like "this is the best program, nothing surpass it", so the only way is to try the program itself, if you feel it is the same then so be it.....


and for the Lilith, hmmmm, sounds a bit different than foobar, but just not enough to drag me off from the convenience of foobar
Reply
post #44 of 441
7/7/08 at 7:42am
so is foobar the new ipod? can i add a line out application to or frontend to make the sound better from an amp? i don't particularly like japanese programming so... id rather stick with the one that everyone use. it is silly really to shift to this new better application as i am not a true audiofile and foobar will do me just fine...
Reply
post #45 of 441
7/7/08 at 12:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by indikator View Post
I really wonder here why are you guys attacking OP?
is Foobar is the ultimate absolute (nothing can be better)?
what about professional recording player then?

lets put it this way, why is foobar sounds better than other(winamp, etc)?
isn't it just ASIO (said by you guys), well just put the same ASIO to the other and they will all sound same right? even foobar writer said foobar is not an improvement in soundwise
Correct. ASIO is ASIO, whether through foobar2k or winamp. That's it. Foobar doesn't sound better than winamp - it just DOESN'T. That's what the foobar writer is trying to say: the media player does not affect the sound in any way unless its defective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by indikator View Post
I'm not familiar with multimedia player, but isn't decoding job is done by the codec? so the decoding result quality will depend solely on the codec, isnt it?
Codecs follow standards- either they decode the file properly, or they do not. It's the SAME decoding algorithm for MP3 regardless of the program.

Quote:
Originally Posted by indikator View Post
And then it is the player job to manage the decoded file to be send to DAC, and I think this step is what makes difference, it can something like bit-perfect stuff or memory management to ensure the data will be sent on time, something like those
Correct. You just described how ASIO/kernel streaming works. You act like it's extremely hard to do any of these things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by indikator View Post
Unless you guys really understand how the program works and gives results, I don't think you can make such a claim like "this is the best program, nothing surpass it",
It's not hard to understand how audio playback software works - they perform a very simple function. The hard part is making media management libraries, aesthetics, functionality, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by indikator View Post
so the only way is to try the program itself, if you feel it is the same then so be it.....
That's a horrible suggestion. If you just haphazardly try like that, you'll end up (whether you like it or not, vehemently deny it or not) being subconsciously influenced by the placebo effect, or at least false expectations. Plus there's always the possibility of Lilith just DSP'ing the sound, and you wouldn't even notice that tomfoolery if you just randomly opened up programs and A/B tested it.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Lilith Audio Player