Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › cMP and cPlay media player
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

cMP and cPlay media player - Page 9

post #121 of 125


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post

What I do to try to reduce the likelihood of that fallacy is to switch gear up a lot to try to prove or disprove what I think I hear. I think everyone should be doing this for educational purposes. Although blind testing would be most ideal to prevent self-deception, it's not usually as pleasant, or easy to do properly.

 

Going through a few dozen songs, I think one that well-illustrates v39's strong points is Patty Smith's Because the Night, album Easter. Excellent coherency.


I agree. cPlay 2.0b39 version is, indeed, great. Even on non-cMP systems. After loosing my XP machine months ago, I was surprised that even earlier versions did well on my Win 7 box. Then 2.0b39 arrived, and it topped everything I had heard from the computer via my speakers or my cans.

 

With cPlay (any recent version) vs Foobar at 24/192, both with SOX at same settings, the improvement brought on by cPlay is still patent. This is with any music. (There is no current SRC code for the latest Foobar, though there is for cPlay. I do tend to prefer the "frankness" of SOX most of the time.)

 

 

OTOH, Foobar offers a really good mix of SQ and convenience. For walking around or for casual listening Foobar is great. However, if I sit down to listen to music, I don't mind cPlay's less-than-ideal interface; the SQ improvement is well worth it.

 

In demonstrating this (and why I love "stereo" music) to a neighbor weeks ago, I ran the computer remotely from my room while he stared to a blank screen in the living room stereo system. I played a few pieces on both Foobar and cPlay 2.0b39. He always liked the cPlay playback more. Then I played "Messages" from the Bobby McFerrin "VOCAbuLarieS" CD. He loved it in Foobar. He flipped with the sound via cPlay.

 

Among other things he correctly remarked how an already great 3d soundstage with Foobar, gained vividness and solidity of elements with cPlay. He stood up when I walked back in and enthusiastically pointed to each of the locations where the voices "were".  Then I played more of the music that has good imaging information. After this session, he understood why I love "stereo" so much. So, cPlay made it easier to demonstrate.

 

Then I switched to SACDs (via player) in stereo with no PCM conversion. Now he wants a stereo system...I mean a real one.

 

However, he is budget-constrained. So, I showed him how cPlay can deliver superb soundstaging with the cans...he promptly ordered a Musiland 02 on eBay.


Edited by Ektalog - 11/20/10 at 7:52pm
post #122 of 125

Bumping up this old thread as i have found a new love with cPlay. I have been using Foobar + WASAPI for last few years. One of my friend suggested me try the track 8 'Way down deep" from Jennifer Warnes's The Hunter in Foobar and then compare with JRiver. He said that will show how good JRiver is. My trial version of JRiver is expired. Searching on memory based players landed me on cPlay. Boy-o-boy..there is a day and night difference between foobar and cPlay. cPlay excels in maintaining beautiful texture in deep bass and lower mid bass. It may be slightly airy. I am loving it. I am no longer enjoy music using Foobar + WASAPI.

 

If and only if cPlay provides a good playlist capability, it would be awesome.

post #123 of 125

Does CPlay run on AMD processors/chipsets? I can only find references to Intel on its website. I can't get it to play on my quad-core Phenom pc.

post #124 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by rexirius View Post

Does CPlay run on AMD processors/chipsets? I can only find references to Intel on its website. I can't get it to play on my quad-core Phenom pc.


Yes, it does. Any of my dual core AMD machines do (with XP or Win7 32, and once Vista-32). They have the AMD chipsets, as well. So far, I have not seen qualified reports that quads can't. I'll keep my eyes open.

I wonder if you may be using the "wrong" version of cPlay for AMD. The AMD CPUs report compatibility with some higher levels of SSE, etc, but do not really work with them. Backtrack one level and see what happens. The higher instruction sets help Intel chips do the work at lower CPU speeds. In practice, I run the AMD at 800mhz with no issues despite it using mostly one core.

 

These days I have a cMP/cPlay dedicated music PC. It may not be the most convenient PC interface, but it sure sounds terrific.

post #125 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ektalog View Post


Yes, it does. Any of my dual core AMD machines do (with XP or Win7 32, and once Vista-32). They have the AMD chipsets, as well. So far, I have not seen qualified reports that quads can't. I'll keep my eyes open.

I wonder if you may be using the "wrong" version of cPlay for AMD. The AMD CPUs report compatibility with some higher levels of SSE, etc, but do not really work with them. Backtrack one level and see what happens. The higher instruction sets help Intel chips do the work at lower CPU speeds. In practice, I run the AMD at 800mhz with no issues despite it using mostly one core.

 

These days I have a cMP/cPlay dedicated music PC. It may not be the most convenient PC interface, but it sure sounds terrific.

 

 

Thanks for the info. 
 
My AMD quad cores are running at 3400 Mhz and my OS is Windows 7 64 bit. 
 
I noticed that the installer packages have not been updated since 2010. I tried both the sse2 and the sse4 at the website and neither would start. 
 
Actually I'm totally satisfied with Foobar (Wasapi, event-driven) but I am intrigued by what I read about CPlay's SQ superiority, and I would like to hear it for myself, but my PC won't let me mad.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › cMP and cPlay media player