Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › A (better sounding?) alternative to Foobar2000 -OR- A musing in the realm of bit-perfect streaming
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A (better sounding?) alternative to Foobar2000 -OR- A musing in the realm of bit-perfect streaming - Page 9

post #121 of 341
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post

The way you twist everyone's words repeatedly is incredibly infantile.

 

hehe, calling anything you can't disprove placebo is not about infantilism, it's about cluelessness.

 

Originally Posted by Draca View Post

It will open your eyes

I was hoping it'd make you shut it tbh

 

figures/measurements, there they are: 

http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.0;all

http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CPlay.SoftwareInducedJitter

 

all the testimonials of ppl saying that bit-perfect players do sound different, these are my proofs...my real-world proofs! where are yours? besides, your rescue squad is too exhausted.


Edited by leeperry - 5/29/10 at 7:05pm
post #122 of 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

hehe, calling anything you can't disprove placebo is not about infantilism, it's about cluelessness.


How is that related to my comment about your straw man wordplay?

 

Done feeding the troll and out of this roundabout thread. And just when I was tempted to try uLilith, too. Have fun getting through to this guy, people.

post #123 of 341
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post

just when I was tempted to try uLilith

 

oh darn', one missed sale...I'm sad, what am I gonna tell my boss? please try it, please please please [:gaga cry]

post #124 of 341

@lee I'm done with you too, really disappointed to see this level of childishness and ignorance from someone who's been on head-fi since 2004. Those links you repeatedly post have already been refuted.

 

Snide comments like "I was hoping it'd make you shut it tbh " really begin to annoy me after 9 pages...

 

(my) penultimate word:

 

I think the real problem with leeperry and other 'believers' is a genuine misunderstanding of how to actually go about measuring and engage in valid listening trials. leeperry doesn't use an SPL meter, suggests that subjective testimonials from random people on the internet who also don't have the correct equipment to conduct the right trials are valid evidence for the difference in bit-perfect playback software, and further, twists the words of anyone who refutes his assertions by morphing any scientific discussion into insulting and victimising the 'believer'. The problem is realistically just one of education... I am absolutely certain that once someone understands the fallibility of audiological memory they will understand the necessity of technology such as SPL meters and methodologies such as DBT/null tests.


Edited by Draca - 5/29/10 at 7:35pm
post #125 of 341

oh, now all the naysayers(possibly deaf too?) are gone...that makes me a sad panda url.gif

 

so OP, how are those DBT going then?

post #126 of 341

FInal post here:

 

Did try uLilith anyway. Heard no difference that can't be tossed up to placebo. In fact, listening to the track I was testing with ("High and Dry", Radiohead) right now on Foobar, it sounds better 

 

Good example of placebo: After testing the opening kickdrum and the first cymbal crash several times on both and hearing nothing different, I listened a little longer into the song with uLilith and heard underlying instrumentation I hadn't heard before! Excited, I switched to Foobar. Not only did I hear that instrumentation just as clear, but the bass sounded more forceful and textured! What can I possibly conclude?

post #127 of 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

oh, now all the naysayers(possibly deaf too?) are gone...that makes me a sad panda url.gif


Pathetic and detestable.

post #128 of 341

oh, look what you did now:

easterbunnycry.JPG

post #129 of 341

leeperry, the problem is you offer a religious argument, everyone else offers a scientific one.  As with all religious arguments, yours relies on some unknown that you yourself can't define but claim is there.

 

Bottom line:  DBT/ABX your stuff.  If you believe there is a huge difference, more power to you.

post #130 of 341

well, I've posted jitter measurements and a lot of technical infos here: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/493678/a-better-sounding-alternative-to-foobar2000-or-a-musing-in-the-realm-of-bit-perfect-streaming/120#post_6675431

 

Are they being discredited because jitter doesn't exist? Reality is merely an illusion, you know. I wonder what Patrick82 would think.

 

some ppl with the right gear to measure jitter also made striking discoveries with cables: http://www.stereophile.com/features/368/index3.html

 

hard to deny, huh? so cables can add jitter, but not computers? Am I getting this right?


Edited by leeperry - 5/29/10 at 7:37pm
post #131 of 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

well, I've posted jitter measurements and a lot of technical infos here: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/493678/a-better-sounding-alternative-to-foobar2000-or-a-musing-in-the-realm-of-bit-perfect-streaming/120#post_6675431


Do you have a link that suggests excessive jitter is the cause of sound differences in bit-perfect players? And/or any page that measures the jitter of different bit-perfect players?

 

Does this thread have the potential to become scientific again?

post #132 of 341

Actually I agree with Leeperry that Ulilith has a different sound. I didn't like it as much as I did kmplayer while Leeperry loves it. I'll just say I am not sure if it is due to placebo or not because I didn't do any scientific testing but what is weird is when I described what I heard with ulilith during my comparison with foobar, Leeperry and I agreed on the sonic characteristics of the differences. I can't remember the details of the notes that I took when I compared them but I do remember exchanging PMs with leeperry about it and I thought Ulilith just wasn't the type of sound I was looking for. Itunes also has a different sound... slightly harder and edgier than the softer yet lusher sounding foobar. I thought Jriver also had a lush type of sound but was engaging and less dry and had a more startling 3d feel when used with asio. 

 

I am not arguing that what I'm saying is fact, it is just my observation. No need to argue, I just want to contribute to the thread and say what I feel about the sound coming from different players because some people do hear the same characteristics of the differences I'm talking about too.

post #133 of 341

Yes, Reclock is too upfront for me on music...but it's fantastic for movies dialogs clarity! I like the laid-back sound of Ulilith better, besides Reclock can't do gapless...deal breaker.


Edited by leeperry - 5/29/10 at 7:54pm
post #134 of 341

"Yes, Reclock is too upfront for me on music...but it's fantastic for movies dialogs clarity! I like the laid-back sound of Ulilith better, besides Reclock can't do gapless...deal breaker." - leeperry

 

Rofl.

 

I'm watching this thread purely for the entertainment value of random audioph00l adjectives now.


Edited by Draca - 5/29/10 at 8:00pm
post #135 of 341

Well, I came back for the science. So are you going to offer up any more actual evidence? Otherwise I'm leaving again.

 

Also, if jitter is just noise, how does too much of it or a lack of it become "lush", "dry", "3-D"?

 

Also, funnily enough, I found uLilith the opposite of "laid-back", if I could call it anything. When first testing, the difference I thought I heard was a quicker and more powerful attack. So I guess you've just reinforced my belief in that experience as pure placebo.


Edited by Head Injury - 5/29/10 at 7:58pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › A (better sounding?) alternative to Foobar2000 -OR- A musing in the realm of bit-perfect streaming