A (better sounding?) alternative to Foobar2000 -OR- A musing in the realm of bit-perfect streaming - Page 23

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry 

well, even that very VST plugin sounds horrid in foobar using George's wrapper...anyways

Answer regal's question pl0x.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry 

well, even that very VST plugin sounds horrid in foobar using George's wrapper...anyways

Someone really should rewrite the VST implementation...  Meh, I don't use VSTs.

The DirectX and VST based effects were originally meant for studio applications.  They are used with wrappers to use with music players...

He won't because he is full of BS and knows very very little about computer audio,  other than regurgitated hydrogenaudio posts he is pretty useless for information.

My guess is he is a shill for this "free" player he likes so much that shows trojans with my virus scanner,  probably getting kickbacks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draca 

Answer regal's question pl0x.

Michel Audiard said "I don't talk to ********, it instructs them"...It's a damn shame you guys can't hear differences though, better luck next time

You know, it must be placebo but I think threads with leeperry in it are much more informative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thuantran 

You know, it must be placebo but I think threads with leeperry in it are much more informative.

I think it's the rational, informative reaction to his intellectually dishonest idiocy that results in such an observation being made.

I've been trying Win7 (i have to because of bitstream with ATI 5).

I don't need my Essence ST anymore cause it does sound as bad as everything else here. Even HDMI audio has same sound that i can't say about XP. I didn't expect it will be so bad.

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys 

I've been thinking of trying to build a kind of DirectShow wrapper for Foobar.  If someone can definitively prove that Reclock has a positive effect on audio (or wants to pay a 'wage' for the finished working product), I'll get to work on it.

I'm not clear what you mean by digitally isolated?

If I clock my DAC to my dedicated word clock, and my Lynx AES16 (transport) to the same clock, of course I still have to pass the bitstreamed digital audio data (via AES) to the DAC.

I assume you just meant the clock being isolated?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi 

 

Agreed. This is one of the easier audio questions to resolve. All it would take is someone with a DAC where the clock is generated at the DAC end rather than the PC end, and which is digitally isolated from the PC. Such a DAC would be impervious to any possible software, PC or transport related effects. If someone using such a DAC thought software players sounded different, we'd know it was placebo.