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 23

post #331 of 341
6/6/10 at 4:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

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


Answer regal's question pl0x.

Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #332 of 341
6/6/10 at 4:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

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


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

Reply
post #333 of 341
6/6/10 at 5:29pm

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

Reply
post #334 of 341
6/7/10 at 5:40am



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 View Post




Answer regal's question pl0x.

Reply
post #335 of 341
6/7/10 at 7:43am

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[:mrbrelle]


Edited by leeperry - 6/7/10 at 10:59am
Reply
post #336 of 341
6/7/10 at 9:14am

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

Reply
post #337 of 341
6/7/10 at 9:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuantran View Post

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.

Reply
post #338 of 341
6/7/10 at 2:37pm

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.

Reply
post #339 of 341
6/15/10 at 10:31pm

Reply
post #340 of 341
7/29/10 at 8:38am


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

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hybrys View Post

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.

Reply
post #341 of 341
7/29/10 at 8:57am

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 View Post



 

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.

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