Answer regal's question pl0x.
- 142 Posts. Joined 5/2010
- Location: Oxford, UK
- Select All Posts By This User
Someone really should rewrite the VST implementation... Meh, I don't use VSTs.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.