Difference between Microsoft Windows (Vista) volume control and FB2K's volume control

AFAIK the Windows volume control should change the power output to the speakers while the Foobar volume control should use an algorithm to reduce the volume of the music. You should get the best results by keeping Foobars volume maxed while changing the Windows volume.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABXG 

AFAIK the Windows volume control should change the power output to the speakers while the Foobar volume control should use an algorithm to reduce the volume of the music. You should get the best results by keeping Foobars volume maxed while changing the Windows volume.

Errrrr, how the hell could Windows reduce the the power output to the speakers? I might be missing something but this sounds really strange to me so I'd love some clarification. I always thought both Windows and foobar were digital and 32bit which is fine albeit not quite bit perfect. (and that in XP it was 16bit and pretty bad)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalston 

I always thought both Windows and foobar were digital and 32bit which is fine albeit not quite bit perfect. (and that in XP it was 16bit and pretty bad)

 

What? So what is bit perfect to you?

Well as soon as you use a digital volume control it's not bit perfect anymore, is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalston 

Well as soon as you use a digital volume control it's not bit perfect anymore, is it?

Ah, so that's what you were saying. That's exactly why foobar2000 attenuation should be avoided at all costs, just like any digital system volume settings. No need to reduce the dynamic range when there are physical volume controls.

I think there's a confusion here between 32-bit (x86) operating systems and 32-bit sound. The bittage of your OS shouldn't really make any difference to the quality of your music, just the amount of usable RAM and the some internal architecture. Windows OSs have been 32-bit as default since Win95, and more recently there's been the option to use a 64-bit OS.

I have read something about the Windows master volume control compressing dynamic range by somehow making all your music less than 16-bit and the Foobar volume control actually killing and pillaging in Norse villages in its spare time, but I don't know how much stock I'd put by those accounts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoetheArachnid 

I think there's a confusion here between 32-bit (x86) operating systems and 32-bit sound. The bittage of your OS shouldn't really make any difference to the quality of your music, just the amount of usable RAM and the some internal architecture. Windows OSs have been 32-bit as default since Win95, and more recently there's been the option to use a 64-bit OS.

 

I have read something about the Windows master volume control compressing dynamic range by somehow making all your music less than 16-bit and the Foobar volume control actually killing and pillaging in Norse villages in its spare time, but I don't know how much stock I'd put by those accounts.

Actually, you might be the one mixing things here

I don't think kalston is speaking about the architecture of the OS at all, but the audio format being used.

But I'll say it again, digital volumes are not to be used, for they do destroy the audio, plain and simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalston 

Errrrr, how the hell could Windows reduce the the power output to the speakers? I might be missing something but this sounds really strange to me so I'd love some clarification. I always thought both Windows and foobar were digital and 32bit which is fine albeit not quite bit perfect. (and that in XP it was 16bit and pretty bad)

 

I was referring to this. Windows and Foobar are digital programs, that much should be obvious. Talking about Foobar and Windows as being 32-bit has nothing to do with a bit-perfect stream at all. Different bits, different purposes, entirely different applications. Not to mention the fact that there's only about three 32-bit tracks out there, and less DACs that can play them. If he's saying that they're 32-bit audio capable, that's entirely matter of hardware rather than software.

All volume control has some kind of loss, both digital and analogue. Both compress dynamic range, to an extent. The only reason volume knobs are used is because they feel better than sliding a bar on a screen.

Again, I think you're not getting the point that kalston could be talking about 32bits FP, not actual 32bits output, like what's found on those VERY esoteric ultra high end pieces of hardware.

Anyway, both you and me have already made our points about loss of dynamic range, so he already has an answer.

Yeah I was just referring to the fact that both foobar2000 & Windows versions newer than XP have a "high quality" digital volume control (32bit FP) which is decent but still nothing like analogue (not saying that it's bad, just that it works in a completely different way). Whether the difference is truly audible and truly matters is another debate but I don't think this is the right thread. 

ABXG made it sound like Vista's slider was analogue, which is what bothered me. 

So my answer to the OP would be: both sliders are equally good (or bad) although I tend to trust foobar more (purely personal belief). 

I don't think you really got what 32bits FP was really about.

Anyway, the answer is simple. Neither of the digital volume controls should be used. Leave everything at 0dB attenuation and control volume from your DAC/amp.

In case you guys haven't noticed: (recent) versions of foobar2000 link the internal volume control directly to the Windows Mixer (if you use DirectSound).

Check it out, right click the windows volume tray icon and open the Volume Mixer. Now change the volume in fb2k - the Windows Volume Mixer slider will be synchronized (this saves fb2k from additionally processing each sample for attenuation).

Internally both fb2k and the Windows Vista+ Mixer work with 32-bit floating point so it doesn't really matter who's doing the attenuation. 32-bit floating point provides dynamic range, signal/noise ratio etc. hardware can only dream of. It also doesn't matter if fb2k or the Windows Mixer do the conversion to 16 or 24 bits for your soundcard/interface, because both, afaik, add dither (to randomize quantization noise).

Whether to use a digital volume control is not a question to be answered with a simple yes or no. Both approaches have their pro's and con's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor 

In case you guys haven't noticed: (recent) versions of foobar2000 link the internal volume control directly to the Windows Mixer (if you use DirectSound).

Check it out, right click the windows volume tray icon and open the Volume Mixer. Now change the volume in fb2k - the Windows Volume Mixer slider will be synchronized.

 

Internally both fb2k and the Windows Vista+ Mixer work with 32-bit floating point so it doesn't really matter who's doing the attenuation. 32-bit floating point provides dynamic range, signal/noise ratio etc. hardware can only dream of. It also doesn't matter if fb2k or the Windows Mixer do the conversion to 16 or 24 bits for your soundcard/interface, because both, afaik, add dither.

 

Whether to use a digital volume control is not a question to be answered with a simple yes or no. Both approaches have their pro's and con's.

True, foobar2000 and Windows mixer are indeed synced.

But xnor, care to ellaborate a bit further over the pros and cons of digital vs analog volume control?