Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › foobar much better with ks than wasapi here!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

foobar much better with ks than wasapi here!

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

i know this goes against everything that has been said. the sound quality and especially imaging is much better with ks on my system. wasapi does not let me choose 32 bit but ks does if that makes the difference but i doubt thats it. i am using pphs ultra and going to try sox but i think sox is lower quality. i am using 32/192 to the soundcard,192 from the sounnd card going to the dac. i have to do this since there is no other way with this soundcard. i cannot do bit perfect. maybe that is why ks is better, i don't know. the fact is it is far better than wasapi on my system. it is hotter,more lively and has much better soundstage and air. i just figured i'd tell about it since it is worth a try for anyone.

 

edit: it is 32 bit. i tried ks with 24 bit. wasapi does not allow me to use 32 bit. i know i should not be able to hear this technically. it must be something with my hardware. sox is also better which does not make much sense. there is simply much better soundstage and air around the instruments.

 

now, if anyone knows a way i can get wasapi working with 32 bit i bet i''d be even better off.


Edited by music_man - 5/22/11 at 4:40am
post #2 of 12

What you're writing doesn't make all to much sense to me.

 

Btw, which soundcard do you have?

post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 

i started off by saying it did not make sense. i have no idea why this is. the av-710 in this machine. it's the card. i have a much better card in another machine and wasapi is the best of course.

post #4 of 12

The av-710 supports up to 24-bit samples, not 32.

 

I'd also like to know why you resample to 192 kHz. I'd guess most of your music has a different sample rate and every conversion comes at its cost.

 

Thirdly, ks is not recommended for anything above Windows XP.

 

"sox is also better which does not make much sense" .. you shouldn't notice any difference in your system / use case (other than cpu usage obviously).

 

WASAPI doesn't work with 32-bit samples because your soundcard doesn't support it.


Edited by xnor - 5/22/11 at 1:33pm
post #5 of 12
Thread Starter 

sorry i did not reply i broke my toe yesterday. it will not work at 44.1. the bottom line is this is a 8 year old computer running win 7 and nothing really works at all. i do have a couple of nice i7 machines. one with a lynx22 that sounds great. i did not really want to toss this machine in the trash thats all. i am fully aware of all the stuff to do with the av710. it just won't work on this machine.

ks has a little hotter sound that i like on this machine. i understand i should be running wasapi. well, i guess it is time to toss this. xnor, you are correct in everything you said. i already know this.

post #6 of 12
Thread Starter 

ok. i got it working bit perfect. i am an idiot. i had the windows mixer checked at 192hz. so i could not change any settings in the envy panel. duh. i like j. river. just because it is cool. foobar should sound the same no matter what anyone says i suppose.

post #7 of 12
Thread Starter 

wow was i wrong! 16/48(the format of my media stream),wasapi is by far better than resampling in foobar. let the lavry do it's job. it is also better than jriver. i think this has just been confirmed in another thread anyways. you were correct xnor. the computer is working fine now that i unlocked the format in windows mixer.

post #8 of 12

Still sounds a bit confused tho, I'll try to make this a bit clearer:

 

Resampling is used to change the sample rate, this works regardless of any output settings.

 

WASAPI enables fb2k to operate in an exclusive mode which means that only fb2k will send samples to your soundcard, all other applications will be muted.

This allows fb2k to preserve the sample rate of the music. This means that for example, if you play a 44.1, 48 and 96 kHz song your soundcard has to support all three sample rates, or playback will fail with WASAPI.

 

DirectSound is similar because it also uses WASAPI under the hood, but in a shared mode which means that multiple applications can play sounds.

Since different sounds from different applications need to be mixed together you have to configure one common format in Windows for your soundcard.

In this case you can use a high-quality resampler in fb2k to convert your 44.1, 48, 96, ... kHz songs to the common format. Otherwise the soundcard driver will handle the format converison.

It makes sense to choose the most common sample rate of your music collection as common format to keep the need to resample to a minimum.

 

The bit depth can be set to the highest value that is supported by your soundcard. This can give you some headroom for digital attenuation.

 

KS is kinda the predecessor of WASAPI for Windows 2000 or XP - imo not recommended unless other solutions don't work.


Edited by xnor - 5/25/11 at 5:22am
post #9 of 12
Thread Starter 

ok thanks. i am not using a resampler now. my stream is 16/48 and i am using wasapi output at 16 bit but i will try 24 like you said. i have the soundcard set at 48khz or it would not play of course. it seems to sound much better than resampling. i am only using the toslink output to a dac that is upsampling. it is probably best to just let the dac do it's job i suppose.

post #10 of 12

Yeah I think so too, and it also saves the CPU from doing a lot of work.

post #11 of 12

what is ks?

post #12 of 12

kernel streaming

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › foobar much better with ks than wasapi here!