Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Foobar2000 Dolby Headphone config - Comment & discuss!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Foobar2000 Dolby Headphone config - Comment & discuss! - Page 29

post #421 of 729
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zachchen1996 View Post

If you have windows 8 release preview should you use wasapi or asio?

 

No idea. ^^ But I'd assume WASAPI should work fine.

post #422 of 729

just tried the forward configuration, and i'm blown away, amazing work, thanx.

post #423 of 729

I want to ask, when you updated the whole foobar2k portable link, did you update the link on "manual install" section as well?

I downloaded the DSP chain preset with your EQ setting "foobar2000.EQ.Balanced.(Forward)-RPGWiZaRD.fbcp" but I am wondering if that is an old version or the one updated on 27.5.2012...

 

if it's an old version, please update it L3000.gif
 

post #424 of 729
Thread Starter 

All links are always updated at the same time so don't worry. Here's also an experimental but I'm starting to love it a lot - less reverb config for the "forward" setting. Been giving it enough evaluation by now to be able to add it here, feedback is always welcome as usual!

 

I'm unsure what to do, if I should just add as an option or replace the other config, probably safest to add it as an alternative but I'll wait for hopefully some feedback first about this config but my own opinion is that this less reverby config's advantages surpasses its disadvantages versus the one with a bit more reverb so this one I concider a bit "better". It's probably versus the other forward config slightly smaller in terms of soundstage as the reverb & soundstage size is kinda tied to each other so you have to give up one or the other. But what I lost in soundstage size with less reverb I gain in terms of transparency and slightly better definition of bass response.

 

Pre-configured packagefoobar2000.v1.1.6.Dolby.Headphone.(Forward.Less.Reverb)-RPGWiZaRD

 

Manuall install fbcp filefoobar2000.v1.1.6.Dolby.Headphone.(Forward.Less.Reverb)-RPGWiZaRD.fbcp 

Use DSP chain serialization helper plugin to load the .fbcp file by holding down shift key while clicking the playback dropdown menu -> DSP chain serializer -> load.

 

 

PS, countless hours have been spent dancing to the engaging sound during the evaluations, if music involves you it's through this config. ^^


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 6/24/12 at 4:28pm
post #425 of 729

Shiny Toy Guns Major Tom cover, scary !

 

Anyone tried capturing the output here and shooting it over to a smart device:).........?
 

post #426 of 729
Why do you use the Electri-Q VST?
I would assume that using a graphic equalizer will sound inaudibly similar. This is also much more user-friendly when manually setting it up.
post #427 of 729
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilpo View Post

Why do you use the Electri-Q VST?
I would assume that using a graphic equalizer will sound inaudibly similar. This is also much more user-friendly when manually setting it up.

 

Because Electri-Q allows me for a much more precise tweaking, I've fineadjusted the EQ setting for like 1 year by now haha, you'd be suprised how small adjustment can make a difference on it. For me the end result is many times more important than user-friendliness. The more advanced the better for me (anti-apple psychology).

 

Any takers on:

 

foobar2000.v1.1.6.Dolby.Headphone.(Forward)-RPGWiZaRD.zip (Updated on 27.5.2012) - slightly bigger soundstage but a bit more reverb (too much?) which may cause a bit less than ideal transparency in some complex tracks

 

Versus the new config:

 

foobar2000.v1.1.6.Dolby.Headphone.(Forward.Less.Reverb)-RPGWiZaRD (Added 25.6.2012) - slightly smaller soundstage due to decreased reverb => slightly better transparency and bass definition (doesn't sound as smeared in busy tracks).

 

I'd be curious to know which one you prefer between these two.


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 6/27/12 at 6:37am
post #428 of 729
I'll stick with graphic equalizer, since the ERB of the auditory filters, as well as the loudness selectivity fall within its precision, and should therefore be more than precise enough.

But maybe I'm just being stubborn wink.gif
post #429 of 729
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilpo View Post

I'll stick with graphic equalizer, since the ERB of the auditory filters, as well as the loudness selectivity fall within its precision, and should therefore be more than precise enough.
But maybe I'm just being stubborn wink.gif

 

Every EQ doesn't have equally good sound quality either, I found graphic equalizer to not match Electri-Q's sound quality which is the freeware EQ with the best sound quality to my ears so far. I was able to achieve much better results with Electri-Q so it was an easy pick.


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 6/27/12 at 7:25am
post #430 of 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post

Every EQ doesn't have equally good sound quality either, I found graphic equalizer to not match Electri-Q's sound quality which is the freeware EQ with the best sound quality to my ears so far. I was able to achieve much better results with Electri-Q so it was an easy pick.
The only problems associated with equalizers are phases distortion, and perhaps too shallow slopes. However, this shouldn't really be a problem with digital EQ. Nor have I really been able to detect any difference between different EQ DSP's, so I don't believe that there really is a difference in sound quality.
If you do hear a difference, I respect that, but I will just stick to my good old graphic equalizer.
post #431 of 729

There is a huge difference between equalizers. With a simple graphic equalizers you can't manipulate frequencies as precisely.

Also the filter quality is usually not as good.  With a good equalizer you can work on  very small  bandwiths.
 

post #432 of 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicreo View Post

There is a huge difference between equalizers. With a simple graphic equalizers you can't manipulate frequencies as precisely.
Also the filter quality is usually not as good.  With a good equalizer you can work on  very small  bandwiths.

 
Like I said, the ERB is too large for that too matter. Around 20 bands is enough. Adding more will not have any audible effect, simply because the bandwidth of each individual filter becomes smaller than the ERB of the auditory system.
Most digital EQ's have 20 bands, and do not introduce any audible phase distortion unlike analog ones. Hence there is no reason to assume that more bands or more processing power will make it sound better.
post #433 of 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilpo View Post

Like I said, the ERB is too large for that too matter. Around 20 bands is enough. Adding more will not have any audible effect, simply because the bandwidth of each individual filter becomes smaller than the ERB of the auditory system.
Most digital EQ's have 20 bands, and do not introduce any audible phase distortion unlike analog ones. Hence there is no reason to assume that more bands or more processing power will make it sound better.

 

It depends what you're doing.  A graphic is plenty good to change the general tone of something but if you're dealing with narrow peaks or resonances you'll need more precision.

post #434 of 729
Thread Starter 

Also the basic function of an EQ varies, how well it either boosts or cuts the amplitude of given frequency range, some EQs just sound more artificial than others when modifying the frequency response, this is where Electri-Q does particularly well for a freeware EQ, versus for example Realtek onboard chips 10-band EQ the Electri-Q fares much better, boost/cut more than 3dB on Realtek onboard EQ starts to produce a very colored sound usually. You just want it to either boost or decrease the frequencies (modify the loudness curve), the kX Audio's 10-band EQ I miss a lot, it was even able to boost by up to 12dB without leading to horrible clipping or audible distortion, it just sounded like a natural extension of the headphone's sound like doing a hardware mod, not all EQs do the basic function of an EQ as well, at least to my ears and I've compared a lot of EQs, I also remember seeing an article around in this forums where the person compared different EQ's quality and it varied quite a lot in the measurement too.


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 6/27/12 at 10:30am
post #435 of 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

It depends what you're doing.  A graphic is plenty good to change the general tone of something but if you're dealing with narrow peaks or resonances you'll need more precision.
Sure. But that's not really the case here, so a graphic equalizer good enough.
In case you do have something with narrow peaks/dips you can also just increase the number of bands.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Foobar2000 Dolby Headphone config - Comment & discuss!