Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › foobar2000 HD v2.1 released
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

foobar2000 HD v2.1 released

post #1 of 59
Thread Starter 

7/31/2011: v3.4 released

foobar2000 HE v3.4

 

For intel cpu only, AMD do not use:
 

Edited by pkshan - 7/31/11 at 2:07am
post #2 of 59

Pardon my ignorance but what is this? A quick google search didn't provide much info.

post #3 of 59

Thanks. but i can't download any of the Intel versions

post #4 of 59
Thread Starter 

v2.2 released ,SQ is much better than before

post #5 of 59

v2.2 better than previous SQ-wise? even when using WASAPI or ASIO?

post #6 of 59
Thread Starter 
Fixed the compatibility issue under winxp sorry
post #7 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kashtwa View Post

v2.2 better than previous SQ-wise? even when using WASAPI or ASIO?



waveOut sounds better than ASIO in this version

post #8 of 59

what a weird version and it doesn't work here.

post #9 of 59

Looks like  stripped back version of standard foobar 2000, for the super-paranoid among us (myself included).

 

Some of the feature look quite useful.  Worth hacking around to get it to work anyway.

 

this is still infinitely more user friendly than cmp2


Edited by drez - 7/5/11 at 2:07am
post #10 of 59
Thread Starter 

v2.4 released

post #11 of 59

I've used this, including the latest version, and I like the way it sounds. But I have to say that the lack of FLAC support is a real deal-killer for me. Is there any way at all to get a future version usable with FLAC files?

post #12 of 59
Thread Starter 

For some reason, I can't make a high SQ flac plugin.

the original foobar flac plugin sounds not so good.

 

Even I could make a hi SQ flac plugin, the wav will still sounds better than flac.

because the wav plugin program code is much less complex than the flac,

 

 

I've converted all my flac collections to wav


Edited by pkshan - 7/18/11 at 11:03pm
post #13 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkshan View Post

For some reason, I can't make a high SQ flac plugin.

the original foobar flac plugin sounds not so good.

 

Even I could make a hi SQ flac plugin, the wav will still sounds better than flac.

because the wav plugin program code is much less complex than the flac,

 

 

I've converted all my flac collections to wav


yeeees.... *patpatpat*. And for those who don't believe in voodoo, FLAC is easily decodable in s/w or h/w by even 200mhz arm CPUs with barely and cache or RAM...Moreover, you can dump the stream to disk and verify it's bit perfect...Hell, it decodes several frames into a buffer (decodes to PCM lol) in all likelihood anyway so what drugs with delicious placebo are we on today?

Now if you could IDK, say ABX the two and provide evidence of a statistically significant difference...(or even do that for a WAV vs a FLAC file of the same song)
Edited by svyr - 7/19/11 at 1:39am
post #14 of 59
Thread Starter 

Sound quality is not all about bit perfect, but jitter,

 

complex program codes will greatly increase jitter,

 

Accurate data stream timing is very important for cd transport and software player

 

a bad timing will distort the shape of sound wave, increase high frequency noise etc....


Edited by pkshan - 7/19/11 at 3:02am
post #15 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkshan View Post

Sound quality is not all about bit perfect, but jitter,

 

complex program codes will greatly increase jitter,

 

Accurate data stream timing is very important for cd transport and software player

 

a bad timing will distort the shape of sound wave, increase high frequency noise etc....


ABX wav vs flac in foobar biggrin.gif and see whether it substantiates it. Jitter quoted to affect PC audio is from transmission and inherent to USB receiver (and transfer mode) + DAC chip and clock. None of these are as prominent as ground loops, DPC problems, and OS settings that cause audio to blatantly drop packets.
You're streaming data from the decoder buffer where it's in PCM format for both FLAC and WAV after the FLAC decoder that causes <1% CPU load while running. Claiming it produces audible jitter is simply pseudoscience and is equivalent to dancing around the pc naked with a set of drums and facepaint on.

Let me draw a simple parallel for you. There are tens if not hundreds of processes and services/drivers running at a much higher priority and consuming a lot more CPU/IO and memory than the decoder. Even if the decoder caused magical jitter it would be miniscule compared to those. Use basic logic, please. E.g. do a CPU/IO/Memory profile on your system to see how little resources foobar actually consumes compared to the rest of the system. (not to mention transmitting data after it's being decoded to PCM and from a buffer biggrin.gif )

Moreover, Wav files are larger and consume more disk I/O as a trade-off, arguably, disk i/o is even worse than CPU use on some systems wink.gif
Edited by svyr - 7/19/11 at 5:29am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › foobar2000 HD v2.1 released