Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Best FLAC player for PC?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best FLAC player for PC? - Page 13

post #181 of 213

I like Musicbee very much  :-)
 

post #182 of 213

This might sound a bit off topic but I'm currently playing through adobe audition, and I'm noticing clearer mids and highs compared to when I play through Foobar2000.. Is there settings that I could improve the quality of Foobar2000? Or am I forever forced to play music through audio editting software..?


Edited by Nec3 - 4/18/13 at 6:27pm
post #183 of 213

If you are playing music in a bit perfect mode through foobar or J River to my ears they sound exactly the same. Once you start using any dsp or using the digital volume control it is a different story. J River handles dsp much better than foobar. To my ears J River stock dsp's or even a custom dsp with J River produce a much more natural result than foobar. Might be the 64 bit internal processing in J River that makes this difference. I am a big fan of foobar for flac playback in bit perfect mode but if you use any dsp J River will produce better results.

post #184 of 213

$50. Well I guess I'll give it a shot, I'll let you know how it turns out.

post #185 of 213

I use Linux as my primary music-OS, I use Audacious mostly as it has a good quality built in resampler, as I find a lot of music simply sounds better when upsampling Xonar Essence ST to 192kHz. I also use Clementine sometimes for it's librarian qualities.

 

But when in Windows I like Music Bee, as I stated above, also because of it's music library qualities and because of a good sounding built in resampler using WASAPI.

 

Musicbee sounds better than Foobar2000 by default when upsampling I think. But when using the "Foo Dsp Resampler Mod2 0.8.3" based on SoX in Foobar2000 I believe Foobar2000 may have a slight edge. In fact, when using "stereo direct" in the Creative drivers and 192kHz WASAPI with the Soundblaster Z it sounds amazingly close to Xonar Essence ST in sheer sound quality using Foobar2000. I used to prefer uLiliths built in upsampling, but "Foo Dsp Resampler Mod2 0.8.3" is more smooth and gives less listening fatique.

 

Of course, using those resamplers for upsampling in their respective "best" mode uses a lot of CPU-cycles and is not practically possible to use on all computers, but a Core i7 @ 4.7GHz is hardly bothered at all with upsampling going on and CPU:s are made to be used.

post #186 of 213
So you take CD quality audio @ 16/44.1 and upsample it to 24/192?
Does the audio actually sound better? What fills in the empty space so to speak?

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk 2
post #187 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrollDragon View Post

So you take CD quality audio @ 16/44.1 and upsample it to 24/192?
Does the audio actually sound better? What fills in the empty space so to speak?

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk 2

 

The audio file itself doesn't get any better, there's no hidden information to be retrieved, but many modern DAC:s benefit from upsampling because the DAC-chip simply performs better with higher sample rate. Lower noise, lower distorsion, lower crosstalk etc etc. and also it circumvents the need for the sharp filtering needed around 22kHz using 44.1kHz samplerate ie similar to using a very slow filter instead. It all depends on which DAC-chip is used so upsampling itself is not universal. If the chip is not up to it there will be no improvement, it could be worse instead.

 

edit. the empty space you asked about is filled up with zeros!

post #188 of 213
Thanks for the info.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk 2
post #189 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chodi View Post

If you are playing music in a bit perfect mode through foobar or J River to my ears they sound exactly the same. Once you start using any dsp or using the digital volume control it is a different story. J River handles dsp much better than foobar. To my ears J River stock dsp's or even a custom dsp with J River produce a much more natural result than foobar. Might be the 64 bit internal processing in J River that makes this difference. I am a big fan of foobar for flac playback in bit perfect mode but if you use any dsp J River will produce better results.

Having developed plugins myself I can tell you that nothing limits a foobar2000 DSP plugin from using 64 or 80 or even 128 bit floating point processing. Theoretically you can calculate results to arbitrary precision.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xeizo View Post

edit. the empty space you asked about is filled up with zeros!

And then these zeros and the original samples have to be filtered with a steep lowpass similar to the one in the DAC..

Btw, virtually any DAC does worse at 192 kHz than at 96 kHz.


Edited by xnor - 4/20/13 at 5:58pm
post #190 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Having developed plugins myself I can tell you that nothing limits a foobar2000 DSP plugin from using 64 or 80 or even 128 bit floating point processing. Theoretically you can calculate results to arbitrary precision.

 

 

I have no doubt what you say is correct (I've seen your work) but I still contend that J River sounds better with dsp plugins than foobar. I don't pretend to know the reason but I have done extensive listening to both with the same plugins and to my ears J River handles them all better. I also find that without any dsp added the two sound exactly the same given the same settings. I do use dsp so this issue was important to me to sort. For me the winner with dsp was obviously J River. I actually much prefer the simple interface of foobar but with dsp added I learned to live with the complex J River system for the great sound quality. 

post #191 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Btw, virtually any DAC does worse at 192 kHz than at 96 kHz.

 

Yes, as I said it all depends on which DAC-chip is used and possibly the implementation on the circuit board itself, it's not universal. However the cheap Soundblaster Z seems to benefit from running at 192kHz rather than 96kHz!

 

edit. also, I guess most USB-DAC:s would struggle with 192kHz even if their drivers support it, so upsampling should either be onboard already or used with a soundcard which has an infinitely faster bus-speed than an USB-device. And as I said, many PC:s have to weak CPU:s so you get high processor use and dropouts in the sound instead.


Edited by xeizo - 4/21/13 at 2:16am
post #192 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeizo View Post

 

Yes, as I said it all depends on which DAC-chip is used and possibly the implementation on the circuit board itself, it's not universal. However the cheap Soundblaster Z seems to benefit from running at 192kHz rather than 96kHz!

 

edit. also, I guess most USB-DAC:s would struggle with 192kHz even if their drivers support it, so upsampling should either be onboard already or used with a soundcard which has an infinitely faster bus-speed than an USB-device. And as I said, many PC:s have to weak CPU:s so you get high processor use and dropouts in the sound instead.

I've got a high end pc (3170) and my dac is using the Sabre 9018 chip (D18). On my system 192kHz is clearly better than 96kHz. I only upsample redbook 44kHz and the difference is positive. On my system if I upsample redbook to 96kHz it loses clarity which suggests the dac isn't happy. At 192kHz it opens up and the soundstage is huge with very specific placement. It's that wrap around, deep layered type of soundstage that is really engaging. 

post #193 of 213

That 48 (or 96) kHz can do quite a bit better than 44.1 (or 88.2) kHz is obvious since cheap products use only one clock, but saying that near 200 kHz it performs better would mean that they (deliberately?) made the product perform worse at 96 kHz.

Lavry Engineering sums it up pretty nicely:

Quote:
Whatever one hears on a 192KHz system can be introduced into a 96KHz system,
and much of it into lower sampling rates. That includes any distortions associated with 192KHz
gear, much of which is due to insufficient time to achieve the level of accuracy of slower
sampling.
Quote:
Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate.
It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio distortions.

Edited by xnor - 4/21/13 at 3:40am
post #194 of 213

Interesting, your quote regarding distortions at 192kHz if true might suggest that the huge soundstage effect I am hearing is a product of those distortions. Since it is well known that many like the distortions presented by various tube amps (myself included) it is possible that this is a positive effect. In my case I simply find that my dac results in a more engaging performance at 192kHz. Of course, all this is just personal preference. I don't doubt that my preference might have different results with a different dac.

post #195 of 213

I like having my MP3 and FLAC library separate.

 

I really like Winamp, but I only use it for my MP3 songs. I'm now trying Mediamonkey, Musicbee and Helium Music Manager to use for my FLAC library.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Best FLAC player for PC?