or Connect
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 14

post #196 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeizo View Post

it circumvents the need for the sharp filtering needed around 22kHz using 44.1kHz samplerate ie similar to using a very slow filter instead.
This is nothing to do with DAC functionality and is encoded into the audio file itself. If samples above 22kHz were not filtered out before encoding the audio, you would be encoding the resulting aliasing into the file.

The exception is the playback of DSD and DXD files in real-time - native DSD files need a lowpass filter applied to them, because DSD contains a lot of ultrasonic noise, and DXD files are often sourced from DSD masters that did not filter out the ultrasonic noise.

I think this can also be seen in files from places like HDtracks as well.
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!
Most DAC chips (apart from the latest DSD-capable ones) should sound better around 96kHz. However some devices may internally resample everything to their maximum rate regardless of what you send it (actually, most probably do this now) so what you might be experiencing is better quality upsampling on the PC (or at least different upsampling) than the device is doing internally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

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.
I think the Sabre DACs are operating in the megahertz range internally regardless of what the input is. (they need to be capable of it, because they support native DSD)

What Chodi describes is likely a difference in the way that resampling is handled in his player, or simply placebo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmarCCX View Post

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.
I like a player that handles all formats equally well. Few players seem to be decoding lossy formats in 32-bit. JRiver does a great job handling all formats, and has a very powerful database engine running in the background, so you can essentially have it split how your library is handled based on the file types if you prefer.
post #197 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by StudioSound View Post




What Chodi describes is likely a difference in the way that resampling is handled in his player, or simply placebo.
 

I would buy the fact that the player together with a strong computer might produce better resampling results than the dac itself. I am using J River for upsampling and when I performed the same upsampling using sox and foobar the results with foobar were not even close. In fact  no software upsampling was preferable with foobar. So I think you are right that upsampling with the player may well account for my positive results. I can tell you after many years in high end audio what I am hearing is not a placebo. I've been around long enough to know that my results could be influenced by the particular synergy of the software and the components that I am using. Your mileage may vary.

post #198 of 229

Chodi, the resampler built into foobar2000 is good (~135 dB SNR, passband >21 kHz, linear phase) and there's also the SoX resampler plugin which is excellent (very high quality mode improves on the built-in one on every aspect and is highly configurable, in fact it is one of the best resamplers out there).

 

edit: When I tried measuring J River again I couldn't make it output 32 bit, all it would output was 24 bit samples. Also, I noticed that the filter is extremely steep resulting in a very long impulse response (about 6 times the length of the very high quality SoX filter).


Edited by xnor - 4/22/13 at 12:32pm
post #199 of 229

Yes, different software do sound different, it's an obstacle in the search for the perfect sound ... I have a few favorite players and noone is a perfect 10. But Musicbee on Windows is a very good compromise, the players on Linux are inferior as to functionality but on the other hand so do most sound very good as long as one is using ALSA instead of the degrading Pulseaudio. On Linux I switch back and forth between  Audacious, Deadbeef, Clementine and Quod Libet mostly but I try other players as well.

post #200 of 229

So did we decide the best Flac player for windows 8.1?

post #201 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

When I tried measuring J River again I couldn't make it output 32 bit, all it would output was 24 bit samples. Also, I noticed that the filter is extremely steep resulting in a very long impulse response (about 6 times the length of the very high quality SoX filter).


 

It's based on SSRC code.
post #202 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
 

So did we decide the best Flac player for windows 8.1?

 

there is no such thing as a best player.. foobar, Winamp, JRiver are equally good. if you want improved sound quality, just upgrade your headphone, amp, dac without worrying about these pointless discussions.  

post #203 of 229

MQN with MQNLoader, period.

post #204 of 229

foobar2000 is a superb player.. :D

post #205 of 229

Foorbar I think it is the best since it has so many features and it is free!

post #206 of 229

When I make a FLAC-File from a CD I use foobar2000 with the setting "dither=always". I've the Impression the sound has more air, room, space in it.

Is there anybody with the same or other impressions?

post #207 of 229

I can recomend very good free simple player with very high SQ (better than foobar2000 on my setup) - Album Player http://www.albumplayer.ru/english.html

It's UI is not as comfortable as in customized foobar2000, but when I want to get maximum sound quality - I use Album Player. Preferrable audio output for my taste - kernel streaming.

Give it a try - it's worth it.

post #208 of 229

AIMP wins against all other music players hands down, IMHO. :beerchug:

post #209 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio Reiner View Post

When I make a FLAC-File from a CD I use foobar2000 with the setting "dither=always". I've the Impression the sound has more air, room, space in it.

Is there anybody with the same or other impressions?
I wouldn't recommend doing this when you are ripping the CD, all you you have done is made an imperfect copy of the CD. Better practice would be rip the CD to FLAC using the standards settings and then manipulate the audio when playing.
Edited by A_Man_Eating_Duck - 5/17/14 at 11:03pm
post #210 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1c3d0g View Post
 

AIMP wins against all other music players hands down, IMHO. :beerchug:

Great player, I would recommend.

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?