or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › ASIO superior?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ASIO superior? - Page 2

post #16 of 62

I use WASAPI Event Style with my sound card and with J.River with internal volume control. That way I can use J.River 64bit volume processing instead of Windows. I use ASIO for all my DAW software and for my MIDI keyboards. ASIO is required for MIDI work otherwise the latency of the keyboard will drive me nuts.

post #17 of 62

i've read somewhere saying that if your DAc/soundcard has native ASIO support, then using ASIO is better. Unless ASIO is causing you issues (like me), then use WAsapi 

post #18 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by john57 View Post
 

I use WASAPI Event Style with my sound card and with J.River with internal volume control. That way I can use J.River 64bit volume processing instead of Windows. I use ASIO for all my DAW software and for my MIDI keyboards. ASIO is required for MIDI work otherwise the latency of the keyboard will drive me nuts.

Have you compared the sound of J. River's volume processing to preserving the bits and using an analog volume control?

post #19 of 62

J.River digital volume control works far better in preserving sound quality much better than my Emotiva XDA-1 digital volume control. Normally ASIO and  WASAPI driver do not allow windows to control volume. In J.River i switched from system to internal volume control and I can control the volume using the ASIO or the WASPI driver.  J.River is one of the few audio playback software that can do this. The problem is that if you are using the standard Windows Direct Sound you have to adjust windows volume control to 100% and then let J.River use its internal volume control after windows. The issue was that the noise floor was becoming quite audible. Only when I use the hardware audio device ASIO or the preferred WASPI driver was the noise floor lower. You can then leave the windows volume control to where it was for audio on the internet since the ASIO or the WASPI does not care here the windows volume control is at and that will help prevent audio blowout.     See the J.River web support for more info.

 

http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Volume#Mode_Details

post #20 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by john57 View Post
 

J.River digital volume control works far better in preserving sound quality much better than my Emotiva XDA-1 digital volume control. Normally ASIO and  WASAPI driver do not allow windows to control volume. In J.River i switched from system to internal volume control and I can control the volume using the ASIO or the WASPI driver.  J.River is one of the few audio playback software that can do this. The problem is that if you are using the standard Windows Direct Sound you have to adjust windows volume control to 100% and then let J.River use its internal volume control after windows. The issue was that the noise floor was becoming quite audible. Only when I use the hardware audio device ASIO or the preferred WASPI driver was the noise floor lower. You can then leave the windows volume control to where it was for audio on the internet since the ASIO or the WASPI does not care here the windows volume control is at and that will help prevent audio blowout.     See the J.River web support for more info.

 

http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Volume#Mode_Details

I'm talking about using an analog volume control such as you find on most headphone amps... preserving the bits on the recording, the output of the DAC is full range, and then you control the volume on your amp.

post #21 of 62

A 64 bit digital control is going to track better than using an analog volume control between channels. 64 bit digital volume control is more precise than any analog volume controller you going to find. Any errors or reduction of SQ is going to be below the 24bit resolution range of the digital files that will be converted to analog.  You do not have to worry about wearing out the analog volume control that can go noisy in the long run. The analog controls on the amp if any and the gain trimmer ports on my speaker monitors are then used as limiters to protect the equipment from overloads.


Edited by john57 - 11/27/13 at 9:28pm
post #22 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by john57 View Post
 

A 64 bit digital control is going to track better than using an analog volume control between channels. 64 bit digital volume control is more precise than any analog volume controller you going to find. Any errors or reduction of SQ is going to be below the 24bit resolution range of the digital files that will be converted to analog.  You do not have to worry about wearing out the analog volume control that can go noisy in the long run. The analog controls on the amp if any and the gain trimmer ports on my speaker monitors are then used as limiters to protect the equipment from overloads.

But have you compared the sound? I'm not talking about engineering details, because I believe they can be misleading.

post #23 of 62

Already stated in my first post to you that the J.River volume control works better (sounds better) than using the digital volume control on my Emtiva XDA-1 which losses sound details at low volume sitting. You can hear the difference. I also stated that using the ASIO or the WASPI  sounds better because of the lower noise floor over the Windows Direct Sound driver when using J.River internal volume control.

post #24 of 62

I've used both Wasapi and ASIO.

 

I can't really tell any audible difference,

 

 

the reason for using both had to do with usb ticks I'd get every now and then (but no longer an issue).

 

download both and try them both, if you're unsure.

post #25 of 62

If one has a Creative card, would using OpenAL not be a better alternative to WASAPI / ASIO / Kernel Streaming when it comes to a direct connection to the hardware? For that matter, if you are a Windows 8 user, does any of this matter? I recall reading some time ago that Windows 8 audio engine gave direct hardware access.

post #26 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by rene mauricio View Post
 

For that matter, if you are a Windows 8 user, does any of this matter? I recall reading some time ago that Windows 8 audio engine gave direct hardware access.


WASAPI is the modern audio engine in Windows.

post #27 of 62

I thought Microsoft had come up with something... newer. I am not saying you are wrong but WASAPI was present as far back as Windows Vista, no? I wonder what all they did different this time around. Either way; is OpenAL a viable / better solution than the aforementioned methods?

post #28 of 62

I am running WASAPI out of my laptop using fubar, and it works well enough that I haven't messed with trying to use ASIO on the laptop yet.

IvOKvh

post #29 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by rene mauricio View Post

 I recall reading some time ago that Windows 8 audio engine gave direct hardware access.

Correct, its called offloading.

As far as I know, there is no software/hardware combination at the present using it.

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/hh439707(v=vs.85).aspx

post #30 of 62

To answer my own question (in case anyone else is wondering); ASIO vs OpenAL provides no change in audio but I did notice that OpenAL would consume about 1.7% of my CPU while ASIO is 0%. It would also take a second or two for music to start / stop on OpenAL.

 

I will continue to use ASIO :-)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › ASIO superior?