[donunus]

I think I posted earlier that I thought the differences were bigger before using a different dac/amp/ and headphones but I never got into detail and comparing an old system to this new one won't really be valid since its been a while. Anyway I am not even sure if it was my havana dac, my emu0404usb or my valab that I was using along with my ldmk2 (with various tubes) before when I tested ulilith. Headphones back then were either the Audio Technica AD900 or the Sennheiser HD580. Now my system is even more simple and minimalistic, I'm just using a Nuforce Udac mostly out of its headphone jack to power my beyer dt150s using velour pads.

 

[leeperry]

I thought the differences were bigger

 
DBT or go home!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
darn it's funny to be on the skeptical side again

 

[donunus]

waaahahaha I'm alternating between foobar and ulilith this month and decide by the end of june which one is the winner hehehe

 

[regal]

Quote:

but uLilith and Reclock *are* bit-perfect...they don't "add" any DSP whatsoever...even their coders don't believe that bit-perfect players can sound different. XXHighEnd I find it hard to believe, I'd need to see a DTS/HDCD live test in video to believe it

 
Lee, I'm afraid you let the cat out of the bag with this post.   Asking to see a video feed of a live DTS/HDCD test comfirms that you don't have the equipment or energy to do this yourself.
 
This tells me that these different "bit perfect" software players you are praising haven't been validated to be bit perfect on your hardware/software combination.  I don't know how many times I've been told something was bitperfect only to test it and find it wasn't on my rig.
 
Get Windows 7 and a $100 DTS home theater reciever and get back to us.  I'll explain the Win 7 thing after you've cooled down.
 

 

[leeperry]

hehe my regal friend, you didn't make it to the new ignore list sadly(<fixed>)...you called me a shill for Burson a little while ago, now I'm a shill for free software I presume?

 
the HDCD/DTS tests have been done for Reclock, and uLilith's coder has done all the tests in the world on his side...now you do your homework, as I said earlier I couldn't care less that ppl use those players...as far as I'm concerned you guys can listen to 64kbit MP3 on a Realtek in WMP, it can't possibly be any worse than foobar 

 

[donunus]

Regal,
What is the windows 7 thing? As for me, I did notice that windows 7 makes the differences between players less obvious than they were when I used xp.

 

[leeperry]

it's the latest OS from m$(or so I heard

), regal has wonderful secrets to learn us about it: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/06/17/improving-audio-glitch-resilience-in-windows-7.aspx

 

[shimm]

Quote:

Surprised nobody has asked what source people were using when hearing their differences or not hearing them.

Well, i'd say in my system (XP, Essence ST) even mp3 sounds great with MPC/ReClock.
 

 

[regal]

Notice Mr Perry declined to perform the bitperfect test on his rig, he doesn't understand the simple concept that computer transport & software have to be TESTED prior to deeming them bit perfect.  Why?  Because all motherboards, sound cards, and installations are different. 
 
Just because a player is bitperfect for one does not mean it is going to be bitperfect on everyones setup. 
 
So his whole argument while may be true doesn't hold any water till he tests to show that he is comparing bitperfect outputs from each software music player.
 
 
The M$ blog sums up the Windows 7 thing.

 

[shimm]

Crazy idea maybe: two players are bit perfect for sound recording programm, but not for sound device [SD].
In this case we should record outputs of players first, if they both are identical - record outputs of SD for these players and compare them.
If they are different, we should check which one is closer to original.

 

[regal]

Exactly there are a lot of sound cards out there that are not bit perfect with foobar or any other software. Some soundcard drivers will output bitperfect with one piece of software and not another,  I've seen it. 
 
 
Lee's been popping his mouth off  without a baseline to prove anything and as he says he doesn't care.  He doesn't post to help folks learn or find better software,  he just wants to start a war.
 
No one has all the answers but to say one bit-perfect software player sounds better than an other you should make sure they are both out-putting bit-perfect before you start a campaign. 
 
I personally think there is some merit to the theory but someone more knowledgable than lee needs to do the critical listening. JMHO


 
Quote:

Crazy idea maybe: two players are bit perfect for sound recording programm, but not for sound device [SD].
In this case we should record outputs of players first, if they both are identical - record outputs of SD for these players and compare them.
If they are different, we should check which one is closer to original.

 

[shimm]

Quote:

 Exactly there are a lot of sound cards out there that are not bit perfect with foobar or any other software. Some soundcard drivers will output bitperfect with one piece of software and not another

Of course, we should use KS/WASAPI for comparation in both cases and sources 44/16. If there are another parts of sw/hw that make differents in personal systems, then all these talks about player's "bitperfectness" have no sense.
Quote:

 Lee's been popping his mouth off  without a baseline to prove anything and as he says he doesn't care.  He doesn't post to help folks learn or find better software,  he just wants to start a war

I don't agree with this. I don't know any another person in the net who posts proof links as mach as leeperry.  
You guys just haven't seen real trolls here...
Quote:

 I personally think there is some merit to the theory but someone more knowledgable than lee needs to do the critical listening

I agree this time, but there is that knowledgable person? Anyone??

 

[leeperry]

I don't agree with this. I don't know any another person in the net who posts proof links as much as leeperry.  

 
even when you show highly technical proofs to those ppl, they still play dumb...or maybe they don't play

 

[Shike]

Quote:

 
even when you show highly technical proofs to those ppl, they still play dumb...or maybe they don't play

That's funny - you haven't provided a single piece of definitive proof.

 

[regal]

Links on the net are what get you in trouble,  perfect example here is Lee saw a post that this software player passed a DTS test on some guys system,  then he makes the leap of faith that it means its bit perfect on his rig and everyones computers.
 
Personally I could do some testing this weekend. Bit Perfect output is a passion of mine has I have a large collection of 44.1khz DTS and HDCD encoded material along with several HDCD DACs and a home theater reciever that decodes DTS and HDCD.
 
I also have a dual boot computer with WIn7x64 and XP.  The upgrade in SQ I got going to Win 7 is the reason I believe there to be merit to the theory that different bitperfect software may sound different.  However the issue isn't jitter,  its micro second dropouts that are barely heard but make the music grainy.  I suspect that with Win 7 there will be no differences,  with Xp there will.   So thats my hypothesis.  Testing is the only way to learn one way or the other.
 
 
Quote:

Quote:
 
I don't agree with this. I don't know any another person in the net who posts proof links as mach as leeperry.