A (better sounding?) alternative to Foobar2000 -OR- A musing in the realm of bit-perfect streaming

[Hybrys]

I've been thinking of trying to build a kind of DirectShow wrapper for Foobar.  If someone can definitively prove that Reclock has a positive effect on audio (or wants to pay a 'wage' for the finished working product), I'll get to work on it.

 

[thuantran]

Well, have u looked at foobar SDK, last time I checked, newer foobar does not allow 3rd party developer to write an output component (output component API is private), which is the only way I can think that can bypass foobar available output methods. Do you have other ideas?

 

[Hybrys]

Quote:

Well, have u looked at foobar SDK, last time I checked, newer foobar does not allow 3rd party developer to write an output component (output component API is private), which is the only way I can think that can bypass foobar available output methods. Do you have other ideas?

I do have some ideas.  Either somehow modifying an existing component, or some kind of data capture method.
 
It seems possible.  I think I can get it working with an older version of Foobar via a DirectShow wrapper made in '08.  Trying in in F2K leaves it choking for a second, and the Reclock icon flashing.  An update to this, the component is made with 0.9.3, and 'works' in that version,  Still haven't gotten it to play FLACs through Reclock.  You can give it a try, though.  DS and Winamp 2 bridge found below.  Through some effort, you might be able to find an old version of the Winamp2 DShow output plugin, and get reclock to work through that bridge.  I'm going to bed.
 
http://pelit.koillismaa.fi/plugins/index.php
http://www.oldversion.com/Foobar2000.html

 

[ROBSCIX]

Well if some people with an idea of what they are talkaing about tries to help with development of these players then it is a good thing for people all around.

 

[thuantran]

I actually have 2 other ideas, but they are in violation of foobar license agreement:
 
- A fake DSP component that write fake data downstream and you use null output as your audio renderer in foobar. As long as you're the first one in the DSP chain, you supposedly get the untouched audio data and what you do with it is up to you. I haven't looked hard enough, but I don't think foobar is capable of stopping this.
- Reverse engineering the current available output plugin to find the services (methods) were used to pass data from foobar core to the output component then write a new output component. Someone did this actually http://acropolis.lokalen.org/2006/10/foobar2000/my-foobar2000-components/ ,  the component is hidden somewhere on his site. It's a DirectSound one though.
 
@Hybrys: Did you mean the Winamp DSP bridge or what? Please be more specific. But tbh, I think your way introduce more variations instead of reducing them.

 

[ROBSCIX]

Well it would depends on how Foobar handles the stream and where the DSP's are introduced.  You can always make a suggestions to the authors or in the forums.

 

[Hybrys]

Quote:

I actually have 2 other ideas, but they are in violation of foobar license agreement:
 
- A fake DSP component that write fake data downstream and you use null output as your audio renderer in foobar. As long as you're the first one in the DSP chain, you supposedly get the untouched audio data and what you do with it is up to you. I haven't looked hard enough, but I don't think foobar is capable of stopping this.
- Reverse engineering the current available output plugin to find the services (methods) were used to pass data from foobar core to the output component then write a new output component. Someone did this actually http://acropolis.lokalen.org/2006/10/foobar2000/my-foobar2000-components/ ,  the component is hidden somewhere on his site. It's a DirectSound one though.
 
@Hybrys: Did you mean the Winamp DSP bridge or what? Please be more specific. But tbh, I think your way introduce more variations instead of reducing them.

Yes, the Winamp DSP bridge, or the newer Visualizations bridge.  Yes, it adds more variations, but it should be the same Foobar data transmission anyway.
 
The fake DSP is my main idea.  It wouldn't be 'releasable', but, it might be possible.  I just don't get why no-one has done it.  You can grab the source for the VST wrapper as a base for sending the data stream to an outside application and work from there.  You also have to figure out the method that triggers Reclock in the first place, and add that to the component aswell, if it so supports it.
 
Reverse engineering the output component might also be a decent idea.  From my glance at WASAPI as an API, it shouldn't be too complex.  Along with this, reverse engineering any of the components should actually be rather easy, since there's a document method for building then.  (IE: SDK)  All we'd have to do is guess and test interface calls that are still private.

 

[ninjikiran]

To beat a dead horse reclock sounds slightly louder, its VERY slight but even so its a noticeable gradation.  That is the best opinion I could come to without placebo taking effect which it did multiple times in favor of both using WASAPI exclusive mode.
 
Never noticed any difference between native ASIO, and WASAPI.
 
All that could be placebo as well, but if it is not immediately noticeable than it is really a non factor.  I just go with what sounds best and in this case of Reclock + MPC vs Foobar(since I find them just about the same besides that small volume bump), I think foobar has a better system for playlist so I stick with it.
 
As for opamps, it really seems to just depend on the kind of upgrades you make.  I find opamps to be more bandaids to fix  annoyances on the lower end of the scale(Like piercing highs, and annoying s's, listening to Doom Train on my default opamp was painful, but on my newer opamp it is no longer painful to me ears(no more cringing).  Never tried higher end, larger and better designed opamps though.
 
excuse the grammar and overused commas, I am not 100% atm.

 

[regal]

I compared the Stealth Player vs Foobar ASIO,  both verified bitperfect.  Win 7x64 8GB Ram, Q9550, Emu 0404 PCI.    I could not distinguish one player from the other.

 

[leeperry]

 
As for opamps, it really seems to just depend on the kind of upgrades you make.  I find opamps to be more bandaids to fix  annoyances on the lower end of the scale

It all depends on the quality of your PSU...using opamps on a cheapo SMPS, or worse a computer shared PSU is indeed about polishing a turd.
 

 

[donunus]

Quote:

I compared the Stealth Player vs Foobar ASIO,  both verified bitperfect.  Win 7x64 8GB Ram, Q9550, Emu 0404 PCI.    I could not distinguish one player from the other.

what about foobar asio vs foobar wasapi?

 

[ROBSCIX]

Quote:

It all depends on the quality of your PSU...using opamps on a cheapo SMPS, or worse a computer shared PSU is indeed about polishing a turd.
 

Hmm, I wonder why many internal soundcards measure better then their external counterparts for noise...etc?  While power is a factor, it is no where near as bad as some people make it out to be. If it was the PC would never start up!

 

[ROBSCIX]

 
Quote:

 As for opamps, it really seems to just depend on the kind of upgrades you make.  I find opamps to be more bandaids to fix  annoyances on the lower end of the scale(Like piercing highs, and annoying s's, listening to Doom Train on my default opamp was painful, but on my newer opamp it is no longer painful to me ears(no more cringing).  Never tried higher end, larger and better designed opamps though.
 
excuse the grammar and overused commas, I am not 100% atm.

Opamps can be used ot fix issue with the spectrum but they can also be used to tune your sound to your personal taste or gear.  Many sources these days come with sockets as they are mean to have higher grade opamps installed.  If your DAC or soundcard has opamp sockets, I would suggest you do some research into the topic as you can get great gains with small investments with regards to opamps.

 

[Hybrys]

Quote:

Hmm, I wonder why many internal soundcards measure better then their external counterparts for noise...etc?  While power is a factor, it is no where near as bad as some people make it out to be. If it was the PC would never start up!

They measure great.  In a lab.  In a perfect scenario.
 
And sometimes it IS so bad that PCs just fail.  Back 5 years ago, the first thing you'd check was the PSU, then the HDD.  Unstable rails, capacitor failings... etc.  They're getting better now, but one could argue that it's because of better power tolerance in components, not general quality of PSUs getting higher.

 

[ROBSCIX]

 
Quote:

They measure great.  In a lab.  In a perfect scenario.
 
And sometimes it IS so bad that PCs just fail.  Back 5 years ago, the first thing you'd check was the PSU, then the HDD.  Unstable rails, capacitor failings... etc.  They're getting better now, but one could argue that it's because of better power tolerance in components, not general quality of PSUs getting higher.

No they measure great for noise, on peoples desks in a less then perfect scenario.  It can be that bad sure, but modern PC PSU's are nowhere near that bad.  People that just regurgitate another post saying "internals are bad" with no clue about electrnoics or power system do little to help anybody.  They do nothing but spread more bad information based on misuderstood or bad information.
 
You can measure an internal card even using simple RMAA and do the same with an external unit.  In some cases the card can measure better for noise etc...the point being if the noise is just so bad that it is induced into the card, where is it? -it should show up in simple measurments but it doesn't.  In kow a few guys that went with external linear PSU's to their internal cards for comparison and yet they noticed little to no gains.  Power is a factor but not as bad as many suggest it is.  Not to mention all the power cleaning circuitry in the system or card.
 
There are good and bad examples of both internal and external.  One is not universally better for any reason.
 
Anyway, this topics is a bit off topic from the orginal idea.