[vietngohong]

I would go for Foobar2K, just simple

 

[Kost]

I second foobar2000. It's lightweight and highly customizable. You can get custom skins and plugin modules for it to suit your preference/needs.

 

[Neccros]

  I second foobar2000. It's lightweight and highly customizable. You can get custom skins and plugin modules for it to suit your preference/needs.

AND it plays FLAC! LOL

 

[Digitalis]

I use Winamp here, I have used it since the early versions.

 

[stuck limo]

   
 
On a side note. I wish people would stop using FLAC. IMHO, FLAC is the Flash of audio.

 
What should I be using instead?

 

[phoenixdogfan]

JRiver. Capable of rendering bit perfect audio files in any format to your DAC, plays every video format, does flawless on-the-fly bit and sample rate up (down) conversion, has servicable cd ripper, does tagging, DLNA, zones, cover art accommodates plug ins including eq's as well as DSP convolution files, has a 64 bit digital volume control, and extensive features for cataloging local audio and video libraries.

Considering the complex things it does, the interface is fairly intuitive, and easy to understand.

To this day, I don't understand how anyone can believe that one digital player provides "superior" sound over another. As long as the base program is rendering bit perfect sound, it is, by definition, perfect. If I want some added level of sound processing (eq, convolution, dithering, upsampling, etc), I will add it. In no way do I want that kind of processing to be a non alterable,undefeatable feature of my digital player. And I certainly would never pay upwards of $500 for it.

 

[Patu]

To this day, I don't understand how anyone can believe that one digital player provides "superior" sound over another. As long as the base program is rendering bit perfect sound, it is, by definition, perfect. If I want some added level of sound processing (eq, convolution, dithering, upsampling, etc), I will add it. In no way do I want that kind of processing to be a non alterable,undefeatable feature of my digital player. And I certainly would never pay upwards of $500 for it.

 
I just recently moved to JRiver. Before that I used foobar2000 for over ten years. The biggest reason for me was that JRiver sounds better than foobar2000. It's strange since they're both configured to output bitperfect, unmodified signal through WASAPI output but still there's a clear difference on sound quality. JRiver sounds more analog and slightly punchier, more refined I'd say. foobar2000 is slightly edgier and raw sounding. It really is weird that there can be a difference but I trust my ears. 

 

[TheAttorney]

To this day, I don't understand how anyone can believe that one digital player provides "superior" sound over another. As long as the base program is rendering bit perfect sound, it is, by definition, perfect.

 
It's not a case of believing - all one has to do is to listen.
 
I've found HQ Player to sound better than JRiver irrespective of DSP settings, or bit perfectness, or conversion/upsampling. I'm currently using both with everything switched off, other than some dither on HQP. This on Windows in my case, as that's all I've got, but others have enthused about HQP on OSX.
 
I haven't wasted my JRMC license though. I continue to use JRMC for ripping, tagging, library management and all those clever things it's good at - to organise things as i want them. And it's a single command to import the whole lot into HQP's library. Admittedly, HQP's rather basic UI is an acquired taste shall we say, And its library management is almost none existent. But, at substantial extra cost, you can link it with Roon to get the best of both worlds (some say - I've haven't tried Roon myself yet).
 
The SQ differences between JRMC and HQP is not night and day IMO with direct USB connection. But insert a microRendu using HQP's NAA mode and it goes up another division. I think the insertion of mR is mostly to do with noise reduction, but I don't care what the reason is - I just go with what sounds best to me.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  It's not a case of believing - all one has to do is to listen.
 
I've found HQ Player to sound better than JRiver irrespective of DSP settings, or bit perfectness, or conversion/upsampling. I'm currently using both with everything switched off, other than some dither on HQP. This on Windows in my case, as that's all I've got, but others have enthused about HQP on OSX.
 
I haven't wasted my JRMC license though. I continue to use JRMC for ripping, tagging, library management and all those clever things it's good at - to organise things as i want them. And it's a single command to import the whole lot into HQP's library. Admittedly, HQP's rather basic UI is an acquired taste shall we say, And its library management is almost none existent. But, at substantial extra cost, you can link it with Roon to get the best of both worlds (some say - I've haven't tried Roon myself yet).
 
The SQ differences between JRMC and HQP is not night and day IMO with direct USB connection. But insert a microRendu using HQP's NAA mode and it goes up another division. I think the insertion of mR is mostly to do with noise reduction, but I don't care what the reason is - I just go with what sounds best to me.

 
I use HQPlayer as well. It's the only player I've found that actually does sound better than others. (And I've tried quite a few.)
 
As I understand it, the processing it does is sort of like emulating high-end DACs. Everyone I've shared it with agrees that it sounds better, except for one who owns a high-end DAC and did not hear a difference. Since you own the DAVE, I'd imagine it would sound better leaving the processing to the DAC. It would be interesting if you could report how things sound on your system with and without.
 
Since it's so processor-intensive with all the hardcore settings activated, HQPlayer makes music stutter on my laptop sometimes, even though it has nice specs. I use virtual RAM drives to store certain programs and files in memory now, which eliminates the stuttering and makes my computer operate more smoothly. Because I do things this way, I don't even bother trying to use HQPlayer's atrocious interface more than I have to; I just delete the old playlist tracks from the library and load the latest ones by selecting the RAM drive. (It's easier for me to manually browse my music folders and create on-the-fly playlists.)
 
There's also a way to integrate HQPlayer with foobar2000. (Anyone who's curious about that can Google it.)
 
If you want to experiment with taking your microRendu to the next level, check out all the stuff this reviewer did:
http://www.audiostream.com/content/sonore-simple-design-microrendu-audiophile-odyssey

 

[TheAttorney]

 
Quote:

 Since you own the DAVE, I'd imagine it would sound better leaving the processing to the DAC. It would be interesting if you could report how things sound on your system with and without.

When I tried HQP with my portable iFi MicroDSD, I (and others) found HQP sounded best at the highest upsampling rates. Furthermore, I (and others) preferred the sound when converted to DSD. But on this point, some differed and preferred high sample rate PCM. In my case, all files were redbook FLAC.   However, DSD conversion put the biggest load on my i7 CPU, around 20%-40% depending on DSD64-512. I found DSD512 impossible to use, and even the lower DSD speeds caused occasional stuttering and the high CPU load caused my laptop's fan to come on - not nice.
 
With DAVE, I prefer all DSP off, apart from experimenting with the subtle effect of dither. In this case, the filter and upsampling options generally give a slightly smoothing effect, which is not unpleasant, but not as transparent as letting DAVE do the work. And in this case, the CPU load is an insignificant 2% or so.
 
So, those HQP DSP options may work better with some DACS than others, and can give flexibility, but my main point is that HQP sounds better than JRMC even with all DSP switched off. A clearer, more transparent sound. Going back to JRMC gives a smoother, mushier, woollier sound. Like I said, it's not night and day difference with direct USB connection, but those who want to get the best SQ out of their computer system should give it a try. Those that don't get on with HQP's clunky UI have the integration options with Roon or foobar etc.
 
Allegedly, Bug Head Emperor can give better still sound, but that is too esoteric for me to even try. And it doesn't have the NAA feature of HQP which takes things to a another level

 

[Music Alchemist]

  When I tried HQP with my portable iFi MicroDSD, I (and others) found HQP sounded best at the highest upsampling rates. Furthermore, I (and others) preferred the sound when converted to DSD. But on this point, some differed and preferred high sample rate PCM. In my case, all files were redbook FLAC.   However, DSD conversion put the biggest load on my i7 CPU, around 20%-40% depending on DSD64-512. I found DSD512 impossible to use, and even the lower DSD speeds caused occasional stuttering and the high CPU load caused my laptop's fan to come on - not nice.
 
With DAVE, I prefer all DSP off, apart from experimenting with the subtle effect of dither. In this case, the filter and upsampling options generally give a slightly smoothing effect, which is not unpleasant, but not as transparent as letting DAVE do the work. And in this case, the CPU load is an insignificant 2% or so.
 
So, those HQP DSP options may work better with some DACS than others, and can give flexibility, but my main point is that HQP sounds better than JRMC even with all DSP switched off. A clearer, more transparent sound. Going back to JRMC gives a smoother, mushier, woollier sound. Like I said, it's not night and day difference with direct USB connection, but those who want to get the best SQ out of their computer system should give it a try. Those that don't get on with HQP's clunky UI have the integration options with Roon or foobar etc.
 
Allegedly, Bug Head Emperor can give better still sound, but that is too esoteric for me to even try. And it doesn't have the NAA feature of HQP which takes things to a another level

 
I've heard about HQP working better with DACs in that range. (Something about it making $500 DACs sound like $5,000 ones. Heh.)
 
I use some of the most extreme settings, which do stutter, but the RAM drives fix that.
 
I tried Bug Head Emperor / Infinity Blade. Oddly, no matter which DSP settings I configured, it sounded the same. (And having to wait over a minute for a song to start with the most extreme settings wasn't fun.) Perhaps something necessary wasn't activated? I dunno.

 

[Neccros]

   
I just recently moved to JRiver. Before that I used foobar2000 for over ten years. The biggest reason for me was that JRiver sounds better than foobar2000. It's strange since they're both configured to output bitperfect, unmodified signal through WASAPI output but still there's a clear difference on sound quality. JRiver sounds more analog and slightly punchier, more refined I'd say. foobar2000 is slightly edgier and raw sounding. It really is weird that there can be a difference but I trust my ears. 

Are you using any sort of EQ or anything that would alter the sound in any way shape or form??? Or just how Foobar handles the digits vs Jriver?

 

[Digitalis]

   
I use some of the most extreme settings, which do stutter, but the RAM drives fix that.

What kind of hardware has your laptop got? I build my own pcs and it is difficult hard to find anything that can cause them to slow up. Running things from PCI-E M2 drives can speed processing up considerably.

 

[tackytiger]

  I use some of the most extreme settings, which do stutter, but the RAM drives fix that.
 

 
Are you using an ASIO driver at very low latency?
 
They were originally designed for musicians who needed the responsiveness.
 
For audio playback, a larger buffer gives a much smoother experience with a lower overhead.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  What kind of hardware has your laptop got? I build my own pcs and it is difficult hard to find anything that can cause them to slow up. Running things from PCI-E M2 drives can speed processing up considerably.

 
Alienware M11x R2. Windows 10 Home 64-bit. Intel Core i7-640UM 1.2 GHz processor. 8 GB RAM. 451 GB HDD.
 
I think all this has more to do with the fact that it's getting old and I haven't done any hardware maintenance. (Don't plan to either; I'll just build a custom desktop PC in the future.) But like I said, using RAM drives makes everything function flawlessly. (Though other programs can still operate slower when music is playing.)
 
If you're not familiar with HQPlayer and the type of extreme processing it does, click here.
 

  Are you using an ASIO driver at very low latency?
 
They were originally designed for musicians who needed the responsiveness.
 
For audio playback, a larger buffer gives a much smoother experience with a lower overhead.

 
I've tried everything. The RAM drives are the only solution that worked.