cMP and cPlay media player

[skeptic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Volume control can be done by the media player, not just kmixer, I used to control volume with foobar+asio. Here's the description of the volume control on cplay: "Offers high quality 64 bit double precision digital volume control (in 0.5db steps). This can be bypassed." Cplay alone (with cmp it gets even kookier) I also could only use single files or else cuesheet, and it makes me close the program every time before double-clicking on a new file to play, but I could just be doing things wrong too lazy to figure out this software. Maybe it'll be more friendly in future updates but right now it's much easier to just use cuesheets and they have a cuesheet editor on their site.

Haloxt - thanks for the response. I noticed the same language in the cplay online documentation, but I still don't comprehend how a software volume control is consistent with the notion of passing bit perfect data.

Here's my reasoning - if it is flawed, please show me the light!

My DAC provides an analog output from the "bit-perfect" data it receives from both WinAmp ASIO and Foobar ASIO/KS that is at the exact same volume.

Cplay is supposed to be bit-perfect, but it can play at variable volumes....and the default results in a quieter analog output from my DAC than either of the other programs.

The DAC only receives 1's and 0's from the computer - so in order for the cplay output to sound different from the Winamp/Foobar output, I have to conclude that cplay is actually passing a different number/sequence of 1's and 0's.

Unless volume is a factor that is somehow excluded from the notion of a bit-perfect data stream, I have to conclude that Cplay (and any other software with a volume control) is corrupting the digital data in some way shape or form in order to allow for variable volume.

Am I way off here?

 

[haloxt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dugq /img/forum/go_quote.gif On the other hand, the effectiveness of the software would appear to be extremely system dependent (how much of this is going to be useful for someone running a USB or firewire async interface, or what about those who stream audio from a nas rather than a local disk). I can't help but think that if one has a system which is affected by the kinds of variables that cmp attempts to address one would be better to investigate means of isolating playback from those variable rather than merely reducing their effects. Such an approach addresses audio quality, without losing many of the features associated with computer audio which made us dump our CD players to begin with.

The website talks a lot about hardware. Be forewarned though, it's quite a bit crazier than the software talk, too much for me personally lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Haloxt - thanks for the response. I noticed the same language in the cplay online documentation, but I still don't comprehend how a software volume control is consistent with the notion of passing bit perfect data. Here's my reasoning - if it is flawed, please show me the light! My DAC provides an analog output from the "bit-perfect" data it receives from both WinAmp ASIO and Foobar ASIO/KS that is at the exact same volume. Cplay is supposed to be bit-perfect, but it can play at variable volumes....and the default results in a quieter analog output from my DAC than either of the other programs. The DAC only receives 1's and 0's from the computer - so in order for the cplay output to sound different from the Winamp/Foobar output, I have to conclude that cplay is actually passing a different number/sequence of 1's and 0's. Unless volume is a factor that is somehow excluded from the notion of a bit-perfect data stream, I have to conclude that Cplay (and any other software with a volume control) is corrupting the digital data in some way shape or form in order to allow for variable volume. Am I way off here?

If you go to 0.0 volume, it will not go through volume control and will be bit-perfect.

 

[ford2]

As I mentioned in a previous thread on cplay there are a couple of programs that make it easier to use.

1 Recursive cue creator,does what it's name implies.It makes cue files.
2 Cplay list server,this program enables you to make cue playlist's from cue files.

Both are essential if you use cplay,makes life very easy.
I use it often,but does it sound better than Foobar,to be honest it SEEM's to be cleaner with more detail,but you all know how it is with sound quality.
Just a new cable is enough to send some over the moon.

 

[mojave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was only able to open a single track at a time with the version I DL'd. How are you adding multiple files without a CUE editor?

I tried this again this morning and realized that I was thinking of XXHighEnd and not cPlay for this feature.

You can use J. River Media Center (JRMC) and set FLAC or WAV files to use cPlay. In cPlay you set it to exit after playback. This way you can use JRMC as your front end and select the songs (only one at a time) from it to play. When you select the song cPlay launches, plays the song, and exits putting you back in JRMC. You then select the next song and the process repeats.

In JRMC in Tools > Options > File Types you select either FLAC or WAV. Then you choose playback method as External Program (Custom). In the program field you put in the location of cisplay.exe such as C:\Program Files\cics Play\cicsPlay.exe. In the arguments field you put in "[Filename]". This includes the quotes, too.

 

[leeperry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojave /img/forum/go_quote.gif The pdf you are referring to was written by the developer of CMP and cPLAY. People are allowed to post their own work in multiple places.

hehe ok! that's what I was suspecting, but I couldn't find his name on the wiki.
anyway, this PDF is excessive(to say the least)...just like the wiki, he's like the

of HTPC building

unplug your keyboard, don't overclock, copy your files on a USB key, unplug any DVD drive, etc etc....hahaha, this guy must turn completely nuts on a regular basis..."ahhhhh I forgot to unplug the DVD drive, I need to shut down the system RIGHT AWAY!!!!11!!"

yet, if you don't follow him in his complete madness....I've found some of the most valuable advices ever about building a bloat-free/low EMI HTPC.
I guess Vista/7 must make him wanna go

 

[ford2]

The TROLL is back.

 

[skeptic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif yet, if you don't follow him in his complete madness....I've found some of the most valuable advices ever about building a bloat-free/low EMI HTPC.

so it would be fair to say you have something of an unrequited love-hate relationship with the author?

-----
Thanks for the tips on cue building/alternate front ends Mojave! Is there any way to avoid the $50 buy in for JRMC? Does the freeware "music only" jukebox have the same feature?
-----
Haloxt - with respect to the volume control issue - it makes sense to me that 0.0 volume (max) would be the true bit-perfect out. But if integrating such a volume control means you're allowing the avg user to corrupt the bit-perfect stream by using the soft volume control, I guess I just don't understand why the author elected to include this feature at all. At the very least, it should be explained fully in the documentation.

 

[haloxt]

Because it's a feature some people might want, and allows more flexibility with analog volume control. There's not much to explain about the volume control, it is pretty intuitive since you see two boxes to click at the bottom right and when you click one of them the volume rises or lowers

. The website says that it is highly precise, works in 0.5 db steps, and can be bypassed, which is all the info I can imagine is useful.

 

[leeperry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic /img/forum/go_quote.gif so it would be fair to say you have something of an unrequited love-hate relationship with the author?

this PDF blew me away indeed! if his player had a nicer GUI(even foobar-like, which is butt-ugly by default) and supported .m3u/flac/alac...I would be more than happy to use it

I've trimmed down my XP setup to 15 background processes, and I did a few more tricks not found in his tutorial(like "Win32PrioritySeparation")...and this is just a dream to play HD movies using Reclock/listen to music in foobar.

I'd love to read him talking about Vista/7, still...and I don't have any hate towards him, I just think that he's very very much obsessed, on the borderline to insanity..a bit like Patrick82 and his <whispering> low-level details

I've never managed to get Vista to <32 background processes...hopefully 7 is better? we want as less bloat as possible, and they keep inflating it

when I see ppl on doom9 posting screenshots of their Vista task manager, stating 80 processes...and whining that playback is not smooth

 

[mojave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic /img/forum/go_quote.gif ----- Thanks for the tips on cue building/alternate front ends Mojave! Is there any way to avoid the $50 buy in for JRMC? Does the freeware "music only" jukebox have the same feature?

Media Jukebox is based on JRMC 12. I think the external launching was implemented in JRMC 13 so I don't think Jukebox can do it they way I indicated. However, I think you can send files to external programs by right clicking the file in Jukebox and clicking Send To > Send To (External). You can then add a list of external programs for selection. I used to use this method to send movies to TheaterTek.

 

[haloxt]

leeperry, cplay and cmp work on vista and 7. I'd still use xp though, it doesn't crash like vista.

 

[leeperry]

well, supposedly 7 is fantastic...I really need HPET support tbh, I will try 7 when it'll reach SP1 I guess

but well, I hate ClearType...so problably not.

WASAPI exclusive looks good too, even though some ppl prefer KS in XP(wider SS yada yada)...hehe, there's always ppl to hear differences between bit-perfect renderers, confusing..

 

[haloxt]

I am not too fond of vista WASAPI but it's still much better than directsound. If there's a non-placebo explanation for why bit-perfect data sounds different (Peter the writer of XXhighend says he has measurements out of a DAC that may be proof) then it's going to be a really whacky explanation, and I don't think you'll get an answer that will satisfy you on this thread.

 

[leeperry]

well XXhighend is far from bit-perfect anyway, it uses reverb + a lot of EQ post-filtering. its author said it himself on computeraudiophile.com, and it's VERY audible...not saying it's a bad idea, ppl are free to post-process their audio

 

[haloxt]

xxhighend has settings so it remains bit-perfect if you want. Enough with off-topic posts please.