[germanium]

My soundcard has no dificulty playing either 32 bit float or 32 bit integer files so not a problem with soundcard it appears. The program was installed on the 32 bit X86 program files folder so thats not a problem either. Could be a bug in the program Cplay with windows 7 or maybe a general bug. I don't see anyone else testing it in like fashion as myself so can't be sure.

I've been into audio for many years & know what the early low end ladder type DAC's did to the sound & have devised my own ways of detecting & adjusing the DAC's that were adjustable for the least significant bit to reduce this distortion. These DAC's at best were atrocious even when trimmed. The ones on my Denon DCD910 were horrible & even though they were adjustable they still sounded grainy as hell, even when trimmed & the clocks on these were really bad too, tons of very visable jitter on the oscillascope.

 

[germanium]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor /img/forum/go_quote.gif .. whoa, this cMP stuff is worse than any cable debate I've seen so far. Guys talking about how software audio players "sound" ... I don't want to be unfriendly, but where's the common sense?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipzahoy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't want to be unfriendly, but where are your ears? How about you listen for yourself before jumping to conclusions?

How is either of these posts helping the situation?
Hint; they're not.

There can be differences both in sound & measurements & there is in this case.
The differences are not bad at normal volumes but testing in the manner which I have revealed a definate deficiency in the program at least in how it works with my system. The deficiency appears to be in the volume control portion.

Haloxt is handling this very responsably & not poopooing the fact that it exists in my system. He has contacted the maker of the program & came back with a reasonable answer, whether or not it is the correct answer remains to be seen but at least its a good start.

 

[xnor]

I've used and measured (for the sake of it) a couple of players and guess what, an audio player plays audio files without adding a certain sound ...

It's like saying that a Word document looks better opened from a Seagate harddisk than a Samsung one - it makes no sense.

If every single bit read from the harddisk is output the same way with player A, B and C how could player A, B or C "sound" different, as some of you say?

 

[germanium]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've used and measured (for the sake of it) a couple of players and guess what, an audio player plays audio files without adding a certain sound ... It's like saying that a Word document looks better opened from a Seagate harddisk than a Samsung one - it makes no sense. If every single bit read from the harddisk is output the same way with player A, B and C how could player A, B or C "sound" different, as some of you say?

One of the features of Cplay is the DSP sample rate converter & a software based volume control so even though the bits coming off the HDD are the same the processing is different so the bits are no longer identical & therefore can sound different if even only very slightly.

I also have modded CD players that when finished measured exactly the same but sounded very very different, much more open & revealing of depth in the recording even though the bits were exactly the same. Power supply has a lot to do with the ultimate sound as does coupling. You can indeed really muck up bit perfect sound with bad analog sections. The reason high end market exists is because differences do exist though admittedly much of what exists in the high end marketing copy is suspect & not all high end equipment has worthwhile advantages to the more midfi priced gear now days. There still remains high end gear that really does take music reproduction to a higher plane the even good midfi products. I have heard such gear.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by germanium /img/forum/go_quote.gif One of the features of Cplay is the DSP sample rate converter & a software based volume control so even though the bits coming off the HDD are the same the processing is different so the bits are no longer identical & therefore can sound different if even only very slightly.

Wow, many audio players have support for some kind of DSPs and a volume control... that's not something special.

What is special about this crippled program is that it forces you to use ASIO, but then again other players support that too.

I'm asking this again, if I play a sound file with different audio players, record the output, compare it and it's the same how could you possibly hear a difference? Because you want to hear it?

 

[haloxt]

The cplay website has huge amounts of information on digital jitter, and there's data showing there is a measurable difference. And if you make the argument that it hasn't been proven to be audible, of course it has not yet been demonstrated to be audible in a scientific manner. No point arguing the science behind it here though, take it to the sound science forum.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif The cplay website has huge amounts of information on digital jitter, and there's data showing there is a measurable difference. And if you make the argument that it hasn't been proven to be audible, of course it has not yet been demonstrated to be audible in a scientific manner. No point arguing the science behind it here though, take it to the sound science forum.

Huge amounts of text with little information.

Where is the measurement that shows that this player is better than foobar, winamp or any other player?

There are some measurements of different resampling algorithms, great..

 

[haloxt]

Enough derailing please, these circular arguments belong in the sound science forum. I am seriously thinking about making a username named TrollKing just to do the same crap you derailers are doing but to every topic you derailers try to open. If you want to argue about measurements, pm me with a thread in the sound science forum.

 

[xnor]

I'm sorry but you started with "there's data showing there is a measurable difference".

Initially I was just asking what differences you hear..

The discussion doesn't have to be circular if you answer curious peoples (like me

) questions.

 

[chipzahoy]

Sorry, but not everyone has the time and willingness to educate the uninformed masses. If you believe audio players make no difference, then stick to whatever you're using. It's not my loss, I could care less.

 

[FasterThanEver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've used and measured (for the sake of it) a couple of players and guess what, an audio player plays audio files without adding a certain sound ...

You aren't supposed to use bad words like measurement on audio forums.(g)

I looked at your website articles and enjoyed them. We need more sane, skeptical people with a base of knowledge of computers and audio on every audio forum.

Bill

 

[erin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm sorry but you started with "there's data showing there is a measurable difference". Initially I was just asking what differences you hear.. The discussion doesn't have to be circular if you answer curious peoples (like me ) questions.

Since you asked.
With CMP I hear more detail, weight, more bass, sweeter treble, more insight into the musical performance, in fact more, and better everything. To me Foobar sounds light weight in comparison, and comparatively has less of everything. I just use the 44.1K output as i don't upsample, and i don't use the volume control. CMP is the most high end player that i have encountered.

Frankly its very hard to measure a difference using test equipment so we must use our ears instead! As i wrote earlier, Behringer equipment for example has great specifications, yet is often disappointing during a listening test (with a few exceptions where it is "acceptable" - not awefull - but not high end).

Many pieces of equipment will have a flat frequency response from 20Hz-20KHz but few will sound exceptional.

Best Regards,
Erin

 

[Ektalog]

Sorry folks, not headphones, just Magnepan MMGs, but I'll get a decent pair of cans later. In the meantime:
- A fellow inmate at the AAsylum kept bugging me to try, if not CMP, at least cPlay.
- I read the longish PDFs, etc. Darn, my computer is ALL wrong...AMD cpu, overclocked, fanless PS (low power), ethernet, wireless, you name it and I have it wrong. Great!
- Still, in goes cPlay to compete with Foobar. Both via an E-mu 0404 USB to a Denon AVR 3805 via digital RCA. For comparison, some program material played from a Denon 3910 via Denon link 3 or stereo analog out to the 3805.
Round one of many to come despite this clunky cPlay thing:
>>Foobar at 44.1 vs cPlay at default settings (volume at 0db). Veredict: a toss-up, I may be too used to Foobar or the mind says "convenient!", which cPlay ain't.
-- Both sound real good. I truly could enjoy both.
-- cPlay sounds subjectively louder. Yet, basic Pink Noise measurements say NOT SO... same level (well, ok, cplay +.1db). However, my non-audiophile wife perceived it as well; she even lowered the volume with cPlay. I'll have to do proper REW sweeps later to see if spectrum distribution reveals something.
-- cPlay brings the center stage forward, narrows the overall stage slightly and some depth is lost vs Foobar. cPlay's center has more presence and perhaps inner mid detail but Foobar has more enveloping "air", top end also seems clearer, slightly more musical. Not by much...the mind playing tricks?
- Denon 3910 has both, Foobar's air and top end, and cPlay's better presence. And it clearly beats them in stage placements. Things are more defined within the stage. MMG speakers tend to image kind of 3D on some material and the Denon player makes this more evident. Yet, the other 2 do just fine, in their own terms.

Round 2 started this evening and was cut short by wife...but this much was crystal clear:
>> cPlay neatly beats Foobar in upsampling to 88/96.
- While the staging elements above are similar, the detail, smoothness and musicality of the cPlay jumps. The cPlay highs are cleaner if not by much. The biggie: a veil is raised when compared to the Foobar upsampler. I had never really liked upsampled music via Foobar, yet I lost myself for too long in the samples played via cPlay this evening.
- I need time to check against the 3910 but, except for SACD, cPlay could be getting real close. (I do need to get something better than the E-mu 0404 USB, which is why I am here to begin with).

Well, if this is just cPlay and in an "improperly" set computer, there seems to be significant upside potential. Hey, I'd be mighty happy if just the cPlay upsampling became part of Foobar!

Anyway, I suggest that you try it...this is far from snake oil.

 

[chipzahoy]

Cics, the author of cMP+cPlay, favors the computer transport + dCS Scarlatti DAC combo over his Scarlatti SACD/CD playback system (SACD/CDP + DAC + Master Clock). Just FYI.

 

[Ektalog]

That's what I have heard from the guy who insisted that I should try cPlay.

I don't disbelieve it... but at the price that the Scarlatti DAC goes for, I will not have to worry about it either.