Nothing is immune to jitter. Buffering doesn't eliminate it. There are many sources of jitter all contributing to the total system jitter. According to this article, the buffer itself can add jitter: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue43/jitter.htm
Nothing is immune to jitter. Buffering doesn't eliminate it. There are many sources of jitter all contributing to the total system jitter. According to this article, the buffer itself can add jitter: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue43/jitter.htm
yepimonfire clearly did not bother to read the very informative article in the link provided by paquiem, otherwise he would not have simply restated his original false statement again.
The entire field of Asynchronous USB devices has flourished because they deal with the jitter which is definitely still there otherwise.
(I just wanted to make sure that this false information was not accepted by virtue of no one challenging it.)
Interesting discussion - when I was doing testing on my Asus Xonar E1 (which has a neat little Bit Perfect Light) I noticed that if I wanted to mess with the EQ in foobar I had to drop the volume to -15DB in foobar or I would get a ton of crackling and it sounded horrid; drop the volume and i could crank the bass in the EQ and I was only just past 9:00 on the volume dial - FWIW the light never changed from Bit Perfect.
Based on this thread I'm going to put volume back to 0DB (Full) turn off the EQ and go through some more music styles. I'm not a crazy bass head, but I do listen to almost all genre's, but when I am listening to anything with a heavy bass line I usually boost it a bit.
Now I'll sit back and continue to read what people who know more than me have to say
Boosting a frequency can cause clipping on digital audio, that was your crackling sound. For best results you're supposed to turn all the other frequencies down.
Boosting a frequency can cause clipping on digital audio, that was your crackling sound. For best results you're supposed to turn all the other frequencies down.
I think Winamp does not sound as loud. Maybe it is just me but I used to use Winamp in 2000 then moved over to Foobar or I-Tunes. One thing though is Winamp can take every file and play it in seconds from a portable drive, no questions asked. No other program comes close to ease of use as Winamp.
I just think it does not sound as good as Foobar. It may just be me?
I'm pretty sure that the there is no difference in sound quality between foobar, itunes, and winamp. There have been quite a few threads on this already, but I'll jus summarize what they said in the following quote from foobar's own website:
Does foobar2000 sound better than other players? No. Most of “sound quality differences” people “hear” are placebo effect (at least with real music), as actual differences in produced sound data are below their noise floor (1 or 2 last bits in 16bit samples). foobar2000 has sound processing features such as software resampling or 24bit output on new high-end soundcards, but most of the other mainstream players are capable of doing the same by now.
So I think it's safe to take their word for it that foobar doesn't sound any better than other players, including winamp. In the end, I'd say it really just comes down to which player fits your needs better in terms of the interface.
I'm pretty sure that the there is no difference in sound quality between foobar, itunes, and winamp. There have been quite a few threads on this already, but I'll jus summarize what they said in the following quote from foobar's own website:
Does foobar2000 sound better than other players? No. Most of “sound quality differences” people “hear” are placebo effect (at least with real music), as actual differences in produced sound data are below their noise floor (1 or 2 last bits in 16bit samples). foobar2000 has sound processing features such as software resampling or 24bit output on new high-end soundcards, but most of the other mainstream players are capable of doing the same by now.
So I think it's safe to take their word for it that foobar doesn't sound any better than other players, including winamp. In the end, I'd say it really just comes down to which player fits your needs better in terms of the interface.
If someone uses any audio effects or equalizer settings, that might vary from player to player. But yeah, just playing an audio file as it is, they should all be the same.
This might sound kinda dumb but after just downloading winamp I found out they where EQ setting's (something I never had the chance to play with) and that alone makes this much better then itunes for me and really took advantage of my HD558's.
Winamp was the very first media player I tried back when I was still use XP. I change side to foobar, not because it sounds better, I just like the workflow, easy to configure, etc. Honestly I cant tell the difference between any media player. I've tried winamp, foobar, ulilith, wmp, mediamonkey, and for my ears they all sound the same.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
