[mmerrill99]

Speaking of old recordings - some of you (9 downloaders) already noticed the other track in that download folder "True Love Ways" - a Buddy Holly track from 1958 - I think this might be the 1967 stereo remixed version but the sound is stunning.
 
I'm not sure if this was done in one take?

 

[mmerrill99]

22 downloads of this Nat King Cole track now! Guys, if your not going to use it to evaluate your system & post your evaluation here please don't download it  

 It is meant as a tool for evaluating the effect (if any) of attenuators in your system not as a free download. I have now cut down the track so as it's no longer a full song!

 

[noinimod]

Man, the hiface is getting to me. Is there anyone else on windows 7, 64 bit getting random BSODs also? I'm using JRMC 15 on KS. WASAPI doesn't work, for some reason. I'm writing an email to Marco to ask him how to solve the problem.
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q197/noinimod/hifaceBSOD.jpg

 

[FauDrei]

Use KS.
 
WASAPI has problems with seeking within track(s).

 

[xdanny]

I have an XP machine.  Once my cable gets here, I will have a friend over with his Win7 laptop to AB the two systems.
 
Just to make sure I got this right (I will be using foobar exclusively):
 
- download and install the corresponding drivers from m2tech
- use KS for XP
- I am not familiar with Win7, can I also use KS for it or do I have to use WASAPI?
 
Thanks!

 

[FauDrei]

KS can be used on XP x32 and on 7 x64. It is most probably the best way to compare audio differences between two OSes because there is no WASAPI on XP.

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

KS can be used on XP x32 and on 7 x64. It is most probably the best way to compare audio differences between two OSes because there is no WASAPI on XP.

Any sonic advantage to KS in 7 over WASAPI?

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Speaking of old recordings - some of you (9 downloaders) already noticed the other track in that download folder "True Love Ways" - a Buddy Holly track from 1958 - I think this might be the 1967 stereo remixed version but the sound is stunning.
 
I'm not sure if this was done in one take?

Sounds like it could be a single take.......

 
But I'd like to ask a foobar question.  I was under the impression that the lower the buffer the better the sound...  one of the posters on the DIY forum mentioned that he didn't like ASIO because it needed a 300 ms buffer (to quiet clicks and pops) and he preferred the lowest buffer value ..... Do you know anything about that?
 
Thanks
 
USG
 

 

[regal]

 
Witchcraft and black magic questions should be kept on the Voodo forums,  not this thread IMO

 
Quote:

 
But I'd like to ask a foobar question.  I was under the impression that the lower the buffer the better the sound...  one of the posters on the DIY forum mentioned that he didn't like ASIO because it needed a 300 ms buffer (to quiet clicks and pops) and he preferred the lowest buffer value ..... Do you know anything about that?
 
Thanks
 
USG
 

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Witchcraft and black magic questions should be kept on the Voodo forums,  not this thread IMO

 

I apologize for my obvious lack of knowledge, but just to be clear, you're saying that foobar buffer size has no effect on sound quality, is that correct?
 
USG

 

[FauDrei]

Quote:

I apologize for my obvious lack of knowledge, but just to be clear, you're saying that foobar buffer size has no effect on sound quality, is that correct?

 
Correct. It only affects the suspectibility to pops/clicks if buffer is too low, and the response time when you press play/pause (lower buffer = quicker response). No SQ to gain here.

 

[Patu]

Did anyone post this here yet?
 
http://www.audio-gd.com/USBface/USBfaceEN.htm
 
Interesting. 

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Did anyone post this here yet?
 
http://www.audio-gd.com/USBface/USBfaceEN.htm
 
Interesting. 

I saw it Patu.  Do you know what the DSP-3 actually does for the transport?  Is this somehow better than the async. approach?
 
USG

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Correct. It only affects the suspectibility to pops/clicks if buffer is too low, and the response time when you press play/pause (lower buffer = quicker response). No SQ to gain here.

Thank you for the straight answer. 
 
USG

 

[xdanny]

Quote:

Did anyone post this here yet?
 
http://www.audio-gd.com/USBface/USBfaceEN.htm
 
Interesting. 

    " Now we are burning both our USBface and hiFace, once we finished burn in, we will compare their sound level.  If our USBface sound worst, we will kill it."
 
Funny, why do I have the feeling the USBface is going to stay alive after all...

  Come on, I welcome new products but at least mix in a name without the word "face" in it.  So obvious...