INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Does Vista sound any better than XP with MC?  (Read 4095 times)

DBB

  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 97
Does Vista sound any better than XP with MC?
« on: November 27, 2007, 12:45:58 pm »

I have read that Vista is in theory is better than XP because its "mixer resampler" is better than XP's Kmixer. Can anybody tell me if they have noticed a definate  increase in sound quality using J River (11 or 12) after they switched to Vista from XP. I am  not referring to the ASIO mode.
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Does Vista sound any better than XP with MC?
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2007, 12:57:28 pm »

It shouldn't.  MC does everything in it's power to bypass the old kmixer and output bit-perfect playback (exactly "correct" bit-for-bit compared to the source).  In fact, the new audio subsystem in Vista actually messes this up a bit, much to Matt's consternation.

Now, if you actually make use of the new mixer in Vista, you might have some additional capabilities you didn't have before, but in general the output from Vista and XP using MC should be the same.

I believe.   ;)
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

mlefebvre

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Does Vista sound any better than XP with MC?
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2007, 01:00:10 pm »

I haven't heard a difference...

...Michel
Logged

Alex B

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 10121
  • The Cosmic Bird
Re: Does Vista sound any better than XP with MC?
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2007, 01:18:14 pm »

MS claims that Vista's resampling is of higher quality than XP's, but I have no personal experience of it.

On XP, if the sound card doesn't natively support the 44.1 kHz sample rate it may be better to use MC's software resampler at 48 kHz than let Kernel Mixer do that.

With a high quality sound card that supports 44.1 kHz also Direct Sound through XP's Kernel Mixer should be fine even though it may not be exactly bit perfect.

Usually ASIO is necessary only for bit perfect SPDIF pass through at 44.1 kHz. 48 kHz can be bit perfect without ASIO. At least that is the case with my Terratec DMX 6fire 24/96 sound card.
Logged
The Cosmic Bird - a triple merger of galaxies: http://eso.org/public/news/eso0755

JONCAT

  • Guest
Re: Does Vista sound any better than XP with MC?
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2008, 08:51:49 pm »

It shouldn't.  MC does everything in it's power to bypass the old kmixer and output bit-perfect playback (exactly "correct" bit-for-bit compared to the source).  In fact, the new audio subsystem in Vista actually messes this up a bit, much to Matt's consternation.

Now, if you actually make use of the new mixer in Vista, you might have some additional capabilities you didn't have before, but in general the output from Vista and XP using MC should be the same.

I believe.   ;)

Can you elaborate? I' m curious.

DC
Logged

JONCAT

  • Guest
Re: Does Vista sound any better than XP with MC?
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2008, 01:33:51 pm »

Two questions:

1. Can bit-perfect over S/PDIF be achieved with no DSP but with internal volume reduced slightly?

2. Is Replay Gain correctly named Normalization? How is it different? Is it more like an internal volume control applied to each track in order to hit the target output volume?

DC
Logged

Magic_Randy

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
  • I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure..
Re: Does Vista sound any better than XP with MC?
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2008, 04:29:18 pm »

I don't notice any improvement with Vista.
Logged

MusicHawk

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 796
Re: Does Vista sound any better than XP with MC?
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2008, 01:48:39 am »

Quote
Is Replay Gain correctly named Normalization? How is it different? Is it more like an internal volume control applied to each track in order to hit the target output volume?

The goal is the same -- even volume across multiple tracks that might have been recorded using different notions of "standard" volume. But the method differs, and there is some debate about the pros/cons.

Both Replay Gain and Normalization analyze the track and determine by how much it should be adjusted to playback at "standard" volume. Replay Gain then stores this adjustment value, but does not alter the actual audio. The stored RG value is used by the playback system to adjust volume of that track every time it is played. This requries that the playback system can read and use the Replay Gain value to make the correct adjustment. In contrast, Normalization rewrites the physical track with a new volume so it always plays back at the same new volume on any system.

Of course, both processes are applied to the total track, in-effect adjusting the volume control at the start of the track and not touching it until the next track. There's no mid-track or dynamic adjustment as would be done with compression or limiting.

The two main controversies are: What is the "standard" volume and how is it determined? And, does Normalization degrade the track's "quality"?

The max clean volume of a track is the level just before the track gets distorted, typically by "clipping" where the top of the loudest waveforms get bent or chopped off. The way to avoid this distortion is, don't let any waveforms get clipped anywhere in an audio chain. A "safe" preventative is to keep all audio levels low so there's no chance of clipping, but this can put the desired audio too close to residual and extraneous noise. The "perfect" recording level is way above noise and just below clipping.

Normalization typically looks at the one track being Normalized. It usually determines how far below clipping the loudest part is, then adjusts the entire track so this loudest point is just a smidgen below clipping. So, "standard" volume is essentially "near-max before clipping", with the max value adjustable in many Normalization systems (a couple of peak values are in common use).

Replay Gain, because it is a combination of an analysis of the track by itself, AND an adjustment made at playback time, can take into account the set of tracks being played, and try to adjust them all to be fairly consistent with each other. This assumes the playback system that uses Replay Gain is sophisticated enough. MC 12 seems to do this very well. Without adjustment relative to other tracks, the volume result of Replay Gain might be the same Normalization: play every track at the loudest level without distorting.

The end result of volume adjustments, at playback time with Replay Gain, or previously applied to the track with Normalization, is often virtually identical to the listener.

The other controversy is whether Normalization affects the quality of the track, because when it rewrites the track at an adjusted volume, it potentially introduces digital alterations that affect sound accuracy/quality. It's a legitimate point, but the debate is sometimes over theoretical differences in digitized signal/waveform that might not be noticeable to human listeners.

Normalization, because it's a one time adjustment of a track, is an appealing fix-and-forget method. In that way it's just getting back to the audio level that presumably existed in the original recording, where normal practice is to keep peaks just below clipping. A Normalized track will play at the "correct" volume anywhere, anytime. A Replay Gain coded track must be played on a Replay Gain system or there's no benefit at all.

So, Normalization would be the perfect solution, if it wasn't for the "degradation" debate. The real question is whether the process of Normalization has a negative effect on the track's quality/accuracy that matters to the listener. I'm on the fence, but mostly use Replay Gain. I used to Normalize everything, before Replay Gain became available, and I still sometimes Normalize certain tracks using Sony SoundForge for certain reasons. But the vast majority of my library uses only Replay Gain. However, when I listen to the same songs done both ways, it's hard to convince myself there's a difference, other than RG and Normalization don't always end up with precisely the same playback volume. There might be a much greater difference converting a "pure" waveform to .mp3, itself a debatable practice.

So, if some audio alteration is desired by the listener for practical reasons -- consistent volume, smaller file size, audio equalization -- then the practical question is, "how much is acceptable", and the answer is in the ears of the listeners. Determine what sounds good, and use it. Or, if more alteration is needed (diddle with volume, trade off file size for quality, tweak EQ), apply it and see if the result is still "good". If not, back off until the desired balance is achieved. In this context, Normalization might be perfectly acceptable -- or not.

Of course, another justification for avoiding practices that might permanently alter the audio is the argument that you CAN'T trust your ears and/or playback system. Usually the weakest link in playback accuracy is the particular amp and speakers used to listen, a combination that is quite unlikely to reproduce the sound exactly. What sounds "good enough" on one system might be horriblly deficient on another. This is a key argument for saving music as .flac or .ape rather than .mp3, and not Normalizing -- you might not hear the difference now, but maybe someday...

I've simplified the technical details, but hopefully provided a sense of how Replay Gain and Normalization differ in getting to a similar outcome.

Logged
Managing my media with JRiver since Media Jukebox 8 (maybe earlier), currently use Media Center for Audio/Music and Photos/Videos.
My career in media spans Radio, TV, Print, Photography, Music, Film, Online, Live, Advertising, as producer, director, writer, performer, editor, engineer, executive, owner. An exhausting but amazing ride.

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Does Vista sound any better than XP with MC?
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2008, 05:10:44 am »

The other controversy is whether Normalization affects the quality of the track, because when it rewrites the track at an adjusted volume, it potentially introduces digital alterations that affect sound accuracy/quality. It's a legitimate point, but the debate is sometimes over theoretical differences in digitized signal/waveform that might not be noticeable to human listeners.

So, Normalization would be the perfect solution, if it wasn't for the "degradation" debate. The real question is whether the process of Normalization has a negative effect on the track's quality/accuracy that matters to the listener. I'm on the fence, but mostly use Replay Gain.

But the vast majority of my library uses only Replay Gain. However, when I listen to the same songs done both ways, it's hard to convince myself there's a difference, other than RG and Normalization don't always end up with precisely the same playback volume.

I can only speak from an mp3 perspective, if the normalization is done after the mp3 is made,  then its a lossless process as it just tweaks the volume level the file is to be played at. Now what you lose is the volume level that the album was created with, unless there is a backup of this level somewhere it will be lost after the process.

So you can't get back to the original volume afterwards.

This argument has merits when listening to albums as a whole where the volume levels can indeed play a significnant part in the experience.

From a conservative viewpoint, RG's biggest advantage is flexibility. Nothing is lost in the process and it can be tweaked per album, per playlist even. Yes, you need a player that can interpret it but thats the only downside AFAICT.

If you are playing with copies then normalization is prolly simpler to implement but most of us usually play back from 'originals' :)
Logged

Alex B

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 10121
  • The Cosmic Bird
Re: Does Vista sound any better than XP with MC?
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2008, 06:22:41 am »

In MC normalization is available in the encoding options for CD ripping and recording. The option normalizes PCM audio before encoding so that each track will have the same maximum peak volume level (95% of the maximum possible). It is just a peak volume leveler. It doesn't do anything else. It doesn't do any complex analysis for trying to level the perceived track volumes.

The simple "Normalize" command has the same meaning in many wave editors (e.g. in Adobe Audition or Wavelab it is just a peak leveling tool). Wave editors may provide means for leveling the RMS volume levels of a group of separate files (at least Audition has this option) and that can produce better results. However, it is not a very advanced method either.

The actual Replay Gain system does the following:

From http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/calculating_rg.html
Quote
1. Equal Loudness Filter
The human ear does not perceive sounds of all frequencies as having equal loudness. For example, a full scale sine wave at 1kHz sounds much louder than a full scale sine wave at 10kHz, even though the two have identical energy. To account for this, the signal is filtered by an inverted approximation to the equal loudness curves (sometimes referred to as Fletcher-Munson curves).

2. RMS Energy Calculation
Next, the energy during each moment of the signal is determined by calculating the Root Mean Square of the waveform every 50ms.

3. Statistical Processing
Where the average energy level of a signal varies with time, the louder moments contribute most to our perception of overall loudness. For example, in human speech, over half the time is silence, but this does not affect the perceived loudness of the talker at all! For this reason, the RMS values are sorted into numerical order, and the value 5% down the list is chosen to represent the overall perceived loudness of the signal.

4. Calibration with reference level
A suitable average replay level is 83dB SPL. A calibration relating the energy of a digital signal to the real world replay level has been defined by the SMPTE. Using this calibration, we subtract the current signal from the desired (calibrated) level to give the difference. We store this difference in the audio file.

5. Replay Gain
The calibration level of 83dB can be added to the difference from the previous calculation, to yield the actual Replay Gain. NOTE: we store the differential, NOT the actual Replay Gain.

More info: http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/

In MC the Replay Gain metadata is stored in the database (and in the file tags when possible). The audio content in the files is not altered.
Logged
The Cosmic Bird - a triple merger of galaxies: http://eso.org/public/news/eso0755

JONCAT

  • Guest
Re: Does Vista sound any better than XP with MC?
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2008, 11:57:01 am »

Thanks for all the detailed information. RG is obviously a much more advanced process (and useful) than Normalization. What I'm curious about is whether or not true Bit-perfect DTS S/PDIF passthrough will work with RG enabled. If there is a "hidden" internal software volume adjustment being made during playback (RG), does it count as DSP? And I thought all DSP had to be disabled to do Bit-perfect over S/PDIF. Is RG the saem, technically speaking, as a 32bit software volume control that reduces to hit the target -83db?

DC
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up