Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JazzDoc]

I thought I would share an interesting post by blaine78 on the Computer Audiophile board regarding settings for MC :

"Hi,
I'll cut to the chase. I'm a computer audiophile for about 7 years now. Been tweaking hardware and software during this time to get the maximum fidelity from a computer to a DAC. So thought I'd share my findings with you. Here is, to me, the best setup of J River to get the best sound from it. I've posted this on another forum, so most is a copy and paste job...

My recommended findings on USB computer audio have been tested with Ayre Qb-9, Lavry DA11, Weiss Minerva.

J River Media centre, definitely THE best sounding player out there and I've used many.

In the audio configuration of J River, I tried the new WASAPI 'event style' built into J River, I didn't like it! It made the sound just a tad tight and congested and music was stripped of emotion. I went back to original J river's WASAPI mode and wont be changing.

This next tweak to me is THE most important and never really spoken about on forums I've noticed - Increase the WASAPI audio buffer in J River to 1.99 seconds!!. This works for my current Ayre DAC, some other DAC's may have different maximum buffer sizes. The Idea is to increase the buffer size as much as possible without the audio to stop working. This will make the sound much more open, airy, emotional and less harsh. Also very important in the audio options change the pre-buffering from the default 6 seconds to 20 seconds. Make sure Playback from memory is also enabled. In my set up, this makes a world of difference. Please don't ask why or dismiss this. it works and sounds the best to me every time. Also, Wireworld USB cable works amazingly compared to generic and other higher end cables. USB cables make a very big difference.

Also, another one to make a difference on sound for the better is using AIFF or WAV files and not FLAC ALAC or other compressed lossless. WAV and AIFF have more space around instruments and energy than ALAC or FLAC. FLAC and ALAC seem to be just a little flat sounding and lifeless in comparison. It's not immediate night and day, but notice after 30 seconds or so of listening. I know not logical, and know of the debates, and I would much prefer saving the disk space. But my ears and Ayre and ATC equipment don't lie (well i hope not). The only theories i can think that this may be is, the extra CPU processing on uncompressing Lossless in real-time adds noise downstream or affects timing on data.

Please give it a try and let me know what you find."

I tried out blaine78's recommendations, namely:

1. Revert to WASAPI rather than WASAPI Event Style
2. Increase the WASAPI audio buffer in J River to 1.99 seconds (I had to reduce it to 1.7 to prevent stutter on playback)
3. Change the pre-buffering from the default 6 seconds to 20 seconds
4. I also had to tick the 'flush device buffers on startup' in the WASAPI audio options (This was necessary to prevent stuttering)

I think that blaine78 may be on to something. The sound is certainly different. I need to do more listening but it would appear that the sound is more musical and open. This was particularly noticeable when playing a 24-Bit/88.2kHz version of the album 'Home' by Elvis Costello.

Any comments or experience?

[rick.ca]

Please don't ask why or dismiss this.

This seems to be a requirement of being a good audiophile these days.

I think MC would be better off without such endorsements.

[Marlene]

This seems to be a requirement of being a good audiophile these days.

I think MC would be better off without such endorsements.

Yes and no. I tried all of the settings. None of them changed the sound though I had the slight impression that increasing the prebuffer size did something. But I can´t be sure without proper tests. Which means I could be listening to a placebo. So one thing is sure: this blaine78 is clearly listening to a placebo.

BUT: if one compares JRiver for example to foobar2000, it sounds decidedly different with similar settings (without any DSP of course). You won´t even need a DBT for it, the difference is almost frightingly clear. In theory it shouldn´t sound different. Or should it? I never was a believer that a software player changes the sound but obviously it does. Don´t know why. I even made some measurments only to find out that the output of both players technically is perfect (aside from some curious noise patterns around several testtones with foobar which weren´t present when played back with JRiver).

Sure, all of this is not mystical. It is not audiophile either, it´s just a question of technology since we play back our music on a closed, controlled system.

[Blaine78]

Hi,

Sorry some don't have the same result as I'm getting, i guess it's system dependant. regards the endorsement response, I'm clearly just stating my findings and being honest about it, as i don't know why this would sound better than event style with 6 second pre buffer, although i have my theories, and just don't dismiss it as being rubbish. I have an extremely transparent ATC system, i know it very very well. Event style i lose interest in the sound, it sounds too dry and uninvolved on my system. the trick i found in my posting above works really well for me. i've tried numerous setting and configs, this one work best for me. and definitely NOT a placebo. I guess that's why i have this hobby, i take it seriously and look for the best results.

[Marlene]

Hi,

Sorry some don't have the same result as I'm getting, i guess it's system dependant. regards the endorsement response, I'm clearly just stating my findings and being honest about it, as i don't know why this would sound better than event style with 6 second pre buffer, although i have my theories, and just don't dismiss it as being rubbish. I have an extremely transparent ATC system, i know it very very well. Event style i lose interest in the sound, it sounds too dry and uninvolved on my system. the trick i found in my posting above works really well for me. i've tried numerous setting and configs, this one work best for me. and definitely NOT a placebo. I guess that's why i have this hobby, i take it seriously and look for the best results.

My dear, what you are describing sounds an awful lot like a perfect placebo. You could very well want to hear those differences and therefore you hear them. Furthermore, sentences like "I have an extremely transparent ATC system..." sorry, but that´s just arrogant rubbish. For all that matters I could say the same, because I´m not even using a loudspeaker system (which is a very insecure way of testing audio auditorally), I use a Sennheiser HD-600 instead, connected to an ASUS Xonar Essence ST. As you may well remember from a Stereophile review, this soundcard comes quite close in sound as a source to your Ayre. The combination of my little system points the sound directly into my ears - without room involvement.

But I´ll never talk about superiority of any system because in my experience, so called high-end-audio is nothing more than a smokescreen where the ultimate goal is not perfect playback but sonically spiced up playback. I´ve listened to a lot of high end stuff over the years and found that all of them more or less coloured the sound. Even my Sennheiser does this. It does this very good but it still does. So you could very well be listening to a placebo. Furthermore, Charles Hansen of Ayre doesn´t know half the time what he´s talking about. He mixes some technical knowledge with myths - a very dangerous combination IMO. I wouldn´t trust one piece of hardware coming from his company. Well, I could be going on and on forever about this but I´ll make it short.

If you are happy with your settings go use them. But please don´t bother other people with them. I´m ashamed of myself that I even tried to recreate them when I read sentences such as yours.

[glynor]

Wow.  All I can say is wow.

[Blaine78]

wowie zowie?

[glynor]

wowie zowie?

 

[MrC]

Hunter, is that you?

[rjm]

When my music is too dry I crank up the reverb.

[roopertd]

My head just exploded.
These setting just blew my freaking mind.

I took it one step further.
Where does good audio start? At the source.
I re downloaded some tracks, but this time i used my $300 internet cable.
Awesome, just awesome.

I just ordered some nipple clamps that im going to modify into ground wires
for my body so that static electricity doesn't interfere with my listening experience.
I ordered enough that i can replace them every 8 hours of listening because new wires
make a huge difference. Most people don't know this but a good nipple clamp body ground
needs constant maintenance.

[Blaine78]

Wrong crowd JazzDoc. thanks all the same and glad it worked for you.

[Blaine78]

My dear, what you are describing sounds an awful lot like a perfect placebo.

how do you know that, are you in my house using my Hi-Fi? You should have called i would have made some  h'orderves. Not just me who likes the sound, friend of mine hears it, and few others that have tried it and liked it too.

But I´ll never talk about superiority of any system because in my experience, so called high-end-audio is nothing more than a smokescreen where the ultimate goal is not perfect playback but sonically spiced up playback.

ATC are renowned for their Studio Monitors and Amplifiers as they are accurate and very uncoloured, so prefect for mastering, which is my goal profession.

Furthermore, Charles Hansen of Ayre doesn´t know half the time what he´s talking about. He mixes some technical knowledge with myths - a very dangerous combination IMO.

Thats a pretty bold statemnet, do you make hi end audio equipment?

If you are happy with your settings go use them. But please don´t bother other people with them. I´m ashamed of myself that I even tried to recreate them when I read sentences such as yours.

sorry your ashamed of yourself. if doesn't work for you, move on. Maybe it's the $200 soundcard inside your computer with the coloured sounding headphones that you mentioned?

[Blaine78]

My head just exploded.
These setting just blew my freaking mind.

Really glad it worked for you!

I took it one step further.
Where does good audio start? At the source.
I re downloaded some tracks, but this time i used my $300 internet cable.
Awesome, just awesome.

Don't believe a $300 internet cable will do much, as the timing (analogue domain) of the 1 and 0's aren't important in this event. Also, I'm not a big believer in expensive cabling, but the wire world USB cable for the computer to DAC did tick all the boxes and made a nice improvement. $300 for internet cable? You do take this seriously! WOW

I just ordered some nipple clamps that im going to modify into ground wires
for my body so that static electricity doesn't interfere with my listening experience.
I ordered enough that i can replace them every 8 hours of listening because new wires
make a huge difference. Most people don't know this but a good nipple clamp body ground
needs constant maintenance.

is worth a try if it gets you closer to the music.

[MrHaugen]

I know that most of this is probably a placebo effect. At least such things as buffer. I personally think most of such things is utter nonsense, but I do activate some of the alternatives either way. It can't hurt. It's the same thing with drugs. If people thinks it will help, and it works, then it's a good thing. Placebo or not. No matter what the doctors say, it helps you.

The biggest problem here though is that people have way to little acceptance for each others opinions, and you all attack each other as a bunch of preteen girls on the comment space of your blogs.

[Blaine78]

I know that most of this is probably a placebo effect. At least such things as buffer. I personally think most of such things is utter nonsense, but I do activate some of the alternatives either way. It can't hurt. It's the same thing with drugs. If people thinks it will help, and it works, then it's a good thing. Placebo or not. No matter what the doctors say, it helps you.

The biggest problem here though is that people have way to little acceptance for each others opinions, and you all attack each other as a bunch of preteen girls on the comment space of your blogs.

Very true. all in all, if it works for you great. I think if someone has given the generosity of their experiences, it is decent for others to respect that. as i've mentioned numerous times , it maybe be system dependant and so others mile will vary. ultimately this is a share and help site.

[soongsc]

Blaine78,

Have you or anyone else tried Kernel Streaming mode?

[Blaine78]

Yep tried Kernel streaming, found it a little light on the bass and too airy, so not a solid foundation to the music as WASAPI (original), this is on my system and DAC. ASIO i found to sound a bit bleached and too clean sounding 'processed' and robbed the emotion from music, a little like WASAPI event style, which is funny as found out later ASIO and WASAPI Event Style use the same buffer processes.

[rick.ca]

ultimately this is a share and help site.

That's exactly what it is. And that's why you're original comments resulted in a backlash. You didn't share your experience of selecting certain settings and your perception of better results. You stated doing what you did would result in better sound and that we should not question you. If you wanted to be helpful, you would provide facts, preferably backed with evidence. That provides others with something they can try to reproduce. It can also include your subjective assessment doing something seems to have a particular result. In that case, the "fact" is weak one, but at least you're not misleading anyone.

[Blaine78]

That's exactly what it is. And that's why you're original comments resulted in a backlash. You didn't share your experience of selecting certain settings and your perception of better results. You stated doing what you did would result in better sound and that we should not question you. If you wanted to be helpful, you would provide facts, preferably backed with evidence. That provides others with something they can try to reproduce. It can also include your subjective assessment doing something seems to have a particular result. In that case, the "fact" is weak one, but at least you're not misleading anyone.

Hi,
Hard to back fact with evidence when you're not listening to it on my system. i did state at the beginning 'My recommended findings on USB computer audio'. i did not proclaim 'do it, or die' and did not ever say once 'fact.' Again, this is trail and error. I'm not trying out for a college exam, I'm just giving my thoughts on my findings, and to me, work absolute. Nobody knows everything, but everyone wants to be heard.
I have quite a number of sound improvements that i've found to work well that are software, bios, and hardware based. all these tweaks add up to an immense improvement 'on my system'. this is just a couple of findings. I love music, and i love electronics and all the voodoo (spirit) that encompasses it. i find it quite like a living being. if others don't get it, switch off.

[JimH]

JazzDoc, Blaine,
Don't give up on these guys.  It's good for all of us to be exposed to the beliefs of others, even if we don't agree.

Thanks for posting this.  We really appreciate the support audiophiles have given us on sites like ComputerAudiophile.com.

Jim

[Blaine78]

Thanks Jim.
Appreciate it. it's just one of those things that is hard to describe to others unless experiencing it with you. Thanks to you guys for the effort to make this software great! Computer Audio is where it's at, and glad there is a software developer for PC that take it seriously too.

[Marlene]

how do you know that, are you in my house using my Hi-Fi? You should have called i would have made some  h'orderves. Not just me who likes the sound, friend of mine hears it, and few others that have tried it and liked it too.

ATC are renowned for their Studio Monitors and Amplifiers as they are accurate and very uncoloured, so prefect for mastering, which is my goal profession.

Thats a pretty bold statemnet, do you make hi end audio equipment?

sorry your ashamed of yourself. if doesn't work for you, move on. Maybe it's the $200 soundcard inside your computer with the coloured sounding headphones that you mentioned?

Are you proposing a date? Why, thank you! I´ll bring the wine to the h'orderves. I live in Germany, where are you?

And no, I do not make high end audio equipment. Still, regarding the quality of Ayre´s products: at least some of his products are fairly standard technology inside a fancy aluminum case. Take the http://www.ayre.com/cx7e.htm for example, its parts consists of a very cheap (and old) drive from Sanyo, not even the D/A converter is anything better than those you´d find in 200,- Euro players. Gosh, even my "colouring" ASUS soundcard has more expensive D/A converters. Despite these cheap parts this player costs 3600,- Euro here in Germany. I think it´s a bit much for an - albeit nice looking - aluminum case and a bit of fancy DSP programming.

Furthermore, his recent BluRay player has been revealed to be a simple OEM model with a revamped energy supply and output stage. But that´s about it. While the OEM players costs around 500,- Euros Ayre wants 10.000,- Euros. I won´t say anything more.

Yes, my headphone colours. I made that pretty clear from the beginning. I also suspect my soundcard to be colouring but I don´t know to which extent. I just wanted to say that you can´t be sure if your equipment colours.

Hard to back fact with evidence when you're not listening to it on my system. i did state at the beginning 'My recommended findings on USB computer audio'. i did not proclaim 'do it, or die' and did not ever say once 'fact.'

Well, we cannot listen to your system, can we? And as it happens, I too own a USB solution. Well, it´s "only" a E-MU 0202 USB which was by the way the first USB audio interface to use the asynchronous protocol (yes, Ayre wasn´t the first as it is stated so often) but I couldn´t find anything of the things you proposed. But then... maybe it´s not that revealing. Furthermore, your Ayre interface could very well have some issues with its USB driver. For all I know you could be listening to an error in the hardware chain when you change the output configuration. I did not say that you do but it could be.

JazzDoc, Blaine,
Don't give up on these guys.  It's good for all of us to be exposed to the beliefs of others, even if we don't agree.

Thanks for posting this.  We really appreciate the support audiophiles have given us on sites like ComputerAudiophile.com.

Yes, exactly my mind. You know Jim, if Blaine wouldn´t have been so absolute about his findings I would be completely on his side. He might think that I´m one of those proof loving guys from Hydrogenaudio - but I´m not. Just like him, I love music very much and I love the best possible playback solution for it. I also love to tweak my system. I own fancy RCA cables, power cables etc. but I will never say that my solution is the only one that  makes someone happy and I certainly will not elevate them over everything else. Which exactly is what he did IMO.

I think that we are here to discuss, while not being absolute. Blaine, if I insulted you I´m truly very sorry. I mean that.

[soongsc]

That's exactly what it is. And that's why you're original comments resulted in a backlash. You didn't share your experience of selecting certain settings and your perception of better results. You stated doing what you did would result in better sound and that we should not question you. If you wanted to be helpful, you would provide facts, preferably backed with evidence. That provides others with something they can try to reproduce. It can also include your subjective assessment doing something seems to have a particular result. In that case, the "fact" is weak one, but at least you're not misleading anyone.

I think it's important to try different things out on our own systems.  There are many factors not under the control of normal users, so most people just have to try things out.  For example, the capability to diffifferentiate a more accurate sounding playback polarity is one of my basic criteria for audio.  Not everyone will experience this.  I chose the Kernel Streaming mode just because it seemed to be the most direct communication with the soundcard, and it sounds fantastic to me.  Unless I know a technical reason to change this, it will probably be my default selection so that I can explore what other technical improvements can be made in a system.

[glynor]

JazzDoc, Blaine,
Don't give up on these guys.  It's good for all of us to be exposed to the beliefs of others, even if we don't agree.

Thanks for posting this.  We really appreciate the support audiophiles have given us on sites like ComputerAudiophile.com.

Well said, Jim.  Well said.  I agree completely.

Hunter, is that you?

Can't stop here, this is bat country.

[Blaine78]

Yes, exactly my mind. You know Jim, if Blaine wouldn´t have been so absolute about his findings I would be completely on his side.

Never mistake absolute fact with passion, only absolute passion

I think that we are here to discuss, while not being absolute. Blaine, if I insulted you I´m truly very sorry. I mean that.

Not insulted, but thanks. Made the ride more enjoyable

[Blaine78]

And no, I do not make high end audio equipment. Still, regarding the quality of Ayre´s products: at least some of his products are fairly standard technology inside a fancy aluminum case. Take the http://www.ayre.com/cx7e.htm for example, its parts consists of a very cheap (and old) drive from Sanyo, not even the D/A converter is anything better than those you´d find in 200,- Euro players. Gosh, even my "colouring" ASUS soundcard has more expensive D/A converters. Despite these cheap parts this player costs 3600,- Euro here in Germany. I think it´s a bit much for an - albeit nice looking - aluminum case and a bit of fancy DSP programming.

I'm actually intrigued now. looking under the hood of my Ayre qb-9 dac, it looks to me of well thought out top notch quality components, a little old school with some components which i love as they are not going for newest and supposedly greatest (i prefer a lot of earlier electronics, more warmth) and that is what makes ayre sound so good. it's the combining of components that make the whole. out of all my DAC's including weiss, lavry, benchmark, i think ayre has the most engulfing and seductive sound. end of the day, that is what matters. yes it is expensive, but the sound i'm getting is worth it.

[Frobozz]

The good news is that audiophiles are using and tweaking MC
The bad news is that audiophiles are using and tweaking MC and commenting about it as audiophiles do

Subjective listening vs. scientific measurements.  Audio Asylum vs. Hydrogenaudio.

It's all good though.  The audio world needs a mix of both.  And most of us end up configuring or tweaking MC and our audio gear to our own personal preferences and biases and likes.  I can't justify every decision or configuration I've got in MC and my computer setup with ABX tests or hard numbers.  It's just not practical to do things that way.  In many cases you just have to go with what sounds right subjectively whether it always makes sense or not.

[rick.ca]

I can't justify every decision or configuration I've got in MC and my computer setup with ABX tests or hard numbers.  It's just not practical to do things that way.  In many cases you just have to go with what sounds right subjectively whether it always makes sense or not.

I understand and agree. But it's explanation I'm looking for, not justification. It would be helpful if those who understand more about these things try to respect the fact most of us know less. I don't have to be an audiophile to want the best sound available—in my particular circumstances. If a claim of better sound is made without any explanation at all, I'll probably have no choice by to reject it. I have no way of knowing if a wild deviation from a default "recommended" setting might cause unforeseen problems. I may not understand whether the result reported is something I might experience too, or something only possible using something like the poster's $20,000 system.

[Blaine78]

I understand and agree. But it's explanation I'm looking for, not justification. It would be helpful if those who understand more about these things try to respect the fact most of us know less. I don't have to be an audiophile to want the best sound available—in my particular circumstances. If a claim of better sound is made without any explanation at all, I'll probably have no choice by to reject it. I have no way of knowing if a wild deviation from a default "recommended" setting might cause unforeseen problems. I may not understand whether the result reported is something I might experience too, or something only possible using something like the poster's $20,000 system.

Is just one of those things. I have no explanation except what i hear, but i do know it's not a placebo for me. i just find this sounds better to me. yes, my post could be seem to read it was night and day experience that all will get,  but in retrospect some might not notice at all the difference, because of their setup, and/or listening habits,  and doens't affect it. fortunately i do and loved to let others know. the sound opens up a little more on my system. it does take me about 10 seconds into the swing of a song to hear what it's doing and is enough for me to stick with this setting and find it superior. i guess this is big for me. Others will think it's non existent and a waste of time, because if something doesn't sound instantly different first 2 seconds of a track, it doesn't exist to them, which is fair enough and will not say they are wrong. This hobby is about getting the last 1% of performance where you can, and all adds up in the end.

[Frobozz]

I understand and agree. But it's explanation I'm looking for, not justification. It would be helpful if those who understand more about these things try to respect the fact most of us know less. I don't have to be an audiophile to want the best sound available—in my particular circumstances. If a claim of better sound is made without any explanation at all, I'll probably have no choice by to reject it. I have no way of knowing if a wild deviation from a default "recommended" setting might cause unforeseen problems. I may not understand whether the result reported is something I might experience too, or something only possible using something like the poster's $20,000 system.

There isn't a scientific explanation for some of the audiophile tweaks.  They are what they are and have a folklore of explanation to try to justify them.
Expensive USB cables affecting the sound?  No scientific explanation
WAV or AIFF vs. FLAC?  No explanation.  Trade-off if you want to go the WAV/AIFF route is that those formats have less tagging support so you end up making things more difficult on yourself to manage your library and larger files sizes can be inconvenient if it means you library must now span multiple hard drives.  I go with FLAC.
More hardware buffering?  Can be a good thing for home listening but a bad thing for professional audio where they need low latencies for editing and recording music.
More RAM buffering (playing from RAM)?  No explanation based on software engineering or other engineering.  No real downside though if you want to enable it.
Event style WASAPI vs. regular WASAPI?  I don't know.  Maybe it's something affected by the particular DAC.  Maybe audio interfaces designed for studio work do event style better/differently than audiophile home DACs?  I don't hear a difference on my gear (but my setup isn't all that transparent and is more mid-fi than audiophile).  I just go with what is more robust against glitches for my setup.  For me that's event style WASAPI or ASIO.

I'm not in the audiophile tweaker category.  I do have fun though exploring what audio and audio gear has to offer.  Later today I'm heading to a head-fi meet where I'll get to listen to some fancy gear.  It's all fun and I'm looking for a new amp and some new headphones so it's a good way to explore different sound to find what I'm looking for.

[soongsc]

Normally, when there is an audible difference, it's possible to find the associated measurement.  In software, due to windows real-time-clock resolution, it's hard to control the jitter of diginal signals.  If there is sufficient buffering and control in the hardware, then this can be further controlled by the hardware clock.  It's a pity that not enough information is available, which is the general trend in most commercial products.  Whenever I have a question, support personnel most likely are using the same manual I look at, with no hands on experience or further data about the product.

[JimH]

... In software, due to windows real-time-clock resolution, it's hard to control the jitter of diginal signals.  If there is sufficient buffering and control in the hardware, then this can be further controlled by the hardware clock.  ...

If you're playing to a receiver or a USB DAC, the description above isn't quite accurate.

The Windows software (MC in this case) sends the audio in a binary stream to the device.  There is some starting and stopping of this stream, mainly to fill the buffer on the hardware device.

The device itself is then responsible for playback, taking the zeros and ones from its own buffer and converting them to analog form for playback.

So, no matter how irregularly the Windows software might feed the buffer on the device, there is no way that it could affect the sound output from the device.  The software has no idea what the device is doing except when the device says "My buffer is getting low.  Send me a few more ones and zeros." or the software says "Hey, can you take any more ones and zeros?"

In other words, the software is not responsible for the playback.  It is only responsible for the delivery of these binary packages.

[Blaine78]

If you're playing to a receiver or a USB DAC, the description above isn't quite accurate.

The Windows software (MC in this case) sends the audio in a binary stream to the device.  There is some starting and stopping of this stream, mainly to fill the buffer on the hardware device.

The device itself is then responsible for playback, taking the zeros and ones from its own buffer and converting them to analog form for playback.

So, no matter how irregularly the Windows software might feed the buffer on the device, there is no way that it could affect the sound output from the device.  The software has no idea what the device is doing except when the device says "My buffer is getting low.  Send me a few more ones and zeros." or the software says "Hey, can you take any more ones and zeros?"

In other words, the software is not responsible for the playback.  It is only responsible for the delivery of these binary packages.

I get that, and understand, but why does different buffer sizes sound different then, and why does WASAPI sound different to direct sound when it is bit perfect, also ASIO and Kernel streaming sound different. Foobar sounds quite different to J river yet is all bit perfect using WASAPI?

[nwboater]

If you're playing to a receiver or a USB DAC, the description above isn't quite accurate..............

In other words, the software is not responsible for the playback.  It is only responsible for the delivery of these binary packages.

If so I wonder why so many people say MC sounds better than most other players?

Rod

[JimH]

If so I wonder why so many people say MC sounds better than most other players?

The stream of bits the Windows software sends must be unaltered.  Not all players or playback modes will do that.

Any two players sending this unaltered stream should sound identical when played by the same hardware.

There are a lot of ways to do this wrong.

[rick.ca]

There isn't a scientific explanation for some of the audiophile tweaks.

I don't need a scientific explanation. A logical or meaningful explanation—as long as it's not evading an available scientific one—is fine. As you've illustrated, "no scientific explanation" can be the basis of a meaningful one. If an experienced engineer can explain why there can be no audible difference caused by different cables or lossless file formats, then that is a meaningful explanation. If you trust the engineer more than the listener's unsubstantiated claim, then it is a scientific explanation: There is no difference, and the question becomes, why does the listener believe there is a difference.

When these issues are discussed honestly and fairly, everyone is better served. On the question of file format, for example, knowing the facts, I can confidently choose FLAC. I can be certain it produces exactly the same result as any other lossless format, and has the advantages of being in common use and can be tagged according to some standards. Someone else can choose to believe—due to some unexplained reason—WAVE files sound better. In making that choice, they can weigh their perceived benefit against the cost (a collection that is a little more difficult to maintain).

The irony that seems to be present in much audiophile folklore is the "open minded" listener who hears some difference in sound quality cannot accept it as unexplained. So they make up something that's false and misleading. The need to do so only suggests a difficultly discerning real from imaginary. It also seems to deny the fact the most important (and variable) processing of the sound takes place in the listener's mind. Some have the confidence to simply say, "I use WAVE because I imagine it sounds better, and that makes me happy." There's no reason for anyone to argue with such a statement.

[Blaine78]

The stream of bits the Windows software sends must be unaltered.  Not all players or playback modes will do that.

Any two players sending this unaltered stream should sound identical when played by the same hardware.

There are a lot of ways to do this wrong.

I owned a Weiss DAC2, it has a bit perfect stream checker on it. It comes with WAV files that are played by the playback computer program you use. If the Wav files are played unaltered (no dsp, sampling rate, bit rate), three lights on the DAC will light up. if anything has affected the WAV file anywhere down the stream, the lights will not flash. My point being, foobar and J River where playing bit perfect according to this checker. yet sound different. There is more going on here than just getting the ones and zeros in the correct order. So, these 2 software are playing bit perfect with quite different sound.

[Blaine78]

I don't need a scientific explanation. A logical or meaningful explanation—as long as it's not evading an available scientific one—is fine. As you've illustrated, "no scientific explanation" can be the basis of a meaningful one. If an experienced engineer can explain why there can be no audible difference caused by different cables or lossless file formats, then that is a meaningful explanation. If you trust the engineer more than the listener's unsubstantiated claim, then it is a scientific explanation: There is no difference, and the question becomes, why does the listener believe there is a difference.

When these issues are discussed honestly and fairly, everyone is better served. On the question of file format, for example, knowing the facts, I can confidently choose FLAC. I can be certain it produces exactly the same result as any other lossless format, and has the advantages of being in common use and can be tagged according to some standards. Someone else can choose to believe—due to some unexplained reason—WAVE files sound better. In making that choice, they can weigh their perceived benefit against the cost (a collection that is a little more difficult to maintain).

The irony that seems to be present in much audiophile folklore is the "open minded" listener who hears some difference in sound quality cannot accept it as unexplained. So they make up something that's false and misleading. The need to do so only suggests a difficultly discerning real from imaginary. It also seems to deny the fact the most important (and variable) processing of the sound takes place in the listener's mind. Some have the confidence to simply say, "I use WAVE because I imagine it sounds better, and that makes me happy." There's no reason for anyone to argue with such a statement.

The irony seems to be, people who don't hear any difference between audio players and formats, also seem to be the people who don't have a decent setups and/or an environment and/or the time to which to test these results. People who do hear the differences, seem to have much more revealing equipment and good environment and the time to come to conclusions.

[Blaine78]

MP3 and WAV files sound the same? 128kbs CD Quality the encoder use to say. i remember arguments that went on forever that MP3 and CD sound exactly the same to a lot of listeners, even blind tests. you couldn't argue with them. But there was an explanations that proved that what you hear is not the identical to the CD. Yet they still didn't hear it?

May i ask the people who don't hear a difference, don't believe the crazy audiophiles, if you had a scientific explanation, would you suddenly hear a difference?

Would be interesting to see the people who don't hear a difference, suddenly hearing a difference only because they had an scientific explanation. Now that would be crazy

[cncb]

My point being, foobar and J River where playing bit perfect according to this checker. yet sound different. There is more going on here than just getting the ones and zeros in the correct order. So, these 2 software are playing bit perfect with quite different sound.

The software is just sending the bits to the hardware, not telling it how to play it.  If the hardware is getting the same bits (bit perfect) from both pieces of software how could it sound different?  It can't...

[Blaine78]

The software is just sending the bits to the hardware, not telling it how to play it.  If the hardware is getting the same bits (bit perfect) from both pieces of software how could it sound different?  It can't...

no it can't, but it does.
Jitter, EMI, Clocks, timing. there is more than just one's and zero's.

i Really would LOVE to invite people on here to my house, using my hi-fi to show you what i'm on about.

[JimH]

I've removed a post and a reply to it.  The post was needlessly argumentative in my opinion.

Please respect the rights of others to believe what they wish to believe.  It's fine to say you don't agree, or to say why you think otherwise.  It isn't OK to be disrespectful.

[JimH]

no it can't, but it does.
Jitter, EMI, Clocks, timing. there is more than just one's and zero's.

i Really would LOVE to invite people on here to my house, using my hi-fi to show you what i'm on about.

Thanks.  I wish I could take you up on the invitation.

[Mr ChriZ]

MP3 and WAV files sound the same? 128kbs CD Quality the encoder use to say. i remember arguments that went on forever that MP3 and CD sound exactly the same to a lot of listeners, even blind tests. you couldn't argue with them. But there was an explanations that proved that what you hear is not the identical to the CD. Yet they still didn't hear it?

[edited by JimH]

Are you really enjoying the media experience any more?  

I guess everyone has their thing!

All that said I'd love to see your set up.  People's fascinations fascinate me!

[cncb]

there is more than just one's and zero's.

Not as far as the software is concerned.  If the hardware is getting the same bits from both software players it would mean that the hardware is playing the exact same data differently which would suggest a hardware problem.

[Blaine78]

Not as far as the software is concerned.  If the hardware is getting the same bits from both software players it would mean that the hardware is playing the exact same data differently which would suggest a hardware problem.

No, no problem with the hardware. all works perfectly. just sounds different with different settings and players.

[cncb]

No, no problem with the hardware. all works perfectly. just sounds different with different settings and players.

Well if the software players are delivering the same bits to the hardware and it sounds different to you then there is something wrong with either your hardware or ears because it has nothing to do with the software at that point.

[Blaine78]

Well if the software players are delivering the same bits to the hardware and it sounds different to you then there is something wrong with either your hardware or ears because it has nothing to do with the software at that point.

Once again No, no problem with the hardware. Ears work Great, my goal profession is audio mastering, you need golden ears for that.
Have to think of it as a whole. The PSU, hardware, ram, software, the file format, the decoding process, the operating system processes, USB hardware, USB cabling, the DAC. anywhere along this chain of events things could have slight change in the timing of the data or added EMI somewhere/anywhere from upstream form other processes, CPU clocks, Power fluctuations due to other processes demanding CPU time. any number of things can result in different variation of the final analogue sound.

[Vincent Kars]

Using a PC for audio is PCM audio.
PCM is samples (the bits) and sample rate, the timing.
Both must be right.
The bits are probably the easiest part. When configured right players like MC can deliver bit perfect output.
The timing is a more complex affair.
We need some expensive gear to measure small deviations in timing properly.
Home Theater and High Fidelity tested the jitter on the SPDIF out of a blue-ray player in stop mode and running.

Indeed running the system doubles the jitter.
However, 5 or 10 ps are very low values.
The periodic jitter (the spikes) is probably more relevant.
One thing is obvious, indeed the higher electrical activity as a result of the system running maps into a measurable difference in jitter at the SPDIF out.
How this translates to a "PC" is another question.