INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Does anybody else hear a marked sound improvement in 64-bit Media Center 23?  (Read 6592 times)

bfburkejr

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 11

Hello,
I just downloaded the 64-bit version of Media Center 23 and have to say that either I am crazy or it sounds significantly better.

I listen through Shure SRH 1540 Reference headphone attached to a profession class A amp headphone amp and that is attached with a MOGAMI XLR plug and cable [all Mogami Cables] to both a MOTU 24 I/O and a MOTU 2408 MKIII DA/AD convertors at 96,000Hz, no it isn't 1 bit , at least not yet and only goes as high as 96,000 HZ 24 or 32 bit, but they are professional units attached to my 32 core computer using a PCIe 424 card.

I listened first to some Alan Parsons Project Music that is in DSF format before being converted. I have never really been able to discern much difference when changing programs except when I used a friend's 1 bit convertor, but I swear that the sound has improved enough to hear it using both WASAPI and/or ASIO drivers and a Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit OS and 2xAMD 6282SE CPU's with 16 cores each.

It really amazed me, has anyone else had the same experience?
Logged

audioqueso

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 41

I will let you know in a few hours as I plan to upgrade as soon as I get home.
Logged

RD James

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1871

The last big sound upgrades were when they implemented SoX resampling and TPDF dither - neither of which is the default setting for some reason.
I don't think there's been any changes since.
Logged

Sky King

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 302

I noticed no audible difference in my setup.  YMMV however.
Logged

michael123

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 485

The last big sound upgrades were when they implemented SoX resampling and TPDF dither - neither of which is the default setting for some reason.

For good reason  ;)
Logged

bfburkejr

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 11

I saw that the sound engine hadn't been changed which is why I posted. I can only hear it on certain files. ? Oh well. By the way, any suggestions for 1-bit/bitstream convertors, I have a KORG KRONOS 2 so was just going to order a KORG convertor, I also have a portable KORG 1-bit recorder. I would appreciate any suggestions. I am better versed on pro sound equipment as I am a musician. I do have decent speakers/monitors...Dynaudios.  I have the BM 6A MKII satellites and a BM 14 12" unported sub that is -3dB at 18 Hz. I was lucky to buy them before they switched to the new LYD's I think as mine have all traditional Class A/B  discreet amps and traditional power supplies instead if the new class D stuff, not exactly high end home speakers, but they hold their own. I can only really hear the difference on my Shure cans, I have some Blue Mo-Fi's and they don't pick up the subtle difference. Who knows? It could just be me. I am convinced that Media Center is the best sounding computer based Audio player available though :). Thank s for your replies and not making fun of me like people do on so many forums if a person makes a comment like I did. I have the utmost respect for the people on here. Namaste, Brian Burke
Logged

bfburkejr

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 11

I noticed no audible difference in my setup.  YMMV however.
For good reason  ;)
I apologize for my ignorance, I don't post/read a lot of forums etc. What does YMMV mean?
Thanks, Brian
Logged

JimH

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 72439
  • Where did I put my teeth?

For acronyms, please try Google.

Your Mileage May Vary
Logged

Mark_Chat

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 43

I doubt that the 64 bit version of JRIver is affecting the sound quality as the 32 bit version is more than capable of ultra high bitrate multichannel sound, presenting it reproducibly bit-perfect every time.

I think the most likely reason for the improvement is the MOGAMI cables you are using. Is it possible that you unplugged and accidentally reversed the direction of the cable when you reconnected it so that the electrons are flowing more effectively along it. Reversing interconnect cable direction every 17 hours or so seems to improve sound from all of my sources.  :-*
Logged

robt

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 313

My interconnects are at their peak when they've been in the fridge over night......

 ;D ;D ;D ;D
Logged

dtc

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3119
Re: Does anybody else hear a marked sound improvement in 64-bit Media Center 23?
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2017, 03:32:44 pm »

My interconnects are at their peak when they've been in the fridge over night......

 ;D ;D ;D ;D

Cryo them to start with and you do not need to do the nightly routine, as long as you use cable risers to keep them off the floor.
Logged

jimwallen

  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 82
Re: Does anybody else hear a marked sound improvement in 64-bit Media Center 23?
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2017, 03:38:52 pm »

Huh! I've thought the same thing about the 64 bit version...it sounds a little better!
Logged

sandrei

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Does anybody else hear a marked sound improvement in 64-bit Media Center 23?
« Reply #12 on: September 29, 2017, 10:59:49 pm »

Oh yes, definitely sounds better. I have a few 24bit Studio Master albums, they sound way better than before, but also the 16bit files sound better.
The latest 32bit MC versions I thought they sound a bit distorted, like the volume was too high and I'm getting clipping, but I thought it's because I deactivated "Optimize volume for best quality" in the Startup menu. I have the same settings in MC 64bit version and definitely sounds better.
Logged

chunky70

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 13

I have to admit that i find the sound slightly better as well!! I've no idea why but it does!!
Logged

AndyU

  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 363

The difference is nowhere near as big as the difference between a cd ripped at full moon and the same cd ripped at a low point in the sunspot cycle.
Logged

DDD

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 13

For good reason  ;)

Hey, I'd be interested to hear some elaboration on this subject as I'm not nearly in the know with this. I sense sarcasm here but I'm not sure...

Is SoX any good (compared to the alternative)? What about TPDF dithering? If they are best then why aren't they default?

I've been using SoX since it was implemented, seemed to sound better to me. I'd really appreciate an explanation, thanks!
Logged

dtc

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3119

Hey, I'd be interested to hear some elaboration on this subject as I'm not nearly in the know with this. I sense sarcasm here but I'm not sure...

Is SoX any good (compared to the alternative)? What about TPDF dithering? If they are best then why aren't they default?

I've been using SoX since it was implemented, seemed to sound better to me. I'd really appreciate an explanation, thanks!

MC deliveries a stream of digital bits to the output. Unless there is a significant problem (and as long as you bypass the Windows mixer) with a 32 bit installation, it delivers exactly the same bits in the file to the output, assuming no DSPs are applied. A 64 bit installation will also deliver the exact same bits from the file to the output. In terms of the data bits, 32 and 64 bit MC will deliver the same bits to the output.

Some people believe that effects other than just the data bits can effect the sound. Jitter is one such effect. It is basically mistiming of the data going to the DAC. Current DACs pretty much eliminate jitter problems, but some DACs may be susceptible to it. If so, it can be effected by timing and noise issues within the PC, such as disk activation. Other people believe that any electrical noise in a PC can be passed on to the DAC which has the potential to change the sound of the DAC.  There are many such effects that some people think can effect the sound.

Some people that these secondary effects are real and effect the sound. Others think that as long as the bits are delivered correctly to the DAC, these other effects are meaningless. Unfortunately, each group is very adamant in its position. Since there are many different setups and everyone hears somewhat differently, it is pretty much impossible to made a definitive statement, but people do anyway.  The sarcasm here is often because some think any argument about these secondary effects is nonsense. Some of it is just fun, knowing how adamant people get on this topic.

Rather than get into a debate that nobody will ever win, I think it is best to listen for yourself and decide for yourself. If you think you hear differences and state it on this forum, some will never believe you. Just understand that before posting.


As to Sox, you can get into pretty much the same discussion. Some people think upscaling will never create a better sound and may worsen it. However, other think differently and some believe that different DACs perform differently depending on the sample rate feed to them.  There is no doubt that Sox is more efficient than the old upsampler. If a system is on a performance edge, Sox can definitely create a better sound than the old upsampler. In some cases the old one would stutter and Sox does not. Once again, give it try and let your ears be your guide. I think most people lean towards Sox, just because it puts less load on the system.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up