Visual studio 2012 c++ and wasapi minimalist player

[sbgk]

I came in to this testing late and the first version that really rocked my boat was the 2.53 sse4 as mentioned by Goon-Heaven above.

Am struggling to find enough time to compare all the versions that are coming out but have condensed my trials to the 'best' recommended ones here. Has it reached a point where it is now people's preferences that are dictating the reactions to the myriad versions or is it still improving? I do realise I need to go through the thread and start reading the technical bits.

 

One point for me anyway the music I am playing from 2.53 on regardless of type has great detail,clear,concise not sharp or overbearing. Vocals are sublime even my favourite singers who might not necessarily be the most in tune performers on the planet.Bass is tuneful and soundstage is deep. On really good vocalists the guy or gal seems to be literally touchable just in front of you.

 

Thank god for Sbgk

 

think I'll be going forward with 2.59 8 8, as I said before 2.53 is just too rough on my system. Though if people like it I can keep it going. Suppose you have personal preferences, resolving ability of the system etc all going into the mix, usually versions that sound good on my main system are ok on headphones plugged into my laptop, would prefer there to be a consensus. no need to try all the versions.

[sbgk]

2.59 8 8 vs 2.59 8 4 vs 2.58 sse4 intel tot align

-tot align is more real. fuller. deeper.

-2.59 is cleaner.

-8 8 and 4 8 differs mainly in stage? both good. i might prefer 4 8.

-think 2.59 is able to "zoom in & out". 3D effect? feels more lively. might cause fatigue.

-tot align has better vocal. more emotion.

 

is it possible to make a flat stage like rax no zi? it is simple and musical.

 

listened to tot align again, sounds better than I remember, shall move it back from archive

[sbgk]

Julf is being Julf in the whats best forum, trolling at it's best.

 

Another playback software to argue over - Page 4

 

"The main one is about the focus on a small, trivial part of the code (basically writing the bytes that constitute the audio data into a memory buffer that then gets handed to the Windows WASAPI layers), while ignoring all the other code and processing in the audio data path of the OS."

 

To other player developers - please listen to Julf and don't look at this trivial part of the code, it has nothing to do with SQ and I am just pretending to make changes, there's nothing to see there, move on.

 

Also he criticises the development methodology, so again to other developers, he is right there is nothing to be gained by trial and error, so I wouldn't recommend you go down that track. lol . Agile methodology or extreme programming I think it's called in the real world, but what do I know.

[sima66]

from the Owner of Jaguar Audio Design

 

One often misunderstood point (not necessarily by Phelonious, but in general) about player software and why they sound different is that it's the driver the player uses, not the actual player that effects the sound of your DAC. A very light player or memory play can affect the sound, but very slightly at the margins (I haven't found memory play to be worthwhile at all on relatively new hardware and OS that's optimized well). At the end of the day the player just controls the music, Start, Stop, Next, etc. The driver controls how the music is delivered to the DAC and if you're using a proprietary driver or just the same generic driver in both players you'll get the same sound.

 

Another playback software to argue over - Page 2

 

So there you go, an expert speaks, lol, it is the drivers that change the sound and not the player, such an ignorant and complacent attitude, guess he is probably just a salesman

 

sbgk, criticism like this happened to all the great geniuses, so you are not the first one. It takes a real genius to be able to understand another genius!

BTW I don't, but I like what I hear! ;-)

[lekt]

be careful with 2.59 sse4 intel, great competition with 2.58 sse4 intel tot align !! i feel likely better (more strong, energy, power), i'm trying, need more listening. most important for me: vibration!

 

soundstage/3Ddimention: width, height, depth

 

2.59 sse4 intel: 100%, 98%, 99.5% (have bass vibration ~ 2.58 sse4 intel tot align, but this vibration is compressed due sound height is not enough, sound lesser open/free than tot align)

2.59 sse4 intel 8 4: bass vibration not good, SQ lesser

2.59 sse4 intel 8 8: 100%, 99.5%, 99.5% (bass vibration is a bit compressed due sound height is not enough, sound a bit lesser open/free than tot align)

 

2.58 sse4 intel tot align: 100%, 99.9%, 99.5% (brightness lesser than other, but i think enough).

nopgomemcpy: 100.5%, 100%, 100%

v1.2: 100%, 100%, 100% (absolute, jesuscheung, then stereo effect very good. unfortunately, more bass volume)

 

2.58 sse4 intel tot align better than others (best SQ).

[sbgk]

sbgk, criticism like this happened to all the great geniuses, so you are not the first one. It takes a real genius to be able to understand another genius!

BTW I don't, but I like what I hear! ;-)

 

I'm just a hacker with an itch to scratch and too much free time. I find it takes Guiness to understand a genius.

[LowOrbit]

sbgk

 

Just had a quick listen to a few tunes on 2.59 sse4 intel 8 8 - now that is a big improvement. There are whole new layers of instrument sounds being revealed on a couple of tunes (Chuck E Weiss - Old Souls and Wolf Tickets if anyone fancies an offbeat listen) and truly exceptional clarity on well loved tunes like Bill Evans - My Foolish Heart/Waltz For Debbie. The brush strokes on the skin of the snare are the best I've heard them. It's musical and involving.

 

But, Julf is right - you're obviously going about this all wrong. You should be focussing on showing pretty thumbnails and little sprectrographs. That's what really makes the sound come alive.

[sbgk]

sbgk

 

Just had a quick listen to a few tunes on 2.59 sse4 intel 8 8 - now that is a big improvement. There are whole new layers of instrument sounds being revealed on a couple of tunes (Chuck E Weiss - Old Souls and Wolf Tickets if anyone fancies an offbeat listen) and truly exceptional clarity on well loved tunes like Bill Evans - My Foolish Heart/Waltz For Debbie. The brush strokes on the skin of the snare are the best I've heard them. It's musical and involving.

 

But, Julf is right - you're obviously going about this all wrong. You should be focussing on showing pretty thumbnails and little sprectrographs. That's what really makes the sound come alive.

 

did you try tot align ? it's a bit more easy flowing than 2.59 8 8

[nige2000]

Julf is being Julf in the whats best forum, trolling at it's best.

 

Another playback software to argue over - Page 4

 

"The main one is about the focus on a small, trivial part of the code (basically writing the bytes that constitute the audio data into a memory buffer that then gets handed to the Windows WASAPI layers), while ignoring all the other code and processing in the audio data path of the OS."

 

To other player developers - please listen to Julf and don't look at this trivial part of the code, it has nothing to do with SQ and I am just pretending to make changes, there's nothing to see there, move on.

 

Also he criticises the development methodology, so again to other developers, he is right there is nothing to be gained by trial and error, so I wouldn't recommend you go down that track. lol . Agile methodology or extreme programming I think it's called in the real world, but what do I know.

 

yes i seen that earlier, its getting dirty

JK the troll warrior!!!!

 

Anyway where did trial and error ever get us before?

takes a proper genius to evaluate something that wasn't tried

 

sarcasm in case anyone's worried

[goon-heaven]

2.59 sse4 intel 8 8 seems great on propelling rhythm - I cant stop jerking around in a trance.

[sbgk]

soundstage/3Ddimention: width, height, depth

 

2.59 sse4 intel: 100%, 98%, 99.5% (have bass vibration ~ 2.58 sse4 intel tot align, but this vibration is compressed due sound height is not enough, sound lesser open/free than tot align)

2.59 sse4 intel 8 4: bass vibration not good, SQ lesser

2.59 sse4 intel 8 8: 100%, 99.5%, 99.5% (bass vibration is a bit compressed due sound height is not enough, sound a bit lesser open/free than tot align)

 

2.58 sse4 intel tot align: 100%, 99.9%, 99.5% (brightness lesser than other, but i think enough).

nopgomemcpy: 100.5%, 100%, 100%

v1.2: 100%, 100%, 100% (absolute, jesuscheung, then stereo effect very good. unfortunately, more bass volume)

 

2.58 sse4 intel tot align better than others (best SQ).

 

thing is, they are not equivalent in terms of sibilance ie couldn't live with 1.2 or nopgomemcpy, is sibilance not a problem in your setup ?

[sbgk]

2.59 sse4 intel 8 8 seems great on propelling rhythm - I cant stop jerking around in a trance.

 

as our friends across the water would say "careful now"

[jesuscheung]

Julf is being Julf in the whats best forum, trolling at it's best.

 

Another playback software to argue over - Page 4

 

"The main one is about the focus on a small, trivial part of the code (basically writing the bytes that constitute the audio data into a memory buffer that then gets handed to the Windows WASAPI layers), while ignoring all the other code and processing in the audio data path of the OS."

 

To other player developers - please listen to Julf and don't look at this trivial part of the code, it has nothing to do with SQ and I am just pretending to make changes, there's nothing to see there, move on.

 

Also he criticises the development methodology, so again to other developers, he is right there is nothing to be gained by trial and error, so I wouldn't recommend you go down that track. lol . Agile methodology or extreme programming I think it's called in the real world, but what do I know.

 

is this a conspiracy by DAC makers? so that consumers need buy an expensive DAC to sort out digital jitters? while digital jitter can be solved by MQn.

[jesuscheung]

thing is, they are not equivalent in terms of sibilance ie couldn't live with 1.2 or nopgomemcpy, is sibilance not a problem in your setup ?

 

i just have a STX PCIe DAC. 1.2 or nopgomemcpy sounds with a layer of noise or whatever. it is not a musical killer. bad vinyl is worse. hard/harsh/bright are worst.

[sbgk]

is this a conspiracy by DAC makers? so that consumers need buy an expensive DAC to sort out digital jitters? while digital jitter can be solved by MQn.

 

potentially, any nice dac manufacturers want to pay me off, I'm open to offers.

 

they don't sort out digital jitters, though. I guess MQn can give you better sound with cheaper equipment, if you don't already have an expensive dac. Why haven't dac manufacturers put the memory and renderer on the dac ?

[nige2000]

thing is, they are not equivalent in terms of sibilance ie couldn't live with 1.2 or nopgomemcpy , is sibilance not a problem in your setup ?

 

sibilance isnt too bad with these two on my system, i think it depends alot on the pc,

your right to develop it on a laptop though as its best MQn works great on everything

 

i can see the appeal of 1.2 or nopgomemcp they have a certain qualities not yet matched.

yet they are heavily flawed in so many other ways (in this league anyway)

[cvrle59]

is this a conspiracy by DAC makers? so that consumers need buy an expensive DAC to sort out digital jitters? while digital jitter can be solved by MQn.

You could be partially right, IMO, but you still need a good DAC to have nice output to feed into either pre-amp or amp section. I would think that DAC manufactures would benefit of as good as possible player. That would make them to sell more DAC's, I guess. It all depends how you look at it.

BTW, I'm still trying to convince my Naim community to get on this sweet wagon. At least, the people who owe DAC's, but it may take some time.

http://forums.naimaudio.com/topic/can-i-make-my-dac-v1-sound-as-good-with-computer-as-with-cd-transport?reply=30428924484234501#30428924484234501

It just bothers me that someone is bleeding, and the patch for the wound is right here, a few clicks away...lol.

[nige2000]

ive a couple of dac's here unfortunately there quality still matters even with mqn

its just the starting line has been raised

[sbgk]

You could be partially right, IMO, but you still need a good DAC to have nice output to feed into either pre-amp or amp section. I would think that DAC manufactures would benefit of as good as possible player. That would make them to sell more DAC's, I guess. It all depends how you look at it.

BTW, I'm still trying to convince my Naim community to get on this sweet wagon. At least, the people who owe DAC's, but it may take some time.

Can I make my DAC V1 sound as good with computer as with CD transport? | Naim Audio Forums

It just bothers me that someone is bleeding, and the patch for the wound is right here, a few clicks away...lol.

 

have you tried without a preamp ? it's surprising how much SQ is lost through the preamp.

[jesuscheung]

potentially, any nice dac manufacturers want to pay me off, I'm open to offers.

 

they don't sort out digital jitters, though. I guess MQn can give you better sound with cheaper equipment, if you don't already have an expensive player. Why haven't dac manufacturers put the memory and renderer on the dac ?

 

what do you mean put memory and renderer on a DAC? doesn't a renderer need a CPU? integrate a haskell into a DAC?

[cvrle59]

have you tried without a preamp ? it's surprising how much SQ is lost through the preamp.

I owe Naim DAC-V1, so you can use it to feed straight into an amp (Naim NAP100 in my case), or you can take fixed signal after digital to analog conversion into a pre-amp. I am using it exclusively in option #1 set up, at least for now.

[lekt]

...My favourite is 2.53 sse4 intel eac because it has the most detailed and dynamic bass. This version hits the lowest bass notes and provides the greatest bass tonality, and has the greatest bass dynamics. Bass is not muddy, it is very clear. I also find that vocals are very nicely forward, but without hardness / harshness. Treble is perfectly clear and does not break up during complex passages...

 

agree with you, good SQ, open/free. but i think this sound is flat (depth is not enough), vocal have not good focus (sound is near at listener), mid/treble volume a bit more in proportion with bass volume, so it difficult to play multi-nuance music as Pink Floyd,..

but it is good for other hobby. i like this dinamic, clearly sound.

[tonerei]

BTW, I'm still trying to convince my Naim community to get on this sweet wagon. At least, the people who owe DAC's, but it may take some time.

Can I make my DAC V1 sound as good with computer as with CD transport? | Naim Audio Forums

It just bothers me that someone is bleeding, and the patch for the wound is right here, a few clicks away...lol.

 

Brillant that gave me a good laugh was thinking the same about some of the blinkered english forums but the seagulls flocking en masse around the trawler to dump their knowledgeable expert put downs and tut tuting make the effort very unrewarding.

For some reason any useful comment or suggestions about CA is regarded as an attempt to poison poor defenceless naive hifi patrons. This happens even when the tips cost nothing or virtually nothing to implement. Mass hysteria ensues.

[lekt]

...I guess MQn can give you better sound with cheaper equipment, if you don't already have an expensive dac...

 

Vote for MQn!

[cvrle59]

Brillant that gave me a good laugh was thinking the same about some of the blinkered english forums but the seagulls flocking en masse around the trawler to dump their knowledgeable expert put downs and tut tuting make the effort very unrewarding.

For some reason any useful comment or suggestions about CA is regarded as an attempt to poison poor defenceless naive hifi patrons. This happens even when the tips cost nothing or virtually nothing to implement. Mass hysteria ensues.

I certainly do understand what that DAC-V1 can give me, especially last couple of days...lol. Didn't I write, "too bad" on Naim's forum?