Windows 7 - anyone using it yet?

[Lizard_King]

Now that Windows 7 is available I am hopeful to use it on a new laptop. Has anyone on this forum used it yet for muci playback and if yes, please tell me if you like it, the SQ, etc...

 

Liz

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Liz - I'm installing it right now.

 

[rlodad]

Good luck, Chris.

 

Remember, restart holding your option key so you can still use your computer when the blue screen of death arrives...

 

:^)

 

[Lizard_King]

Hi Chris, Please let us know what you think! I am hopeful the SQ is better!

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Certainly.

 

I am very interested in sound quality obviously, but I am also interested in Media Center as an interface if it's as good as I've heard. Lots of questions yet, but I'm hopeful. Wow, my glass is really half full this afternoon. I've been disappointed with every release in the past though :~)

 

[BobH]

I've been disappointed with every release in the past though :~)

 

I don't know what the press has been like Stateside, but over here in the UK they've been pretty much unanimously gushing about the thing. I do so hope it lives up to the hype! Not once since WinME have I installed a new MS release prior to service pack 1 - and I oh so hate doing something against my better judgement only to have my better judgement proved right!

 

Confidence level? I use Acronis True Image and I've run it three times - that's three image backups of an identical machine! I don't even trust the backup regime!

 

[Audio_ELF]

Didn't most people in the press gush about how good Vista was too??

 

Eloise

 

[rlodad]

Chris,

May it at least be better than Windows ME. I'd rather go back to DOS... (Which for audio might not be a bad idea...)

 

:^)

 

[Lizard_King]

Chris,

 

What do you think of Windows 7 so far?

 

Liz

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

So far it's been very frustrating. Getting bit perfect audio has been a big challenge. Windows 7 had built0in support for 16/88.2 and 16/176.4 but NOT 24/88.2 or 24/176.4. I can't say I've ever seen a 16 bit 176.4 recording! I installed my Lynx card but had to use the Vista drivers. So far I haven't been able to get any sound via the Lynx AES16e. I was able to get sound from my ASUS card, but not consistently bit perfect.

 

The maneuverability around Windows 7 is great and it seems pretty fast compared to Vista. But, the music server work with Windows 7 continues.

 

[Lizard_King]

Hey Chris,

 

Seems like you are learning about windows 7. How you used it with a USB DAC yet? Do you use the 64 bit version? If yes, which programs so far do not work with Windows 7 64 bit?

 

Liz

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hey Liz - I just published my findings of the first 48 hours in an article on the front page. It's preliminary but on-going and I'm looking for everyone's input on what people need tested.

 

[sandyk]

Chris

Did you have heaps of different applications to reinstall ?

Although I have a paid copy of Vista , I have stuck to XP for many of the reasons that others have mentioned.

Like most of the others, I am very interested in program compatability, and more importantly, any perceived SQ improvements.

 

 

SandyK

 

 

 

[VincentH]

Hi there, I've been using Windows 7 64 since it went RC (several months now). Not a single BSOD.

 

I use Foobar with ASIO plugin to play through RME FireFace 400 external firewire DAC. I play lots of hires stuff, most 24/96. Works fine.

 

This should be bitperfect; I can verify that in part by the sample rate reported back by the FireFace drivers. When I play a song with a different sample rate from FooBar I can see the fireface change to the same sample rate on the fly.

 

In theory this still leaves the possibility open that bits are modified without changing the sample rate, then again in theory Asio should not be affected by Windows at all.

 

I started out using the WASAPI bitperfect plugin for Foobar, since that worked perfectly for me on Vista 32 bits. However I found that - in contrast to Vista - certain programs still can break in on the sound channel, with weird effects due to mismatched sample rates.

 

It seems like in Windows 7 RC the WASAPI implementation picked up some defects when compared to Vista. That may have been fixed in the final Windows 7 release, though. I plan on upgrading to RTM and then doing some more testing.

 

Anyway, in my several months of experience (I use Windows 7 all day, 5-6 days a week) I never encountered a single BSOD. I guess that all depends on whether you have any bad device drivers installed.

 

 

[PeterSt]

I have several users (XXHighEnd/WASAPI) using W7 for over 6 months now, and not a single problem has been reported. Also, I am not aware of any changes in the WASAPI area from the earlier beta versions to the RTM from today.

 

Chris, to me it looks like you are trying to do things with W7 which weren't possible with Vista to begin with. There is NO CHANGE in any area with respect to that. W7 is just Vista for the audio architecture.

Also, whatever it is you are trying to do with 88.2/176.4, it really makes no sense in the bit perfect realm. It didn't before (Vista), and it still doesn't. In another thread I wrote extensively about that; you may have missed it (I don't know where this thread is, as I find it the most difficult to find anything back in here :-)

 

On the other hand, if you think W7 may do better on "bit perfect" than Vista, go ahead and look for it. But you really will be wasting your time !

It is ASIO or WASAPI on that matter, and anything you may see for supported sample rates and all, is unrelated. It does nothing.

 

Peter

 

 

 

[sandyk]

Peter St.

While you are subscribed to this thead, a question for you.

Does XXHE support playback from memory, of 24/96, 24/176.4 and 24/192 .wav files ?

Is it also able to playback the even higher sampling rates now available from a few sites , and download links of samples made available by Chris for CA members? ( Not that >24/192 is a great priority for me.)

Thanks.

SandyK

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

Hi Sandy - All played from memory (and gapless hehe) :

 

.wav, .flac, .aif, .aiff, .mp3

 

16/22050*^

24/22050*

16/44100*^

24/44100*

16/48000*^

24/48000*

16/88200

24/88200+

16/96000

24/96000+

24/176400

24/192000

24/352800 (natively, or downsampled to 24/176400 incl. anti aliasing when the DAC can't cope)

 

All is output in 32 bits for DACs > 16 bits, unless the DAC accepts 24 bits only (rare but exists).

 

*) Also one channel, turned into two channel mono.

 

+) Can also output 16 bits. Thus, file is 24 bits, but playable on 16 bit DACs. I'm not sure whether 176400 and 192000 can do this too, so I left those out for safety.

 

^) Can output upsampled to double or quadrupule the input rate, in 24 (32) bits by means of Linear Interpolation (bad), sincx filtering (soso) or Arc Predition (good).

 

HTH !

Peter

 

PS: And since we're in touch here : Yes, your files sound different, and they are played from memory. I'm still recovering from this finding, but will setup the measuring environment now (at last). We were with two, and listening through "normal" loud speakers. Both heard the same differences. "Track04" is the more delicate one.

Heading for a job outside of IT now. ;-)

 

[sandyk]

Hi Peter

Thanks for the confirmation. JeffC will be over the moon too.

Hopefully, I may now stop being regarded by most of the members as a delusional old deaf interloper !

With regards my recent post about the downloaded 24/96 Linn .flac files sounding better if decoded directly to a 8GB USB pen, and played back directly from there, "California Girls" now sounds even better if re-ripped directly to the USB pen and played from there. As for the 24/96 Fleetwood Mac test track when the same is done , WOW !

P.S.

 

Peter, it's a shame you don't also have a good heaphone amplifier and decent headphones. You relly would be amazed how different some of them can sound.

I owe Siverwater (Geoff) many thanks for all his support here in CA too.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Peter - I'm a bit lost at what you are trying to say to me.

 

"Chris, to me it looks like you are trying to do things with W7 which weren't possible with Vista to begin with. There is NO CHANGE in any area with respect to that. W7 is just Vista for the audio architecture.

Also, whatever it is you are trying to do with 88.2/176.4, it really makes no sense in the bit perfect realm. It didn't before (Vista), and it still doesn't. In another thread I wrote extensively about that; you may have missed it (I don't know where this thread is, as I find it the most difficult to find anything back in here :-)"

 

Huh?

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

Hi Chris,

 

I derive this only from your own posts. If you don't need any help, then you don't !

 

Otoh maybe it is just not clear at all what I am talking about, which is no less then telling you that mangling with those sampe rates you see isn't worth a thing because it doesn't do anything in the bit perfect leage. So, it is only ASIO or WASAPI, and then whatever it is you see is not related.

 

I hope this helps. If it's inappropriate in your eyes, skip.

 

(but if you have questions, ask away)

 

Peter

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Peter - Just a language barrier thing again :~) I am always interested in your thoughts!

 

[Lizard_King]

Chris,

 

So what do you think about the fidelity when using Windows 7 compared to Vista, XP, etc? I am really wanting to know what you feel when using USB to a DAC.

 

Looking forward.

 

Liz

 

[Nicholas.Bedworth]

There will be significant improvement in sound quality in Win 7. The entire audio subsystem was completely re-written for Vista, and further improved in Win 7. This includes elaborate and sophisticated room EQ software. Check out AmirM's post on AVs Forum which will get you started. It's written for the Vista release, but is completely relevant for Win 7.