Of course I think it's a load of bull, but what do the changes to audio in Vista really amount to?
Quote from: uart on 09 June, 2007, 09:52:53 PMOf course I think it's a load of bull, but what do the changes to audio in Vista really amount to?From at least some of the people I've talked to at least some of the changes in Vista amounted to "Get Creative Labs out of the Kernel". MS would never publicly admit it but the rumour is that Creative drivers are the biggest single cause of BSODs other than actually broken/failing hardware.
I agree with SLD. Examine the playback flow with an M-Audio 2496 using MA drivers (that must bypass kmixer and route to the patchbay which can enable/disable MA's monitor mixer). ...
I have Vista Ultimate and a really good test microphone w/preamp (don't know the mfg - bought it from Liberty Audio). The Vista room correction is calibrated with a series of chirps, not pink noise, so I think there is some time domain correction going on as well. ...In general it seems to have an audible affect and I would love to get to some test data.
Effects like Creative's 24-bit Crystalizer are not counted.
Vista is really just a testbed, although having sorted out a proper Admin account, dumped Defender and taken ownership of most of the folders, it's a lot better than it first looked!! I still wouldn't use it from choice, but I could probably live with it.
I cannot afford an ABX at present setup and I might violate ToS#8 with my claims, but after several switchouts and paying close attention I still like better the sound in Vista ,to my ears it's smoother, less coarse than in XP.
Resampling is also vastly improved. A side effect is that it also allows per application volume setting.
hmm, does that mean with vista i could (finally) control web stream volume signal and my music player signal separately?
One group compares XP and Vista using methods like ASIO or kernel streaming where the goal is that *one* application can output an audio signal as unmodified as possible without any effects or mixing with other applications' audio. In that case there should really be no noticeable difference at all between XP and Vista.
Quote from: wyup on 19 March, 2008, 10:58:14 AMI cannot afford an ABX at present setup and I might violate ToS#8 with my claims, but after several switchouts and paying close attention I still like better the sound in Vista ,to my ears it's smoother, less coarse than in XP.Then one or both of your audio chains (which include the OS) can be considered as seriously broken.
Assuming that you don't use the same application for playing back the stream, yes.
Quote from: Hancoque on 19 March, 2008, 01:12:59 PMAssuming that you don't use the same application for playing back the stream, yes.well, 99% of the time they are flash based audio samples from my favorite record stores, and they tend to be 2X louder than my max foobar setup, so it's annoying to play with that master volume at taskbar all the time
He says he has a 2496. Who would bother installing such a nice card then use generic win stock drivers? If he's using M-Audio drivers, then Vista CAN'T sound better than XP. I am assuming that MA Vista drivers would skirt around the OS just like they do in XP. I could damn near guarantee that you (woodinville) couldn't ABX between a properly setup XP system (kmixer or not) and that of Vista ... with just a generic soundcard using windows drivers. Seattle eh? ... your not a MS employee trying to eradicate Vista FUD from the masses, are you? Too late if so ...
The question is: Does Vista DS mixer send the same or better data from the application to the soundcard as XP with the sampling untouched?
>> "I just talked about testing various Vista processing before product launch, eh?) ... "Yeah ... I missed that. But I did have a suspicion that some of your content sounded an awfully lot like an MS press release. Tester? Does that mean you don't know what's happening at the core level any better than I do?
I have no need to prove anything ... the burden is upon you. You say you have and the results are in ... OK ... I'll wait for un-biased 3rd party comparisons. I won't make them personally because Vista won't see the light of day here (unless they have it all straightened out by SP4).
I have no doubt that the Vista sound sub-system is better than any previous win version.
Yes, kmixer apparently resamples, and Vista's "mixer" doesn't.
I'm saying the improvements are much more theoretical than audible.
FYI: I am not a MS basher with an axe to grind as I like most of what they've ever put out
Quote from: wyup on 19 March, 2008, 05:09:25 PMThe question is: Does Vista DS mixer send the same or better data from the application to the soundcard as XP with the sampling untouched?As far as I know every application's audio data is converted to 32-bit float and resampled to a common sample rate which has been set by the user and which is also natively supported by the sound card. The different streams are then mixed and the resulting stream is quantized to the bit-depth set by the user, which is also natively supported by the sound card.So, let's assume you have two applications running which output audio. Application A outputs data at 22050 Hz and 8-bit integer. Application B outputs data at 48000 Hz and 24-bit integer. The sound card's output is set to 44100 Hz and 16-bit. Then I would assume the signal flow is basically as follows:Step 1 (conversion):A [22050 Hz, 8-bit int] => A' [44100 Hz, 32-bit float]B [48000 Hz, 24-bit int] => B' [44100 Hz, 32-bit float]Step 2 (mixing):A' + B' => C [44100 Hz, 32-bit float]Step 3 (conversion):C [44100 Hz, 32-bit float] => D [ 44100 Hz, 16-bit int]Step 4 (output):D => sound cardI left out any effects in this chain. But per-stream effects (like application-specific volume) should be applied to A' and B' and global effects (like EQ) should be applied to C.If youdon't apply any per-stream or global effects andonly have one application outputting audio andthe sample rate and bit-depth set for the sound card matches the material's sample ratethen there should theoretically be no difference to the original because a conversion from even 24-bit integer to 32-bit float is lossless. But I didn't verify all this. Perhaps Woodinville can shed some light on this.
Here are some RMAA tests of the MAudio Audiophile 2496 in Windows XP:http://www.daefeatures.co.uk/tests/Audiophile2496Transit.htmIf you search the listening tests pages you'll find some samples recorded from the audio out of that card on XP. Anyone is welcome to ABX those files against the original, in Vista.I don't believe for a second the original claim made with regards to this card is real.