I've learned so far that Windows has an internal mixer that resamples audio played before it goes through the speakers. This internal mixer (generally speaking) decreases or alters the sound quality of an audio file before it reaches the speakers.
Further research shows that in Windows Vista and 7, does not require WASAPI or ASIO plugins for bit-perfect playback because the sound settings are automatically sampled above 16bit/44.1KHz (mine are at 24bit/48KHz) and so if the audio is <= that sampling rate, the audio is essentially unaltered.
I'd say I've gotten into serious music listening the moment I learned that MP3's were lossy and that there IS a difference in SQ based on how the audio was ripped from the CD and how it was encoded.
Generally, I'm a bit confused about the whole topic.
2) Is bit-perfect playback even something worth pursuing? (I know it's left up to the listeners ears but let us assume I can pickup the slightest change in quality)
I've played around with the WASAPI plugin in Winamp and foobar2000 and I've experience a big boost in volume whenever I use the WASAPI plugin.
I try not to buy into the whole audiophile nonsense
Can you explain mechanism you used to arrive at the conclusion that you need lossless because of sound quality differences?
-> 8.Hydrogenaudio is supposed to be an objectively minded community that relies on double-blind testing and relevant methods of comparison in discussion about sound quality. The usual "audiophile" speak of non-audio related terms which are completely subjective and open to redefinition on a whim, are useless for any sort of progression in discussion. This rule is the very core of Hydrogenaudio, so it is very important that you follow it. Here is a discussion explaining whyhttp://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=11442You can read how to easily perform double blind listening tests here :http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=16295
I hope you take this constructively. I would not have bothered if I didn't think you might have been misled through improper methods of testing. It was your presentation of support in the way of graphs that tipped me off. One of the links above talks about how to conduct proper double-blind tests. Please read it and then consider whether the "blind" tests you conducted were sufficient.Thanks for reading!
Quote from: greynol on 22 June, 2011, 09:11:21 PMCan you explain mechanism you used to arrive at the conclusion that you need lossless because of sound quality differences?Well, I had this one album encoded in 192CBR MP3 (Transdimensional by Dimension 5). I obtained the lossless version of the album and IMMEDIATELY noticed the difference in SQ. The bass was much deeper and the sound was far more spacious. Overall, it just sounded a helluva lot better.
Please, if there is something wrong with my logic, I'd love to know. I'd rather know I'm wrong than to not know at all. Thanks again!
Have you tried encoding the lossless version at 192CBR, and comparing it to the original MP3 you had? Assuming you heard correctly, the symptoms you describe seem typical of a better/different master; not of an inherent problem with MP3/192.As always, use an ABX method to compare the songs.
Well, one does not listen with their eyes so I'm going to ignore the spectrograms. You should too. Also, if you ever run across someone who wants to demonstrate the evil of lossy encoding by letting you hear the mathematical difference between the lossy coding and the original, ignore that too.On the other hand, electronically generated sounds are among the most challenging for lossy coders to handle correctly and extra storage space in many contexts is easy to come by. So, if you think you can hear a difference and it makes you happy, FLAC away.
I do notice there is some minor differences between directsound and ASIO/WASAPI but I only really notice it because I'm intending to listen intently for any differences. I'm coming at this from a user perception, not based on graphs and what not.
So, if you think you can hear a difference and it makes you happy, FLAC away
Even if one can't hear a difference, surely it makes sense to use the highest quality encoding available for any given situation?
Yes, especially considering the present HDD shortage and crazy prices. . . . :cry:
1) Does one NEED WASAPI or ASIO in order to enjoy bit-perfect playback?2) Is bit-perfect playback even something worth pursuing? (I know it's left up to the listeners ears but let us assume I can pickup the slightest change in quality)3) If neither is needed, then what sampling rate should I set for "Sound Settings" in Windows 7 to achieve bit-perfect playback?
I've played around with the WASAPI plugin in Winamp and foobar2000 .... I've also experienced some ever-so-slight clipping sounds when I use Winamp with the WASAPI plugin. Doesn't happen with foobar2000 though.
Quote from: XeR0 on 22 June, 2011, 06:28:25 PMI've played around with the WASAPI plugin in Winamp and foobar2000 .... I've also experienced some ever-so-slight clipping sounds when I use Winamp with the WASAPI plugin. Doesn't happen with foobar2000 though.If I want to use WASAPI in Winamp - What plugin should I use? I thought bit-perfect was only possible if WASAPI is using exclusive mode?
I don't know which plug-in would do it, but you get unaltered (bitperfect) output with both kinds of WASAPI, ASIO, and Kernel Streaming. They all bypass the Windows mixer.