We recently tested a few software players on Windows to see how fast they could access RAM. Some player makers claim it matters. We don't think so. But the results were interesting.http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Audio_Testing
How did you test this? You make no mention of that in the article or here.
What about Winamp?
JRiver believes all modern computers are fast enough at #2, and that more speed is not relevant. But some companies make claims to the contrary, so let's test performance.
Samples per µs (higher is better)
ResultsPlayer Samples per µs (higher is better)JRiver 1019.2MediaMonkey 1013.8cPlay 864.0Foobar2000 364.9HQPlayer 167.4JPlay No ASIOXXHighEnd No ASIO
In this thread, memory movement performance was also discussed:http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/...gement-be-heardThe author of HQPlayer made condescending remarks about the use of memcpy(...) to fill sound card buffers.The author claimed to write hand-tuned assembly that was twice as fast.
(higher is better)
Let us see, the maximum number of samples per microsecond of 192 KHz sampling is 0.2, right? Seems like you would need a ton of channels to tax any of the players you tested, right?
Quote(higher is better)Yeah, JimH is unawaringly falling for the competition's marketing nonsense. He.Will.Be.Assimilated.
Someone needs to convince me this is not a totally flawed test (comparing apples and oranges), I am thinking you are testing players which pre-buffer the whole track (so there is a large HDD / CPU hit at the start of the track) and compare to other players which read in realtime (HDD / CPU hit is spread out over the length of the track)...
As long as you get no stutters during playback/the buffer fills up nicely I see no problem with access speeds.
The issue at heart here is two fold:1) HA becomes a battle ground for nonsense Audiofile claims, users who hear differences will popup, and HA will descend into trash...