Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: sound improvement  (Read 1237 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sound improvement

Is there any tech/logical reason why the V2 64 bit version would sound better than 1.6.12 ?

On my set up with same config - there seem to be an edge on definition/clarity/forward sounding.

....could of course be wishful bias but I have spent a lot of time flipping between them and hearing wise it seems quite definable

There are no 3rd party components in my install of V2




Re: sound improvement

Reply #1
I hear you. I can't imagine why, but I thought the same thing and decided to kepe it to myself. I ditched JRiver x64 as this V2 x64 version just sounds better. Both were set up to use Wasapi Exclusive and nothing else.
I will now take all the abuse deserved.... :)

Re: sound improvement

Reply #2
Quote
Is there any tech/logical reason why the V2 64 bit version would sound better than 1.6.12 ?

Absolutely not. This is imagined, pure and simple. I guess that's my kindest possible answer.

There are rules on this forum referring to sound quality claims, especially term no. 8.

Re: sound improvement

Reply #3
Yeah, as mudlord said. Just do an A/B/X test and post your results to make sure you're not pulling the wool over your own eyes...

Re: sound improvement

Reply #4
Willing to accept it is just imagination, of course.

It's very hard to compare seamlessly with the delay required in changing from one to the other ,of course given that  one instance of Foobar play has to be stopped and the other started up at the same place in the song. I would have to get some 3rd party to flip around for me were I to do this blind.

I was wondering whether the lack of components might make a difference, however.

There is one difference worth reporting meantime - Asus Essence STX II (exclusive) works on V2 but on prior versions there was nothing but silence when that was chosen for output. The only option was to use non exclusive.

Re: sound improvement

Reply #5
Willing to accept it is just imagination, of course.

It's very hard to compare seamlessly with the delay required in changing from one to the other ,of course given that  one instance of Foobar play has to be stopped and the other started up at the same place in the song. I would have to get some 3rd party to flip around for me were I to do this blind.

I was wondering whether the lack of components might make a difference, however.

There is one difference worth reporting meantime - Asus Essence STX II (exclusive) works on V2 but on prior versions there was nothing but silence when that was chosen for output. The only option was to use non exclusive.
Note different devices output do affect sound quality though. Not because they should... but windows managed outputs sometimes have DSP applied or are more sensible to DCP latency, etc. For ex on my system I have dropouts on DIrectSound but ASIO works fine.

In any case that's the most probable thing you are experiencing

Re: sound improvement

Reply #6
Thanks for that

I used to notice a lot of difference between difference outputs different versions (much bigger than what I thought I heard with this). I used to swear by one version of ASIO which ran in a different process than FB - and that permitted me to allocate exclusive cores to that with Process Lasso. That avoided big dropouts I got with FB - when I browsed the music collection while music was playing. Also with ASIO I was able to turn off windows audio service completely. So the only audio possible was via ASIO direct to the ASUS driver.


I think around the time that changes to FB WASAPI were made I found that I no longer had dropouts while using the native Foobar output . And the good news was that WASAPI now sounded much better than ASIO had before it.

Now I have to have windows sound system turned on - so it is a factor

I did a few tests and the difference seemed quite obvious again.

Whereas I said before that versions 'prior to 2' did not work when I set the output to be exclusive, I decided to set 1.6 to that and try it out one more time with the exclusive setting. Perhaps this new install of windows changed all that but this time 1.6 did in fact make sound when set to exclusive.

So finally comparing both versions with exactly the same output - I find that they do sound the same.

So in conclusion - I was hearing the difference between output to exclusive vs non exclusive

Re: sound improvement

Reply #7
It's very hard to compare seamlessly with the delay required in changing from one to the other ,of course given that  one instance of Foobar play has to be stopped and the other started up at the same place in the song. I would have to get some 3rd party to flip around for me were I to do this blind.

Try this:

https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

Re: sound improvement

Reply #8
It's very hard to compare seamlessly with the delay required in changing from one to the other ,of course given that  one instance of Foobar play has to be stopped and the other started up at the same place in the song. I would have to get some 3rd party to flip around for me were I to do this blind.

Try this:

https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
I think the point is switching between instances or output devices, not tracks, so foo_abx does nothing here.

Btw in my use-case ASIO ouput is noticeably higher than DirectSound, so it seems to sound "better". Without matching volume between output devices, it is not possible to properly do ABX .

Re: sound improvement

Reply #9
Even 32 and 64 bit V2 sound different. Using asio, no dsp, same output levels, switching between 32 and 64 bit V2, definetely difference in sound. x64 is less bassy and clearer mid and highs. Sound is tighter in general.

 

Re: sound improvement

Reply #11
Not very helpful to rubbish listener impressions comparing sound - mostly made in good faith and frequently (in my case) there are external factors influencing initial judgment - ie different configurations of each version - or windows interaction with the signal.  Developer surely know their stuff but might also have a myopic view of the issue. We had bridges fail, and airplanes fall out of the sky with engineers saying 'that should never have happened'.



Re: sound improvement

Reply #12
No, but...
>"x64 is less bassy and clearer mid and highs. Sound is tighter in general."
...is a nonsensical statement. Any perceived difference must be quantified in some way. This is not Stereophile magazine. Rule #8 exists specifically to eliminate magical thinking that plagues audio discussion in many other places.

Re: sound improvement

Reply #13
Indeed, do the A/B/X test and some null tests and post your results, otherwise stop breaking the terms of the agreement you signed up for when you joined this forum, or you'll get banned. If you wanna discuss subjective experiences with nothing to back you up, go and join the Steve Hoffman forum. If you wanna get even MORE into the science, then join Audio Science Review. I say this as someone who probably agrees with a lot of what you're saying, but this isn't the place to discuss it, as I've learned to my own detriment in the past.