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.
Recent Posts
2
Support - (fb2k) / Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X
Last post by misio -
Quote from: Case on
Please do. Would be curious to know what kind of DAC you have or if you have measured its performance. Pretty hard to beat the quality of that ESI card, which goes to waste in such use.

Ok, here we go.
Foobar 1.6 vs Foobar 2.1.5 (64 bit) - both in portable mode. Pure Foobar, no DSP or plugins, only ASIO component v2.2.2.
Both player configured in the same way, ASIO, ESI Juli@, Windows 10/64 bit.
DAC = old good E-MU 0404 USB in stand alone mode (in stand alone mode E-MU can work with no USB connection)
Sound chain:
Foobar 1.6/Foobar 2.1.5 -> ASIO component -> Juli@ digital optical out -> DAC optical input / DAC analog output -> Juli@ analog input (44.1kHz/24bit).
Playing samples were in 44.1khz/16bit.
Of course I can use another DAC if someone would like to repeat the experiment - I have got Xiang Sheng, Behringer DEQ2496, Behringer SRC2496, Sony SDP-EP90ES, Sony SDP-EP9ES, Advance Acoustic MDX-600, Denon DA-500, AMC US 24192i.

Take 1 / Take 1a = Foobar 1.6
Take 2 / Take 2a = Foobar 2.1.5

7
Support - (fb2k) / Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X
Last post by Case -
WASAPI is supported natively in both foobar2000 v1.6.x and 2.x. All the default outputs are WASAPI. The ones without extra marking use shared mode, the ones with [exclusive] in the name use WASAPI exclusive mode. Thus the old component is obsolete. It has been kept online mainly for people with older foobar2000 versions.

The separate WASAPI Shared mode component you downloaded is my first attempt of making an output component. It was created in the time when default foobar2000 output used DirectSound and had poorly working smoothing for sudden sound changes. For it to work correctly the sound card drivers need to support event based reporting when buffers need filling - something that has been WHQL requirement for drivers since Windows Vista days.

The ASIO output picks best supported sample format automatically, you are correct. You should probably know that the ASIO output is done completely in the output component. It's the exact same code doing all the heavy work in all foobar2000 versions. There can be no audible differences.
9
Support - (fb2k) / Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X
Last post by Globares -
Hi Case,
First of all thank you for some details regarding the v2/v1 differences. I really appreciate it.
I’ve installed the WASAPI plugin to try this option and I’m happy to say that we have the first thing we can agree on 😉. F2k v1 and v2 sound the same to me thru WASAPI. Unfortunately it means “really bad” when using the WASAPI shared output 0.6.24 plugin, which is the only one supporting 64 bits (sound seems to miss a micro-period from time to time). The old WASAPI output support 3.4 doesn’t have such problem, but it works on f2k v1, only, and it’s quality is worse than ASIO.
All my tests are done using the WAV files, “CD quality”, i.e. 44.1khz/16 bit, or Codec: PCM, 1411kbps, 16 bit, 2 channel, as reported by Foobar.

The bit depth cannot be set for ASIO drivers (the only available option is “Automatic”). As far as I can see Foobar2 v1.6 supports the same depth - just the interface is different (Playback->Output->Output data format). Interestingly, 32 bits provide better sound quality than 16 bits, even if I use 16 bits sources.
Running f2k v2 with output set to “Default – exclusive” and 32 bits depth provides the highest quality I can get from v2, better than v2 ASIO, but still behind v1 ASIO.

Small note - binary output comparison on a driver level is a mandatory quality test – if bits differ there’s an obvious difference, but it doesn’t cover timing and more subtle differences.