Skip to main content
Topic: Question about Kernel Streaming (Read 5439 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Question about Kernel Streaming

can anyone tell me why it doesnt work for me in 0.9.1? i keep getting the error "Unrecoverable playback error: KS output error: error opening device". but in 0.9, i could use KS just fine with no problems.

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #1
can anyone tell me why it doesnt work for me in 0.9.1? i keep getting the error "Unrecoverable playback error: KS output error: error opening device". but in 0.9, i could use KS just fine with no problems.

did you install the new KS component?

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #2
Quote
' date='Apr 23 2006, 11:06 AM' post='385447']

can anyone tell me why it doesnt work for me in 0.9.1? i keep getting the error "Unrecoverable playback error: KS output error: error opening device". but in 0.9, i could use KS just fine with no problems.

did you install the new KS component?

yes

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #3
theres a diffrent KS component for 0.9.1.
the 0.9's is not the same one.
are you sure you have the right KS component?

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #4
yes i'm sure. how many times must i repeat myself? the old KS component made another selection in output called "Aureal Audio (KS)". the new one makes it "KS: Aureal Audio (KS)".

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #5
yes i'm sure. how many times must i repeat myself? the old KS component made another selection in output called "Aureal Audio (KS)". the new one makes it "KS: Aureal Audio (KS)".

You'll need to repeat yourself as often as people haven't understood.  Making it clear isn't very hard : say " I installed the latest version of the kernelstreaming component that was on the 0.9.1 beta components page " --  there can be no quiproquo.

What bit-depth and frequencies are you trying to output? did you try other values?

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #6
well, i'm only trying to do it at 24-bit depth since that's what i always use. anyways, i just tried it at 16-bit and suprisingly, it worked.

wonder why 24-bit didnt with KS though. with DS, it works like a charm at 24-bit

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #7
With Kernel Streaming, you have to pay attention to what the hardware/drivers actually supports. DirectSound provides a layer on top of the hardware and adds missing capabilities, so it could be that DirectSound just converted the 24bit audio stream that foobar2000 sent to it to a 16bit stream before passing it on to the driver.

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #8
then i guess my soundcard only supports 8 and 16-bit output then . btw: should i turn on dither?

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #9
Also, consider why you're using kernel streaming.  It's going to be more finicky than DirectSound output, and unless you really, really need the low latency that it provides, it might be better to go with the DirectSound output.  Kernel streaming isn't going to sound any better than DirectSound, anyway.

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #10
Where KS is nice though is with ReplayGain!  You can set Foobar at the high volume while setting the Windows Mixer at maybe 10%.  This allows for a balanced sound throughout Windows with no damn ads messing with the music due to being louder than Foobar b/c of ReplayGain.  I do hate the conflicts with other programs, though.    Is there a way to balance Windows' sound without KS?  Maybe...does DirectSound have a default volume hiding somewhere so that I can make Foobar louder than the rest of Windows?

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #11
Where KS is nice though is with ReplayGain!  You can set Foobar at the high volume while setting the Windows Mixer at maybe 10%.  This allows for a balanced sound throughout Windows with no damn ads messing with the music due to being louder than Foobar b/c of ReplayGain.  I do hate the conflicts with other programs, though.    Is there a way to balance Windows' sound without KS?  Maybe...does DirectSound have a default volume hiding somewhere so that I can make Foobar louder than the rest of Windows?

Application-specific volume settings is only available starting in windows vista.

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #12
You can set Foobar at the high volume while setting the Windows Mixer at maybe 10%.

Yup, I do the same thing, and have ever since I found out that KS had this ability back in the .7 days.

Quote
' date='Apr 23 2006, 09:14 PM' post='385605']
Application-specific volume settings is only available starting in windows vista.

That will be nice. I wasn't planning to upgrade in any hurry, but I keep seeing stuff like this. There are enough of these small but important improvements that it may be worthwhile.

It wouldn't be a problem if god-@$#%ed Flash had a global volume setting. That's the biggest killer of everyone's eardrums.

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #13
It wouldn't be a problem if god-@$#%ed Flash had a global volume setting. That's the biggest killer of everyone's eardrums.


OMG, how many times did  I have the same thoughts. You just sit there and nicely listen to some music while innocently browing the web and from one second to another find yourself going thourgh convulsions because of some damn flash sound ripping your eardrums out. 

So far I am all for mandatory replaygain for all applications that even have the remote possibility of plaing back a sound. Even if it is just the tiniest meep. 

Ah yes, and another annoyance. That damn beep the windows volume slider makes by default when you move the slider.

/end offtopic

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #14
Also, consider why you're using kernel streaming.  It's going to be more finicky than DirectSound output, and unless you really, really need the low latency that it provides, it might be better to go with the DirectSound output.  Kernel streaming isn't going to sound any better than DirectSound, anyway.



As far as my experience is concerned, the culprit is the K-Mixer. Though I'm not sure whether the difference in sound quality will be shown with low-end equipment, there are significant improvemnts in presenting the soundstage with highend equipment if you use ASIO or KS. The only difference between ASIO KS and default output is K-Mixer which distorts the data. Thw issue is not the latency rate

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #15
As far as my experience is concerned, the culprit is the K-Mixer. Though I'm not sure whether the difference in sound quality will be shown with low-end equipment, there are significant improvemnts in presenting the soundstage with highend equipment if you use ASIO or KS.


Did you actually manage to prove that in an abx test?

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #16

As far as my experience is concerned, the culprit is the K-Mixer. Though I'm not sure whether the difference in sound quality will be shown with low-end equipment, there are significant improvemnts in presenting the soundstage with highend equipment if you use ASIO or KS.


Did you actually manage to prove that in an abx test?


abx test? I don't know what is it. But my ear discern the difference. then what is needed more? But the difference stem from, they say, the upsmapling habit of K-Mixer. As far as the MS document say, K-Mixer ask the codec chip of sound card which sample rate is suitable and convert the sample rate of the data. Most sound card chip prefer 48KHz. But from my experience, whether foobar upsample 48KHz or send 44.1K, the result is not different. I think K-Mixer or CODEC chip upsample the data to 48 even if it's already in 48. But with ASIO there are big differences in sound quality I think the cause of degration is K-Mixer.

Question about Kernel Streaming

Reply #17


As far as my experience is concerned, the culprit is the K-Mixer. Though I'm not sure whether the difference in sound quality will be shown with low-end equipment, there are significant improvemnts in presenting the soundstage with highend equipment if you use ASIO or KS.


Did you actually manage to prove that in an abx test?


abx test? I don't know what is it. But my ear discern the difference. then what is needed more?


I'm guessing  you didn't read the forum rules.  You actually agreed not to make nonsense posts like this when you accepted TOS8:

All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

Your statement that there was a difference is in violation of this rule.  If you're certain you heard something, read the rules, perform a test, and then post your results.  Otherwise, please don't post things like that.


Quote
But the difference stem from, they say, the upsmapling habit of K-Mixer. As far as the MS document say, K-Mixer ask the codec chip of sound card which sample rate is suitable and convert the sample rate of the data. Most sound card chip prefer 48KHz. But from my experience, whether foobar upsample 48KHz or send 44.1K, the result is not different. I think K-Mixer or CODEC chip upsample the data to 48 even if it's already in 48.


It doesn't actually do that.  The reason you probably didn't notice a difference between foobar and driver resampling is because both did a proper job of it and there was no meaningful difference, or the difference was small enough that you didn't notice it.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019