Did someone compare fb2k against other media players ?

I'm interested because i can hear a bit of a difference between fb2k an WiMP but i can't say if it's better or worse.. it's just... different.

I know that usually when people are told that something sounds better than the rest their mind will make them believe it does even if it doesn't. (Just like the wa3 vs. wa2.8 in audio quality)

I also want to know which is the best setting to listen to the music at in foobar? I'd like to configre it in such a way that it outputs the highest possible quality!

Well, it really depends on your hardware configuration, but there are some general recommendations that will make your FB2K experience better:
1.- Try to use Kernel Streaming, if supported. Not really better quality soundwise, but makes playback more fluent when using the computer for other tasks. Read the warning first, though.
2.- Replaygain all your files. Select them, then select the mode that best suits you (album or track gain). This will eliminate most clipping that make audio very unpleasant (especially with newer recordings)
3.- You should not resample. Doing it has no effect on quality and could affect playback.

I think that's pretty much it.
You know, the defaults on Foobar should work fine (try to mess with them as little as possible, and try to search on this forum if you want to learn more from a feature in particular)

Well, resampling can lead to small audible improvements in case of cards with not-so-good resampling algorithms, such as Creative ones. Some time ago, I was able to ABX a piece of a 44.1 KHz song recorded at the digital output of a Live card, it's at the HA forums. However, with that particular piece, it was not obvious.

However, I think that 32-bit, fast resampling is more than enough.

As to kernel streaming improvements... it depends, on some cards it will avoid kmixer resampling, and in others, just kmixer last-bit-mangling. In first case I have my doubts about if those differences will be audible, but in the second I'm pretty convinced it won't. Also, it seems that enabling directsound acceleration in cards that support it will have same effects as using kernel streaming.

I have done a Listening test, all results were graded only by my ears, not any 3rd Party Software (So this Test says nothing about the "real" Quality!)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qualitytest of a 192 kbps MP3 file (Lame 3.91 CBR) to best sounding output
192 Kbps beacause of the most used Format I think. B)

All Test with SBAudigy, Driver 324 ripped from Audigy 2 and optical out @ 48khz to a Sony MDSJE530 internal DAC
Headphones used: Phillips SBC HP090 (because Analog out of the Audigy is not god (bad DAC))

POINTS (1 to 10 Points, 1 worst, 10 best)

6 - Windows Media Player (uses Windows intern Frauenhoffer decoder, sounds little better than Winamp but not my Choice )
5 - Winamp 2.91 Directsound FFHdec (Its ok, but not for me, sounds not so good because of 44khz output, my Card works @ 48khz )
5 - Winamp 2.91 Directsound MAD 16 bit (little bit dump, no good hights herable, sonds "overdithered", 44khz output... )
4 - Winamp 2.91 Directsound MAD 24 bit (much more dump, no good sounding at all )
9 - Foobar 16 Bit out @ 48000 kHz resampled, dither, KS <-- my Favourite, Sounds best for me!
8 - Foobar 24 Bit out @ 48000 kHz resampled, dither, KS

[*] (little bit "different" to 16 bit, more bass, lower hights, could be artefects of truncating)





[*] 24 bit padded to 32 bit

My Settings: DSP: Convert 2 to 4 Channels, Resampler@48000khz fast mode, Advanced Limiter, Replaygain,
Playback: Dither Strong Ath, 16 bit, Kernelstreaming output

This is the best i can get of my MP3s. All the Rest sucks for me, even Winamp with MAD plugin I used for about 2 Jears (!!)

Hope i could help

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the mods: This Test was only Subjective, don't say me that there is no hearable different between 2 Frauenhoffer decoders, it was only a blind Test and I had chosen!)

meischder - i don't quite understand what you mean: you say you have used no third party software, and it is a blind test. How was it performed? And why pad the 24 bit to 32 bit?

Oh, and you'll find it is possible to have resampled output in winamp, but you will find it in PP's SSRC enabled output plugins, not any mp3 decoder plugin I know of. These can be had at http://www.public.asu.edu/~abarber2/Stuff.html ...don't know if you wanna test that too. You might also want to look into using winABX, which can show you if your ears really can tell the difference.

A friend played the Sampels and I wrote down the numbers how I liked the Sound, i couldn't see my screen. (This was really fun, try it with a friend of your's!) I read in this Forum that 24 bit to 32 bit patted instead of 24 bit "could" be an improve of something I cant remember, but it should be better than 24 bit. Ask someone how knows it better than me

Ah.. looks like I overlooked the old 'friend pushes buttons' method
Well, certainly your results are interesting.

As for the 32 bit thing: afaik the only reason to use it is when your hardware doesn't accept 24 bit - the data is the same, just with 8 extra bits fitted on the end which are not used. The audigy doesn't do 32 bit padded in hardware, but does, in some cases, allow 24 bit playback so I'd guess that adding those extra bits is just going to confuse things when it comes to the drivers dithering it back down to 16 bit. See if using 24 bit over 32 bit padded makes a difference to you.

thanks for the great tips!

But i don't exactly understand whay ReplayGain and Dithering does..

And should i enable resampling on an audigy2 card (reasmple to 48khz)

Probably not... but maybe someone should show you udial.wav.

ReplayGain is a process in which a sound file (song) is analized in order to determinate it's "Perceptual Loudness", that means how loud the song sounds AS A WHOLE. After analizing, Foobar2000 adds the info to a special field on APE2 tags that it appends to each song. The info tells Foobar2000 whether it should lower the volume of raise it in order to meet the standard of 89dB which has been determined to be the volume at which no DIGITAL CLIPPING (distortion caused by too loud a volume) will occur. It comes in two flavors: ALBUM MODE and TRACK MODE. In the first, all the tracks in an album are scanned to determine the perceptual loudness OF THE WHOLE ALBUM, so all songs get the same treatment to keep their volume relation intact. For example, there are some artists such as Pink Floyd, for example that have some very quiet songs and some louder ones ON THE SAME ALBUM. Using album gain, the quiet tracks will still sound quieter than the other ones.
In track mode, all tracks are treated to meet the 89dB standard, this is used if you have a lot of tracks from different artists, or are playing your tracks in random order. That way, you wont have to care about adjusting the volume for every song.

IS THAT NORMALIZING? You might ask. NO, for one thing, ReplayGain is LOSSLESS, that means, that the volume info is stored on the APE2 tag, NO CHANGE IS DONE TO THE ACTUAL SOUND DATA. Normalizing tries to even out volumes by algorithms which could wreck your songs dynamics, with no turning back. Therefore, it is not recommended nor endorsed by ANYONE in here. You did notice that the ReplayGain site is hosted by HA, did you?

Dither is more complicated. I will just tell you this: it adds some noise (no this is not bad) to the tracks when playing them (again, no modification to your files) in order to make them sound better. That is the VERY rough and crude explanation.
Full info here

There, IMHO, are the deal makers for using Foobar2000

meischder have you tried Kx Project drivers, new ones 3534 supports REAL 24 bit playback for Audigy cards.

But some tweaking in DSP is required, if you don't know how, ask.

I recommend you try it, i had the same results as you, and Kx with Rear output boost it even more (in terms of quality).

meischder, I doubt you would be able to tell 24-bit and 16-bit output in fb2k from each other in a blind fashion. Same goes for MAD and FHG decoders in Winamp. And if you turn all DSPs off, any player from each other.

BTW, with ABX you use your ears and *just* your ears. That's what ABX is for.

Ok?

ABX tests are subjective. A test doesn't mean anything if each time you do it it gives different results --> that would mean you are just guessing: you can't really hear a real difference but expectation effects or biases(placebo effect) induce you to think you do.