Hi.
I have compared the sound in version 0.8.3 with latest 0.9.4.3
Set ASIO @ 10ms, 44,1khz in both.
My results: the bass and treble in foo 0.9 is in higher levels than in 0.8.3
In another words: bass gives more punch and percussion is too sharp.
So my question is: WHY ? After all they are both basing on the same audio engine, aren't they?
I've also tried ASIO @ 10ms, 96khz, the same results.
So I use 0.8.3 because sound from 0.9 is more tiring my ears.
Full Version: [IDIOCY] different versions = different sound ?
where is your proof?
Terms Of Service rule #8
.....also: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=11442
QUOTE
8. 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.
.....also: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=11442
I've captured output of my card.
Here:
Upper 2 charts belongs to a file played by 0.8.3, lower by 0.9.
We can see a small differences in them.
Lower charts (0.9) are more twitched than upper.
Here are the results of my ABX tests:
Here:
Upper 2 charts belongs to a file played by 0.8.3, lower by 0.9.
We can see a small differences in them.
Lower charts (0.9) are more twitched than upper.
Here are the results of my ABX tests:
CODE
21:55:17 : Test started.
21:56:07 : 01/01 50.0%
21:56:27 : 02/02 25.0%
21:56:36 : 02/03 50.0%
21:56:42 : 03/04 31.3%
21:56:52 : 04/05 18.8%
21:57:10 : 05/06 10.9%
21:57:17 : 05/07 22.7%
21:57:30 : 06/08 14.5%
21:57:36 : 06/09 25.4%
21:57:40 : 07/10 17.2%
21:57:47 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 7/10 (17.2%)
21:56:07 : 01/01 50.0%
21:56:27 : 02/02 25.0%
21:56:36 : 02/03 50.0%
21:56:42 : 03/04 31.3%
21:56:52 : 04/05 18.8%
21:57:10 : 05/06 10.9%
21:57:17 : 05/07 22.7%
21:57:30 : 06/08 14.5%
21:57:36 : 06/09 25.4%
21:57:40 : 07/10 17.2%
21:57:47 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 7/10 (17.2%)
Have you done a frequency-analysis on your waveditor? This would tell you more than just looking at the raw waveform. In case the frequencies are indeed differently distributed, then most probably it either has to do with your soundcard driver or its settings.... or with the DSP-setup between your 0.8 and 0.9 (for testing, remove all DSPs)
All DSP have been removed during Foobars comparison.
most probably it either has to do with your soundcard driver or its settings
Well but it isn't important, because both foobars uses the same ASIO interface in succession.
It means that both foobars should play the same music apart from bugged or not drivers.
I've also bitcompared these 2 files:
QUOTE(Lyx @ May 1 2007, 21:20) 
most probably it either has to do with your soundcard driver or its settings
Well but it isn't important, because both foobars uses the same ASIO interface in succession.
It means that both foobars should play the same music apart from bugged or not drivers.
I've also bitcompared these 2 files:
CODE
INFO (foo_bitcompare) : Comparing:
INFO (foo_bitcompare) : first different sample found
INFO (foo_bitcompare) : differences found: 1570371 sample(s), starting at 2.267574e-005 second(s), peak: 0.6576233 at 17.90215 second(s), 1ch
INFO (foo_bitcompare) : Finished successfully.
INFO (foo_bitcompare) : first different sample found
INFO (foo_bitcompare) : differences found: 1570371 sample(s), starting at 2.267574e-005 second(s), peak: 0.6576233 at 17.90215 second(s), 1ch
INFO (foo_bitcompare) : Finished successfully.
I think an RG internal processin from 0.9.4.2 to 0.9.4.3 is changed when playing. Now I refuseed of RGain in new version, because Changing volume through RG sounds different from changing Volume slider.
I don't know why. But through M-AUDIO REVO ASIO it's really sounds different. (for non RG-ained-info track RG-preamp -2db is not the same to Volume -2db). Why? How to confirm it? Now internal foobar's volume (that not in DSP list) ignored when convert-diskwriter made. Does only bit-comparing of digital SPDIF signal may prove this? (No DSP-s used). Sound-card is TRUE ENVY24-based, only raw ASIO signal, no post-processing.
Another one, RG-amp is at the beginning of digital processing of float data. Volume - at the end.
Is there a reason of difference of this two amping methods?
I don't know why. But through M-AUDIO REVO ASIO it's really sounds different. (for non RG-ained-info track RG-preamp -2db is not the same to Volume -2db). Why? How to confirm it? Now internal foobar's volume (that not in DSP list) ignored when convert-diskwriter made. Does only bit-comparing of digital SPDIF signal may prove this? (No DSP-s used). Sound-card is TRUE ENVY24-based, only raw ASIO signal, no post-processing.
Another one, RG-amp is at the beginning of digital processing of float data. Volume - at the end.
Is there a reason of difference of this two amping methods?
Besides volume differences there are also differences in low freq and high freq volumes (maybe peaklevels?).
There is no equalizer and DSP enabled.
In drivers, Bit-perfect playback mode checked.
There is no equalizer and DSP enabled.
In drivers, Bit-perfect playback mode checked.
An RG-preamp (for example -2 -3db) give more grainy and noisy sound than foobar's Volume control at -2 -3db.
I think this two volume changing methods has not the same accuracy.
(The internal windows waveout mixer (kmixer) is off, and this slider ignored because of ASIO direct playback)
I think this two volume changing methods has not the same accuracy.
(The internal windows waveout mixer (kmixer) is off, and this slider ignored because of ASIO direct playback)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.