Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

what media player for older (XP) Dell computer? I just listen to internet radio with my Focal XS speakers

23.121.124.120
Posted on March 8, 2015 at 11:08:08
PhilJ
Audiophile

Posts: 2826
Joined: January 20, 2002
 I almost purchased JRiver but maybe there is a better choice, I know some are free as well.

Also, fwiw, I just bought the Focal speakers and OMG they sound terrific!

Please help a total beginner to computer audio

Phil

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: what media player for older (XP) Dell computer? I just listen to internet radio with my Focal XS speakers, posted on March 8, 2015 at 11:59:16
Jaundiced Ear
 Welcome to computer audio!

Why not try Foobar2000 as a way of getting hands on experience with computer audio? It's free and does a good job of playing internet radio streams.

Like any sophisticated app, there is a learning curve, but the forum over at Hydrogen Audio is pretty good at helping your resolve your issues. An internet search will also turn up numerous pages with tips on how to configure and use it.

Glad you like your Focals!

JE

 

thanks JE on my way to look foobar over and will probably try it, posted on March 8, 2015 at 12:10:37
PhilJ
Audiophile

Posts: 2826
Joined: January 20, 2002
 also btw I forgot to mention but improving sound quality is my goal.

best,

Phil

 

RE: what media player for older (XP) Dell computer? I just listen to internet radio with my Focal XS speakers, posted on March 8, 2015 at 12:32:41
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10582
Joined: April 12, 2002
 I love mine, and only $50 more than crappy Bose!

 

Drivers, posted on March 8, 2015 at 13:33:33
Roseval
Audiophile

Posts: 1846
Joined: March 31, 2008
 You might try different media players e.g. MusicBee but your best bet is to try different drivers.
As you have JRiver you can try a couple of options like WASAPI, Memory playback

The Well Tempered Computer

 

I second that..., posted on March 8, 2015 at 16:15:47
Presto
Audiophile

Posts: 5957
Location: Canada
Joined: November 10, 2004
 ...foobar on xp is awesome.

Some might disagree, but I think you go a long way improving sound by having a decent audio interface. Stock mobo sound codecs can be okay, but they're easily beaten, sometimes by sound cards as cheap as $100 or $150. You can get "entry level audiophile" stuff for $200 to $500 or prosumer stuff in that range that can beat out mobo sound quite easily. Once you have a good quality interface, THEN I would experiment with different players. IME, the players make a more subtle difference, but for me, the interface can be "day and night" - especially with background darkness and detail retrieval.

Cheers,
Presto

 

Do You Need a Player?, posted on March 8, 2015 at 16:29:24
PAR
 If you are just listening to internet radio then many stations come with a "built in" player. That is you find their URL click it and then click "listen" or whatever and it plays in its own window.

 

Foobar is very good indeed..., posted on March 8, 2015 at 17:42:52
rlw
Audiophile

Posts: 3347
Location: Near West Palm Bch, FL
Joined: August 29, 2006
 And there is a huge online support community. Additionally, Foobar has all kinds of plug-in "components" that allow it to decode DTS, SACD, DVD-Audio and other digital storage formats. And, of course, it is free - w00t!!
-RW-

 

the Focal speakers?, posted on March 8, 2015 at 18:37:01
PhilJ
Audiophile

Posts: 2826
Joined: January 20, 2002
 ...

 

my Focal speaker system have a built in DAC (2008 Burr Brown), posted on March 8, 2015 at 18:38:38
PhilJ
Audiophile

Posts: 2826
Joined: January 20, 2002
 so do you think the Foobar will help the sound?

 

helpful article thanks!, posted on March 8, 2015 at 18:40:38
PhilJ
Audiophile

Posts: 2826
Joined: January 20, 2002
 ...

 

thanks everyone Foobar it is I will report back my findings, posted on March 8, 2015 at 18:42:16
PhilJ
Audiophile

Posts: 2826
Joined: January 20, 2002
 also fwiw I am using a Monoprice USB mini 10ft cable and it sounds very good as well, not bad for $2.50.

 

I understand that but I thought the players (like Foobar) improved the sound, posted on March 8, 2015 at 19:45:44
PhilJ
Audiophile

Posts: 2826
Joined: January 20, 2002
 maybe I asked the wrong question...

 

RE: helpful article thanks!, posted on March 9, 2015 at 06:02:26
Roseval
Audiophile

Posts: 1846
Joined: March 31, 2008
 Yeah but I missed that you are using XP
You won't find WASAPI there
Sorry
The Well Tempered Computer

 

RE: my Focal speaker system have a built in DAC (2008 Burr Brown), posted on March 9, 2015 at 07:44:06
Presto
Audiophile

Posts: 5957
Location: Canada
Joined: November 10, 2004
 I think a good audio interface with a decent quality SPDIF output that is bitperfect and handles your digital streams in "native format" will sound best. By native, I mean *NOT* resample, say, 44.1khz to 48khz.

XP is nice because it doesn't try as hard as Windows 7 does to muck with your sample rate. To avoid all of this, it's best to get a soundcard that is ASIO 2.0 capable. Then, in foobar, you use an ASIO output plugin. When ASIO is working properly (and it pretty much always does), the output plugin and hardware have complete control of the stream and it's routing. Any and all sound in the background generated by Windows and/or other applications are a non-issue (except where you had a second set of speakers connected to the mobo output, which I doubt you will do!)

 

RE: I understand that but I thought the players (like Foobar) improved the sound, posted on March 9, 2015 at 12:00:21
Jaundiced Ear
 Boy, is this opening a can of worms!

In a nutshell, some inmates think the media player you run changes the sound you hear while others think all competently designed media players sound pretty much the same. There is some friction between the two groups. Just know that this issue is disputed.

I recommend that you fiddle around with Foobar for a bit and learn how to play internet streams and how to rip and playback optical discs. Start tagging songs and building a library. There's lots of fun and enjoyment to be had with just basic software and computers. Once you're more familiar with PC audio then you can start branching out into the more esoteric areas and see what works for you.

JE

 

thanks JE I had no idea three was a debate and I understand, posted on March 9, 2015 at 13:21:34
PhilJ
Audiophile

Posts: 2826
Joined: January 20, 2002
 so I will use Foobar to navigate the few music files I have and try to learn more.

best

Phil

 

Focal XS Book, $250. nt, posted on March 9, 2015 at 21:04:44
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10582
Joined: April 12, 2002
 /

 

rave reviews as well. enjoy!, posted on March 10, 2015 at 05:03:11
PhilJ
Audiophile

Posts: 2826
Joined: January 20, 2002
 ...

 

RE: I understand that but I thought the players (like Foobar) improved the sound, posted on March 10, 2015 at 13:35:03
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 "In a nutshell, some inmates think the media player you run changes the sound you hear while others think all competently designed media players sound pretty much the same. There is some friction between the two groups. Just know that this issue is disputed."

SMH...

 

RE: what media player for older (XP) Dell computer? I just listen to internet radio with my Focal XS speakers, posted on March 10, 2015 at 17:28:14
wolfy
 XP is just great for most things, including audio. I have been running an old Dell dimension 2400 with an M-Audio Sound card, since I like to record as well. A decent (24 bit capable!!) sound card or usb dac is all you need. I would also obtain an external usb drive to use exclusively for your sound files.

Foobar is great. It is a no nonsense platform for playing and organizing your files. It also works very nicely with XP. I have sampled some of the others such as JRiver, etc. Foobar is great and it's free (I don't mind paying btw and i freely admit that much of the free stuff doesn't cut it). I will also add that there is no music software that will take low bit rate and/or compressed material and make it sound better or more analog like, or magical as some zealots attempting to turn the sow's ear into a silk purse might claim or wish for. I would look for the application to be stable, use minimal resources, have wide ranging compatibility with different formats, and have good user friendly features.

I wouldn't worry about getting into high dollar stuff. My 2 cents is that 16/44 is not worth tormenting yourself to get it sound like analog (or even good) as it never ever will. I would even offer that much of the torment and neurosis that has existed in the modern audio world comes from the pursuit of musicality from crappy 16/44 media. I would ignore the hi-res naysayers out there; 16/44 SUCKS.

I would move toward 24 bit at every opportunity you have, which is to say record vinyl (for convenience) and download 24/96 files. The higher bit rate is where the sound is, not in expensive dacs, tube, usb, mystic tweeks, $20k or otherwise.

What I am saying is that ultimately, the computer will allow you to say goodby to the redbook format and the associated hardware which has been an albatross around the necks for those seeking better sound. Plus, you can record, and program your listening so you can lay around and listen to your 21st century jukebox.

You are making a good move.

-end

 

you sound like you know your stuff, I feel good about my XP now and will keep the 24 bit advise in mind, posted on March 11, 2015 at 05:19:02
PhilJ
Audiophile

Posts: 2826
Joined: January 20, 2002
 thanks so much for taking the time to reply wolfy

Phil

 

Actually, 16 bit playback can sound just fine, posted on March 11, 2015 at 11:33:37
Jaundiced Ear
 But don't believe me: try it for yourself!

You can get a plug in for Foobar that will allow you to perform blind listening tests. Rip some tracks in both 16 bit and 24 bit and then use the plug in to hear for yourself how audible, if at all, the differences are between the two bit depths.

JE

 

RE: Actually, 16 bit playback can sound just fine, posted on March 11, 2015 at 12:13:43
wolfy
 If you can be happy with 16 bit then so much the better for you. Used CD's are selling for nothing and of course will take up less space on your hard drive.

For me it's not an A B comparison test. I know that 16 bit is more fatiguing to my ears over long periods, the sound does not have enough meat or density. This becomes more apparent as you bring up the volume. Something is just missing and I just don't understand why more people don't get it. I'm not an engineer, but I think more data=more complexity=more fulfilling musical experience. It can be easily quantified and I do aknowledge the reality of diminishing returns as more data is used.

 

RE: Actually, 16 bit playback can sound just fine, posted on March 11, 2015 at 13:16:58
Jaundiced Ear
 I think you are confusing the standard audiophile argument for higher bit rates with your claim of the need for greater bit depth. Higher bit rates allow for higher frequencies to be in the music. Whether that makes a difference in the sound is the subject of endless debate. Greater bit depth simply moves the noise floor lower. By itself, greater bit depth does not add anything to the music. 16 bit already provides about ~100db of dynamic range. While 24 bit does provide for even more dynamic range, I think you'll be hard pressed to notice the difference in normal playback.

"I think more data=more complexity=more fulfilling musical experience." Up to a point, I agree with you. The question is, where is that point? One thing to remember is that "reality" went out the window when the recording microphone created an electrical signal. All we have in audio, whether analog or digital, is that electrical waveform. If digital can create a functionally identical reproduction of that waveform, then what is the problem? Once you've recreated that waveform, then what is the point in trying to gild the lily? It doesn't really change anything about the waveform but it does add needless complexity, size and expense to the files. I guess you can add in ultrasonics if you want to make your dog bark or to scare away bats, but for humans 16/44 is a pretty good compromise.

JE


 

RE: Actually, 16 bit playback can sound just fine, posted on March 11, 2015 at 13:51:26
wolfy
 I appreciate your analysis, but I can hear the difference. The 24/96 files that I have downloaded and recorded from lp's have more depth and clarity. I know many people who happily listen to mp3 files whereas I would not and I cannot even stand to listen to CD's; never really could.

High quality media will become ubiquitous at some point, and it won't even merit debate any more. I'm happy that we have at least reached a point that if you want it and don't mind doing a few work arounds, it's out there and getting better.

 

RE: Actually, 16 bit playback can sound just fine, posted on March 11, 2015 at 14:21:20
Jaundiced Ear
 Ah, but can you really hear the differences, or does your mind just drive you nuts if it knows you're listening to 16/44? If you can truly HEAR the differences, you should be able to breeze through a foobar ABX session. If you only notice that you are "fatigued" after long listening to a known source, then I suspect something besides "hearing" is going on.

Most people can tell the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD. As a general rule, Blu-Ray is sharper and has more detail than DVD. It doesn't take extended viewing sessions to notice that difference. That said, do you find it "fatiguing" to watch DVDs? Do DVDs not have enough meat or density? Do you forego watching a movie that you want to see because the Redbox only has the DVD version?

I submit that the audible differences between 16/44 and high-rez are far more subtle than the visible differences between Blu-Ray and DVD. If you are unable to enjoy Redbook files, there are millions of others out there who can and do enjoy them. Your opinion is your own, and you are welcome to it, but know that you are in the minority. Just because YOU don't like them doesn't mean they "SUCK."

JE

 

RE: Actually, 16 bit playback can sound just fine, posted on March 11, 2015 at 14:46:01
wolfy
 Well said indeed. I've tried and tried to love the 16/44, I have tried to believe, I have tinkered to no end, I have tried to buy into the preaching of the 16/44. I thought, maybe it's the dac, maybe the hard drive or the software will make it listenable, maybe lampizator is right, the out put section is the problem. I tried for years. Then I discovered 24/96 and had the sudden epiphany that it was not the dac, or the ouput section, or which cd player I was using, or which way the wind was blowing, or anything else, it was that the unlistenable media was 16/44, -that- was the problem. 16/44 is always 16/44 no matter what I did and it always SUCKED!

I am free at last! I have ditched 16/44.

 

RE: Actually, 16 bit playback can sound just fine, posted on March 11, 2015 at 15:03:13
Jaundiced Ear
 Hey, whatever floats your boat! De gustibus non est disputandum. Sadly though, there is an awful lot of good music out there that is only available in Redbook. You'll be missing out.

JE

 

RE: Actually, 16 bit playback can sound just fine, posted on March 11, 2015 at 15:05:20
wolfy
 True true. Thanks for your input, good tidings to you, and may we all be happy listeners.

 

RE: Actually, 16 bit playback can sound just fine, posted on March 11, 2015 at 15:42:47
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 There are separate arguments about bit rate and sample depth. It is best to discuss them one at a time. I am going to focus primarily on the bit depth issue here. I do not wish to debate what is or is not audible, just to clarify some misconceptions people may have on technical and economic matters.

1. The signal to noise ratio of 16 bit digital audio is approximately 91 dB, measured from peak levels. This comes from the necessity to add dither noise to eliminate gross distortion and noise modulation. Measuring from average levels, the signal to noise ratio is roughly 70 to 80 dB for recordings that have not been subjected to the "loudness wars".

2. Commonly used dither algorithms do not reduce quantization errors to independent noise. There is still higher order statistical correlation between the remaining quantization errors and the musical signal. Therefore the effect of additional bit depth is not just a lower noise floor.

3. Newer digital recordings made using PCM invariably capture 24 bits. Delivering all the bits that are available is not a question of "guilding the lily", it means delivering the music the way it was recorded.

4. The cost of 1 GB of hard drive storage is about $0.10. The cost of transmitting 1 GB of data across the Internet is about $0.10. The typical FLAC file for a 44/16 album takes up about 0.4 GB. The typical FLAC file for a 96/24 album takes up about 2 GB. In other words, the cost of the extra bits is hardly significant.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Actually, 16 bit playback can sound just fine, posted on March 11, 2015 at 17:35:57
Jaundiced Ear
 "I do not wish to debate what is or is not audible," but you then go on to post a few tidbits as if they are audible. Why else would anyone care about them? Aren't you kind of begging your own question? Besides, doesn't audibility go to the very heart of audio?

With regard to:

Item 1. 70 to 80db dynamic range is not enough? You must have very understanding neighbors and rugged ears!

Item 2. Doesn't this go back to the point the Audio Diffmaker's Listener's Challenge makes? If people can't hear the brass band playing while the choir sings, how much harder will it be for them to hear "higher order statistical correlation between the remaining quantization errors and the musical signal?"

Item 3. Fair enough. On the other hand, if there is no readily audible difference, then who cares?

Item 4. I agree, these days disc and bandwidth are getting cheaper, but in a world of data caps and streaming music and entire music collections on iPhones, why bother with something that requires more overhead and does not provide a readily discernible improvement?

And before we get into the "Hi-Rez is easily discernible" claims, if that were truly the case then why is there a debate on the issue? Surely if Hi-Rez was easily discernible there would be a consensus on the matter. Both Blu-Ray and Hi-Rez bring additional data to their games, but the Blu-Ray differences are meaningful: pretty much everyone can see the additional detail. I'm not aware of anyone claiming that Blu-Ray cannot be distinguished from DVD. The Hi-Rez "differences" are far more subtle and accordingly far less meaningful. The differences from Redbook are harder to detect, if at all, which gives rise to the current debates. Most anyone could pass a Blu-Ray/DVD ABX test; far fewer could pass a Hi-Rez/Redbook test.

JE

 

RE: Actually, 16 bit playback can sound just fine, posted on March 11, 2015 at 19:09:15
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 My post was indended to correct technical misconceptions in your earlier post. It was not intended to start a debate as to what is or is not "audible" or how one might claim, prove, or disprove some aspect of audibility. If you disagree with specific words in my post, then please go ahead to identify them and the reasons you you think my comments go beyond technical facts unrelated to potentially disputatious points of psycho-acoustics.

I listen to live acoustic music at concerts. I play it back at the same levels when I listen at home. The volume levels depend on the scale and scope of the music and the musical arrangement/orchestration. RMS volume levels may go as high as 90+ dB for fortissimo passages, and peak SPLs to perhaps 115 dB under these circumstances. I listen in near field and can reproduce realistic row 10 concert volume for Mahler symphonies. I normally have no neighbors closer than 1000 feet. My system plays cleanly at the volume levels that I choose. Were I to subject myself to crude, loudness-war "music" my system would have no difficulty creating hearing damage since it is rated at peak SPLs of 118 dB at my listening position.




Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

I use foobar as well, posted on March 11, 2015 at 19:12:34
bullethead
 I decided to save some dough on software, foobar2000 fits my needs nicely, I recently bought a new laptop and a new DAC, never used windows before in this type of setting and it works and sounds great. congrats on the new speakers and setup :)

 

Page processed in 0.032 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]