|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
183.89.84.17
In Reply to: RE: Windows 8.1 - An everyday setup posted by soundchekk on January 22, 2015 at 23:53:06
I'd like to refrain from posting your thread too. I know nothing good comes out from messing someone's thread. However, you're providing misleading information like Fidelizer becoming obsolete after you put shutting down service scripting so I came here to clarify that it is not true. I already made a thread to explain it's not marketing bullshit of scripting stuff and you repeated it. That is all.But since you're commenting on related works that could replace Fidelizer, allow me to correct your statement here.
1. MMCSS API is used by Foobar and can be configured under advanced features.
: That simply ask foobar to use MMCSS feature not configuring it. Fidelizer configure MMCSS on the fly and activate changes to Windows. By setting foobar to use MMCSS doesn't mean it can replace Fidelizer's works. Do you know how I configure MMCSS using Fidelizer or how foobar works with MMCSS?2. Foobar also offers a Thread-Priority feature that relate to the audio thread only. Lifting the program up itself can also make a difference.
: That's foobar's audio thread priority not Windows' core audio ones. You can examine from Process Hacker software and see that it set thread priority of foobar application. This is good feature but it has nothing to do with what Fidelizer does to multimedia realtime control level. It has different configuration paramenter from foobar ones.3. Kernel Timer resolution changed under Windows was brought up from Cics long time before you even started your project/product. Quite some time before that I was doing it under Linux. Several Linux kernels had 1ms/1000Hz by default.
: Indeed and I didn't trying to take credits from this. Linux has 1ms but Windows can have up to 0.5ms which is better and much better when combined with properly configured clock resolution in MMCSS on good systems. Just providing additional information since you brought this up.4. Beside that I compared the Fidelizer results with my own setup. Yep. I'm that fair. At least I had a reference.
: To be fair, I accept people opinions. I didn't butt in your thread when you made whatever comments about Fidelizer after using it. It's your opinion and I respected those rights you have though. The reason I butted in this time is for correcting information about my software that could be misled again after long effort to correct it.The issues in previous thread was caused by fmak spamming nonsense to ruin the topic. Thanks to admin's good judgement that the whole thread was spared for some useful information.
You have your own choice whether to stick with Fidelizer or leave it. No one can stop you but I don't think bashing Fidelizer with misleading information whenever you have chance to do isn't good manner.
You maybe annoyed with anti-theft stuff I put in but that's not the reason for your pointless assumptions like bringing your partner fmak saying Fidelizer can mess up machine from just using it while many others posted in your thread that they don't have any problem with it except few odd ones like driver glitches or incompatible tweaks with Fidelizer, etc. Well, they can state opinions but it's not like Fidelizer is actually the cause of blue screen. Not when they use default configuration.
I hope I made my points clear and things can be settled peacefully since you're enjoying system that you have everything in your control now.
Regards,
Windows X
Edits: 01/23/15 01/23/15 01/23/15 01/23/15Follow Ups:
As I pointed out before, since you have refused to specify what your convergent optimisation parameters are, and how you have arrived at OPTIMAL sound quality for everyone else's systems, all these posts are just words relating to your own satisfaction of what you have done and heard. In other words, it is sales pitch.I'd like to see Merman review your software, and when I return to base, I shall also evaluate it in relation to the five earlier 'OPTIMISED' versions that didn't really cut the ice.
Edits: 01/23/15
I did but you didn't get it. Some people did say they understand though. If you want to be even more specific about it, make a new thread to ask or or mail me instead. You already ruined my topic and I don't want you to derail soundcheckk's thread.
And yet you didn't try version 6 so no more words for you. Try 6.5 first and then ask me in new thread and I'll answer you there. That should be easy.
You have no right to say this; Soundcheckk is the one who can say so.
You had changed the behaviour of some of the parameters in the OS and playback chain with your software. This is NOT optimisation but modifications according to your believes and ears in your systems. You have consistently avoided answering any questions of why and how you decided that the software is 'optimal' across operating systems and audio systems and I have been there to point his out to others.
1. Your posts about optimal optimization in Fidelizer aren't related to soundcheckk's thread
2. soundcheckk already posted himself that he doesn't want to get his thread locked
3. Do you know manners? I just asked you to make a new thread so it won't disturb someone else's thread and this is your reply?I already made thoroughly explanation and many people understand that except you. Tony Lauck already stated that "As to the technical elements involved, they were described in this thread in sufficient detail.". Try 6.5 and make a new thread then I'll answer whatever questions you ask there but no more in here. Because you keep talking like that troubled other people's thread. I bet you were happy seeing locked threads you dislike, huh? I'm not going to reply your pointless posts anymore. At least soundcheckk did try it and I respect his fairness.
Edits: 01/23/15 01/23/15 01/23/15 01/23/15 01/23/15
Good, let inmates decide.
I'll be listening to Pro 6.5 today Fred.
There are some improvements to Pro that appeal to me like maintaining network function under the Extremist mode. We shall see.
1. First off all.
I don't think I made any comments about your software,
beside comparing it to my setup and finally not using it anymore.
You came up with a feature marketing presentation first.
Nobody were asking for that.
If things are slightly different implemented on your side
it's a different thing. You might want to share it with the
Foobar folks.
You can explain all those features on your homepage.
2. Under Linux I had a kernel configured at 10000Hz=0,1ms in 2008.
That doesn't make any sense though. Processing and SQ wise.
Most of the audio code I looked up works with 1ms chunks.
The timer frequency also differs for each platform.
At one point things get unstable.And yes I read FMAKs comments - the well known FMAK oneliner style -
about Fidelizer=Malware.
And I can only say. You made it look like it:
Browser Homepage manipulations, Browser Popups,
no (reliable) restore function.
Then I recall the false claim issue related to Mercmans "Greatest Bits" subject.
Quickly the question pops up: What else is this guy doing??
You do everything to make people run away. That's my opinion.Good luck for the future.
Edits: 01/23/15 01/23/15
You don't? Oh please. You labeled my features explanation as marketing phrases. And you made some comments as to explain things similar order as Fidelizer such MMCSS and audio thread priority for first two order.I had to explain my features because of your misleading information. I already told you that and don't brush it off as marketing crap. It's real feature I said I use MMCSS/Multimedia realtime runtime/kernel resolution and so on. Horn your coding skills and learn it yourself if you don't know what they are.
And about sharing sharing Fidelizer, I already did first time releasing it in hydrogen forum. I posted Fidelizer, explaining how I wrote it so people could implement it and OS X won't be superior platform for audiophiles anymore. Guess what? They removed topics labeling as bits are bits without even trying. I tried to share my software and knowledge to everyone here. I even give detailed explanation of what I did in Fidelizer so some developers could implement it into their own software. And yeah, you didn't read my homepage.
As I also configured Linux to 10000Hz and few other areas like granularity and messing around with high resolution timer. It's still far off from 0.5ms/100ns timers and it's stable on atom machine. At best you could get some what stable 0.1ms/10000ns timers for Linux side like I said in my own topic. As about restore function, you don't need to restore anything at all because it'll be back to normal after reboot. There's no permanent changes made to system.
I also took everyone's comments into consideration including fmak himself. He said my website is full of misleading ads so I made a new homepage to fix it. You said setting up homepage is annoying so I removed it in 6.4. I did a lot of things users suggested. I sometimes also made mistakes like misplacing misleading greatest bits instead of logo representing customer who's a reviewer of AudioStream. Everyone made some and I corrected it as soon as I realized it. Unlike certain people they never admit in their mistakes and keep being ignorant to them. I didn't mean anyone specifically though.
Good to you too. I learnt a few things from people like you as well. Thanks to you guys inspiring me to build a better place for Fidelizer and better products itself. It's good to know that you worked on lots of things to compensate for Fidelizer's Workstation performance. That means something.
Peace.
Edits: 01/23/15 01/23/15 01/23/15
Still confused about what you are doing to the audio thread priority.
Is it the audiosrv service you are talking about or the MMCSS service or something else ?
http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/
It's not MMCSS but part of NT6 Multimedia's framework called Multimedia Realtime Runtime controlling multimedia's thread priority through API access.
SBGK
It's been a long time...
Do you have any Foobar tweaks in the pocket??
Different topic:
Q: Did you also apply your optimizations to squeezelite for Linux?
THX
Hi Soundcheck,
No foobar settings apart from ks, memory play, buffers not too big and not too small.
The best player is my own, of course. I'll help you set it up if interested, files are loaded by copying to the clipboard, but it's there to show what a minimalist player sounds like, some people seem to like it.
I modified squeezelite and portaudio using the code tweaks I'd picked up along the way and it's reckoned to sound quite good, you might want to try that as it gives you lms on windows. Just set up lms and squeezelite and then replace the squeezelite and portaudio exe/dll. Again ks only.
Am thinking the way forward is to have a linux device with the player integrated into the driver so that once playback starts the driver just renders the data without any intervention from the client ie the driver just steps through the data in ram. This is based on the idea that it's the transition between user and kernel that creates noise as well as copying of data.
Any ideas how that could be achieved if at all ? What distro is best/easiest ? Would also look to modify alsa in the kernel because doubt that is optimal. These options are not really feasible in windows.
http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/
Get your KS working; it should be possible with RME as I have used it in their soundcards and dac.
Set it to lowest possible buffers without SQ deterioration.
I managed.Had to turn bitrate to 32bit.
Did some A/B. WasapiEvent vs. KS. They are IMO not that far apart.
Something for the "Golden Ear Fraction". ;)First impression:
I still think Wasapi Event is giving me a slightly more clean
and detailed presentation. KS sounds a bit smoother - paintshopped - still very good though.
I can imagine on sightly critical/slightly flawed systems Wasapi
can perhaps sound a little edgy.I could live with either mode on my current "Desktop" setup.
Cheers
Edits: 01/23/15
In my systems they are, with KS consistently being more fluid and musical.
If you use RME, you should avoid doing anything they recommend such as adapting AES to SPDIF with incorrect impedance matching, and accepting that 1 nS jitter from their clocking is low jitter etc. You also need to pay attention to their dual ac/dc power supply configuration if that exists in your hardware. The cheap and poor extension cables they and others supply are also a SQ problem.
BTW.Did some more testing on KS vs. Wasapi-Event
I created two new key shortcuts in Foobar:
k = KS mode on output 1/2
w = wasapi-event on output 1/2Now I'm able to switch outputs on-the-fly during playback. That works
quite good. Perfect setup for A/B testing.After some more A/B tests I still hear slightly more details and more reverberation with Wasapi. Maybe I get fooled by added distortions. Who knows.
Cheers
Edits: 01/24/15
why aren't you using squeezelite/lms ?
http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/
As I said. It's my normal Desktop PC.
Foobar has been my choice for a reason.
It's very slim.
Well integrated into the Windows environment.
Well maintained.
It's very slim.
No hazzle with client/server/remote control stuff.
I need something different for benchmarking.
I get to know what FMAK is talking about all the time. ;)
The Squeeze stuff I prefer to run on my Linux platforms.
Cheers
""In my systems they are, with KS consistently being more fluid and musical.""
That doesn't contradict what I've been saying. I do seem to experience loss of detail.
"....RME...."
When I received the UCX and hooked it up first time last summer, I was about to send it back immediately. It sounded pretty average to me. However. I wanted to get my active speakers working. I gave it a 2nd chance.
I built a rather high quality DIY linear 12V supply (Thel).
Applied silver cabling and quality plugs, additional buffering and filtering and shortened the leads. All in all were talking about a
150$ value. Guess what happened! The device suddenly sounded !!really!! good.
It's embarrassing for a company like RME to come up with such an average PS for a 1000-1200€ device.
Most other manufacturers do it exactly the same way though.
Next I hooked up my USB filter. That one also cuts the 5V line. The well
described improvements caused by USB filters were experienced. Apparently I also played around with USB cables.
Bottom line. Who cares about 1ns or 1fs jitter. Most of this I consider marketing BS. How all this gets measured remains an open question and usually makes comparison impossible. I do believe that the sideeffects
by introducing low jitter clocks - such as better and separated regulators, improved shielding and isolation, buffering, board layout - contributes more to potential improvements then the actual clock.
Cheers
You may want to look into this.http://www.rme-audio.de/en_support_techinfo.php?page=content/support/en_support_techinfo_steadyclock
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/techinfo/lola_latec.htm
It seems RME is quite serious about jitter and clock stuff. I think you shouldn't under estimate the potentials of good reference clock. I feed word clock signal from masterclock with rubidium oscillator to my RME card it performed really live. Much better than any shiny connectors, cables and filter blocks out there.
Edits: 01/24/15
I'm not underestimating the effect of a good clock. I'm saying that it is difficult to nail the effects and origins properly down.
External clocks already loose half the benefit on the way towards the DAC device.
Usually these clocks are meant to sync several devices.
If an external clock improves your DAC performance, start questioning the quality of your DAC first.I listened to several master clocked installations. The effect were always the same. A rock solid "locked" presentation.
I consider the improvements neglectable in comparison to e.g. power supply and OS tuning at a fragment of cost.
And for sure I won't use a masterclock on my Desktop installation.
Cheers
Edits: 01/24/15
I hope you would check your RME gears about word clock input/output. There's a good reason why RME added that and how a few ultra highend gears have dedicated clock signal connection. Well, it's your opinion so I won't interfere with that.
of course it might be that wasapi is flawed, it certainly wasn't written with sound quality in mind. KS has more potential because it interacts directly with the driver and just need to pass pointers to memory instead of copying data to a buffer, unfortunately bits are bits developers stand in your way to audio nirvana and standard KS implementation is over complicated. KS also allows cacheing behaviour to be specified for the file and end device, again doesn't matter to bits are bits developers.
http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: