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

Kernel Streaming Audio

87.228.167.29
Posted on May 28, 2008 at 07:17:39
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 Until now, KS has never worked on my audio cards (Foobat 0.8.3).

As a result of my Lynx AES16 ceasing to work properly with Foobar after undating firmware and software (don't muck about; these programmers are unreliable, I was prompted to try KS. It not only works but seems to sound better than ASIO.

Now I have tried it out on a emu1212m also and hey, KS sounds better than ASIO 0.47a which is supposed to sound best.

Can someone with good knowledge of the subject explain what substantive difference KS makes to an audio stream, as opposed to ASIO. There is no point in Googling for answers as these are as obtuse as mud.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
all subjective, posted on May 28, 2008 at 12:08:26
Jon L
Audiophile

Posts: 6065
Joined: April 6, 2000
 I'll leave the KS vs. ASIO audio stack differences to the true techies, but I have always preferred ASIO to KS myself. Once again, everything is subjective and relative to one's system and tastes, but I find ASIO (foobar 0.8.3 with 047a ASIO) to sound faster, more transparent, more detailed, with more punchy, defined bass compared to KS.

I know some who prefer KS due to its more relaxed, laid-back, "analogue" sound. Each to his own.

 

RE: all subjective-Maybe, posted on May 28, 2008 at 12:19:38
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 I don't listen to 44.1 and upsample to 176.4k. Maybe that is the difference. KS sounds less 'digital' to me.

It would be good to get to the bottom of what the difference is exactly in technical terms, not in PC speak.

 

RE: all subjective-Maybe, posted on May 28, 2008 at 12:47:27
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 Fred,

Most of us are audiophiles. You are an engineer and involved in software development. We look to you for the technical explanations.

 

RE: all subjective, posted on May 29, 2008 at 05:40:39
aljordan
Audiophile

Posts: 1252
Location: Southern Maine
Joined: November 4, 2003
 I agree that it is subjective, but the sound is different between ASIO and kernel streaming to the point where listening between the two is like auditioning different hardware components. In my main system I prefer kernel streaming and in my bedroom system I prefer ASIO, due to the differing levels of transparency in the low end.

I would also like to know the technical reasons why there is a difference. However, asking such a question on a board like Hydrogen would get me chased out of town.

Alan

 

RE: all subjective, posted on May 29, 2008 at 08:19:42
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 Didi you manage to get your Lynx working on ASIO again. The guys at Lynx don't seem to wan to anwer my queries.

Worst, have you tried to roll back to an earlier firmware version to get ASIO working again? I am kind of tempted although KS sounds as good. At least it doesn't have a great variability as you lower buffer size. ASIO is sensitive.

 

RE: all subjective, posted on May 29, 2008 at 09:00:48
aljordan
Audiophile

Posts: 1252
Location: Southern Maine
Joined: November 4, 2003
 Hi Fred,

My issues with ASIO and Lynx are limited to Foobar's ASIO output driver. I have no problems with the Lynx and ASIO on J River Media Center, cPlay, Wavelab and Cubase. Because of this, I am led to the conclusion that the problem is with the Foobar implementation. Foobar plays fine. It is when I hit stop that I get a crash.

Alan

 

Yes, very subjective., posted on May 29, 2008 at 18:00:40
Scrith
Audiophile

Posts: 1169
Location: Los Angeles
Joined: July 19, 2005
 They sound exactly the same to me, based on blind tests.

 

RE: Kernel Streaming Audio, posted on June 3, 2008 at 11:57:10
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 KS: Player streams samples via Windows Kernel (hence the name Kernel Streaming). Windows driver I/O function is used (kernel mode / user mode switching occurs).

ASIO: Player streams through ASIO driver. Windows kernel is bypassed. ASIO offers platform independence (supporting Windows, Mac, Linux etc.).

Which is better? ASIO gives more flexibility but driver quality is a big factor. ASIO will offer better SQ when setup correctly (eg. using lowest stable latencies etc.).

 

RE: Kernel Streaming Audio, posted on June 4, 2008 at 13:12:16
seger
 “…driver quality is a big factor. ASIO will offer better SQ when setup correctly”

Interesting. Drivers to include the plugins for asio or kernel streaming in media players, (integral in cPlay), as well as sound card drivers.

I think the characteristics of kernel streaming that appeal are the greater length of decay of the sounds, and the greater retention of natural harmonics. All asio I have heard loses a lot of this, in order to achieve greater separation and definition. So this is by design, not a necessity of the asio model itself? Could an asio designer achieve the sound that Steve Monks gets with KS in winamp, for instance, if he wanted to?

cPlay is narrowing the gap between asio and kernel streaming, before our very eyes, I mean ears. But I have never heard that lyrical, sweet sound that KS has coming out of asio. Nothing without a cost though - with some music (pipe organ, or deep, fast bass guitar riffs, for instance) it can get a bit muddy.

Until we can have bespoke drivers, I don't mind switching between KS and asio, depending on the music.

 

RE: Kernel Streaming Audio, posted on June 10, 2008 at 06:08:22
Paul Tobin
Audiophile

Posts: 1380
Joined: September 8, 2000
 My experience is the same as yours.
With my Auzen Prelude, Foobar 2000 with the 1.22 Kernel streaming plugin sounds significantly more transparent than using ASIO (OS=WinXP, latest Prelude drivers).
I was very surprised at the obvious differences. In isolation ASIO sounds very good. But in direct comparison KS has better instrumental separation (it's much easier to concentrate on individual performers), better transient clarity, better ambient decay and acoustic cues. There's a beguiling 'see into' transparency and naturalness to sounds.
I have no idea why this is so.

It actually annoys me a bit because ASIO does offer one functional advantage - the volume slider in Foobar works instantly. With KS the volume slider in Foobar is laggy - you slide it and it takes a couple of seconds to adjust. No idea why that happens. The master volume in the soundcard drivers does work properly with KS.
When I discovered the Foobar volume slider thing with KS, I was going to use ASIO until I made the sound comparison. In my setup KS is a no-brainer.


System Details

 

RE: Kernel Streaming Audio, posted on June 10, 2008 at 11:58:40
seger
 Foobar KS is excellent. I prefer Winamp with this plugin: out_ks363
You might like to see if it works with your Auzen. Sounds best with output buffers as low as you can get.

 

RE: Kernel Streaming Audio, posted on June 11, 2008 at 06:36:42
Paul Tobin
Audiophile

Posts: 1380
Joined: September 8, 2000
 I loaded the ver 3.63 kernel streaming dll for Winamp (which I'd been using for ripping because I find it easier than Foobar) and played some FLAC tracks from "Santos Bonacci - Moliendo Cafe" (latin guitars with some sparse percussion).
For me, in my setup, Winamp's KS sounded closer to the ASIO output of Foobar. I still prefer Foobar's KS output. With the later, the guitars had greater clarity, transient definition and natural decay. The music sounded more nuanced and expressive - made me want to keep listening.
It's possible that the Foobar KS is altering the sound in a way that I happen to like - but to me it sounds the more truthful.
Of course there should be no difference - I would have thought both KS plugins were doing the same thing?? Maybe something to do with how the buffering is set up? But then that's just buffered digital data....jitter could only be introduced at the DAC's right? Weird.




System Details

 

RE: Kernel Streaming Audio, posted on June 11, 2008 at 07:40:34
seger
 Foobar has a much nicer interface than Winamp, so you're lucky!

You might try ripping with EAC - more accurate and I think nicer sounding than Winamp or other rips. I prefer .wav files played in winamp ks with buffers all at minimum. The input buffers don't seem to affect the sound, just the reading of the files; output buffers do - the less buffering the better, until you get snap, crackle & pop. Same goes for latency in the soundcard, and in RAM for that matter.

 

RE: Kernel Streaming Audio, posted on June 11, 2008 at 08:15:04
Paul Tobin
Audiophile

Posts: 1380
Joined: September 8, 2000
 I left the winamp buffers on their their default setting.....but I think I may have found a config problem with Winamp.
Noticed that 'Use dither' was set in playback settings (set by default). Foobar has dither turned off by default. Quick listening reveals that this is perhaps responsible for most of the differences. To my ears this implementation of dither blunts transient sounds and truncates ambiance (yeah, I know it's supposed to help the DACs resolve fine detail - but not working IMO). Music sounds more complex and engaging with the dither disabled.
I'll need to do some further listening.


System Details

 

RE: Kernel Streaming Audio, posted on June 11, 2008 at 12:57:25
seger
 Yes you must untick dithering, and get the buffer settings as low as possible (by trial and error) in the KS configuration (in preferences/output). I'm using winamp 5.35, which I should have mentioned. Today I loaded the latest version (5.531)and the sound was noticeably duller, so I quickly went back to the older version. This is the sound I like - just a bit more than Foobar - foobar ks is a bit tidier,cleaner, but winamp is more vibrant (when it works!)Both more natural than asio, but you should check out cPlay v.13 with SRC resampling to 192K which sounds more natural than foobar asio.

 

RE: Kernel Streaming Audio, posted on June 12, 2008 at 06:32:43
Paul Tobin
Audiophile

Posts: 1380
Joined: September 8, 2000
 Interesting observations about the different versions of Winamp - you have to wonder why this is so?
Haven't had a chance to much more listening, but my initial impressions - using Winamp 5.531 and Foobar 0.9.5.3, with dither off and output buffer in Winamp at minimum - is that Foobar remains the more transparent. Winamp is a bit fuller sounding, but less easy to tell exactly what is going on. The latter still sounds good though - and I might prefer it on some material (but not well recorded acoustic stuff).
More listening needed - and I'll look into that cPlay you suggest. Thanks.


System Details

 

Page processed in 0.050 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 ]