Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Computer Audio Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: Thanks for posting and introducing yourself

Posted by PeterSt (M) on June 30, 2007 at 02:25:42

In Reply to: RE: Thanks for posting and introducing yourself posted by Christine Tham on June 29, 2007 at 17:32:19:

Christine,

This is funny ... For me you hit every nail on the head. And, from now on maybe I shouldn't use the word "presumption" (negative) anymore. You clearly know what you are talking about (says he :-) but somehow you assume I don not, while *I* am the one who created this player. So, you work from (good !) theories, while I applied just those. Please read your own last post, and take it that I did.

But what's going on here then.

1. I don't think you listened and compared yet, and probably you'll give me the "but it doesn't work". Fine. You still didn't listen, and teach me how to go about. I like that, because I like to learn, but you're ignoring the, say, fact that I maybe should tach you. Mind you, maybe.

2. You seem to know how I work. Trust me, you do not. This, I think, is the actual reason that there seems to be some disagreement, btw only showing in the discussion, and not so much in statements or presented "facts" (yeah, yours about my way of working).

It is clear to me that you operate from theories only.
It must be clear to you (by now) that I operate from the exact same theories, with the difference that I applied them in a physical workout (mind you, as per today).

*** DO NOT take the below as a row of accusements ... please ***

You "state" that the way I applied them can't be right, because ASIO is theoretically better.

You say that I should listen to MS people, but again you talk from theories only, and again you didn't bother to follow the threads I gave you, which at least should give you the hunch I did.
Besides following my posts in particualr threads, you could have noticed that there is no MS guy so far on this complete planet who could give answers to questions in "my" area.
If you had read out the AVS thread I referred to, you had drawn the conclusion that the elements for this MS created are just elements and THEY don't know how to deal with the combination. Mind you I do.

If you would have followed my writings (how could you), you would have read that WaveRT is near to a hoax. Otoh, if this is your interest or work, you should know that WaveRT exists for a loooong time. Do you ?
Moral : all hype about WaveRT is ... a hype.

*** DO NOT take the above as a row of accusements ... please ***

... since I like the way you talk to me, and it's really about helping out which I appreciate. But again, you don't know what I'm doing.
And I know, my row above talks in secrets. I like that (by now, I must say), since there really was nobody to help out on this very planet to help me with it. Just because of that, I like to keep it with me. :-)

What I do like, is showing off with a player which can do things, other players don't. That is, as long as you out there like the results.
And remember, I'm far from finished. Also you could search phasure.com for Engine#4 ... (not much info, but anyway).

A few superfluous comments maybe, since we already agree (trust me) :

>I wrote a thesis on computer music playback in the 80s). Feel free to ignore it.

I don't ignore anyone. But this is 2007, and e.g. what could not be done in XP can be done in Vista. :-)

>The reason I bring up the issue of latency is to do with the length of the signal path

Right.

>Vista in exclusive mode still has a long signal path compared to a good ASIO implementation.

Wrong. Not the way I apply it. And get a listen on a good playback system.

>Why is this bad? Refer to my previous post about issues with jitter and predictability in the signal path. Again, I am not making this up - these are issues that are well documented, and need to be addressed in high speed communications and networking, as well as in DAW and DSP implementations.

Right. And not because you say it, but because I say it. haha.

>This kind of statement is meaningless without substantiation.

Luckily here we're not at Hydrogen.
It may be hard to follow all I say (in my poor english), but if I say this was excessively tested on the best systems we could find, it should just do for a normal human being who is just able to check it out. Do please do that. Start with Engine#2 on XP of which you know it's not even bit perfect. Grab a soundcard of which you can adjust the buffersize, and compare.
You are allowed to reject everything, but you would be the very first really, and I would like you to express what and how and why and all. Not to prove your findings, but to prove I am wrong and how it is possible that you then say so. Hence ... I've got something to do again.
When you are uncertain about #2, proceed to Vista with #3. Mind the Double options on both engines.

>The truth is there are good and bad implementations. At the end of the day ASIO is just a specification. It has the *potential* to allow a good implementation,

The only thing I could do obviously, is using what's provided with the players around, including usbaudio.de for direct USB ASIO implementation.
What I could have done, is write my own ASIO implementation, which I just did not because, well, messy stuff in there. Call me crazy.
More importantly, all ASIO implementations have the same characteristics fo sound quality (perceivement).
Maybe it helps you if I say that I like the Wavelab(5) implementation the best (we could agree here, which just would be nice for the discussion).
But it's "nothing" compared to what I achieve (I don't even like to talk in "I" this and that, and I'd rather connect it to the more distant player).

>Now, I never said that (and I wouldn't exactly call myself "charismatic"

I do. :-))

>Go and read the documentation on MSDN or the WinHEC microsite.

This makes me smile.
Trust me, all what's really needed cannot be gotten from any documentation anywhere. You'd need the skill of all the bits and pieces throughout the net *and* the documentation, to draw the proper conclusions. If you don't believe me on this, you keep on being stuck in this documentation, but which should not imply I don't know it. I go around it though (hey, am I ignorant).

>Why is the length of the signal path important? I've tried to give you a few hints in my previous post, but I suspect you didn't understand what I was trying to say. Never mind, as I've said before you don't have to believe me

Remember for the next time : I believe you because it's just my thinking, and also I never said I didn't believe you.
Besides all, the first time that *I* copy words or thinking from someone, yet has to come. Ignorant as hell. ;-)

>My advice was that you may want to consider supporting ASIO, since there are a number of really good ASIO implementations but there are virtually no WaveRT implementations,

Ok, this I don't get. I trust it you have a good purpose for saying this. The only thing I can connect to it, is that you say that WaveRT is to fail anyway.
One time, for my own satisfaction, I will have created an ASIO driver. Just because it *will* sound different. For now there are other priorities, like supporting FLAC/WMA. And the "install" pbs of course.

>And of course if you use something like ASIO4ALL or ASIO2KS you are actually LENGTHENING the signal path, not shortening it, so no surprises if it doesn't sound good (or different).

Careful here. Assuming you just *will* have jitter. Would you state that least is best ?
:-)

Thank you,
Peter

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---