|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.104.151.182
In Reply to: Re: Also, do some posted by Todd Krieger on April 14, 2007 at 12:22:46:
I'm not sure what you mean by "ABX testing," but Foobar player's "ABX test" function is pretty bad, and I am not sure other software players' similar functions are any better.Basically, choosing the ABX function changes the sound. Both tracks being compared become louder in volume and less transparent.
But if you mean "ABX" testing as in good old A-B testing by hand, by all means, go for it.
Follow Ups:
It's the latter case. I will create the "A" and "B" tracks, and make sure they're identical from a data standpoint. (This would prevent "cheating" by looking at the data.) Then someone else will drag and drop the A, B, and X tracks to be burned to CD. Pretty simple actually.
Hey Jon,I may have been the one to turn Todd onto this in Foobar.
I haven't heard of the isues on this, but, even if they do exist as you say, the ABX may still be a way to get a good idea if there are actual differences.
At least, I have been able to ABX "transparent" mp3s vs the original using this function...and there are a few engineer types that don't think that is possible.
Maybe it is not perfect, but it might be an easy test short of a more rigorous ABX test.
You may have turned me onto ABX on Foobar, but Foobar never impressed me as an audio player. Kind of "dark" sounding. Had a tendency to lock up too. Winamp won out, and it's worked very well for me.
Yeah Todd, I have heard from others that Winamp is better sounding.Foobar takes some work to get it to sound good, but it can sound really good.
Winamp is just slow, but does sound good, and is easier to get going right out of the box.
The 09 version of Foobar is very stable on my rig.
All this does kind of show that there is more to it than having identical files.
I have Winamp running through Windows Kernel Streaming. The volume slider doesn't even function on the player. I also have it tied to FFDSHOW for video playback, using H264 codec, and compared to the likes PowerDVD and WinDVD, it looks like HDTV.... The only drawback is you need to run the .vob files individually, which means interruptions in the playback. But the video and audio quality more than makes up for that.The big problem with Winamp is getting the "merits" (priorities) for the various codec modes right in the PC. Sometimes when I run a new utility, this messes up Winamp. The fix for this is running a utility called Gspot, where you can adjust the "merits" so each application you choose runs like a champ.
Note I don't have problems with Winamp running "slow", on my lowly Celeron-based laptop.
You like the sonics of Winamp over Zoom?I wouldn't mind using Winamp b/c it does sound pretty good, but I can't solve these 2 issues with it.
1. The playlists won't display the entire song tag. It'll only show me artist and title (no album).
2. Foobar's playlists all hang out as tabs on top, and when I click one, the playlist is there instantaneously. Winamp takes some time to load a playlist, and no easy tabbed system.
The Zoom player is "forgiving".... It will make bad transfers sound "decent", but good transfers sound a little "boring." (Zoom does not sound much different from Foobar.) Winamp is the one player that really reveals the flaws of the data transfer. It's almost like listening to good studio monitors at the mixing board. CD-Rs through Winamp best correlates to what I hear playing them in non-PC-based systems. Particularly rigs of superior sonic performance.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: