|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
03-22-2008
|
|
I kind of ignorant in the subject and I decided to see what is going on in there.
I am kind of ignorant about software to play my 88kHz/24 Bit files. I play them with software I record the WaveLab 6.0. I decided to try alternative players. It looks that there are Winamp and Foobar out there and it look like both of them use the ASIO and bypass the internal Windows Kmixer.
I downloaded both of them and spent some time to customize them as in their default configuration they set to compress and to do other nasty things. How big was my surprise what I discover that both Winamp and Foobar at their very best not even remotely approach sound of WaveLab. I mean it is not that there is a “difference”. The difference in Sound is at the level of a first pressing of Mercury LP and a weather forecast of local AM station, not to mention that they picks a hell of amount of noise.
I have to admit that the newest version of Winamp has very nice facade to manage the playlist and the music library. The WaveLab’s database feature is way less sophisticated. I wonder if the WaveLab, or any other better playing engines, expose own API or interfaces. If they do I would write up my own Music Library Management Tool that would play files via the WaveLab engine. I would also have the visualization of play done more brainfully then it is done in Winamp. Some visualization in WaveLab is very good: bit monitor, phase monitor, peak monitor etc. Still, that all might be done more friendly and combined with a convenience of and comfort of the Winamp file management…
The Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by Antonio J. on
03-22-2008
|
I don't like Winamp and I use Foobar to play my music files on the computer, in this handicapped second system (is not that the "first" is much more interesting anyway). Since I haven't tried Wavelab myself I can't speak about SQ of both, but in my computer Foobar using the kernel streaming mode doesn't get any strange noises, I mean that background is completely black if I take the precaution to mute the unused inputs, whether line, mic or digital. Maybe I just can't hear it for the low sensivity of the SL600s.
Using the ASIO mode I had trouble and noises, probably due to my soundcard not being anything specially good (some old Creative) or the installed ASIO drivers not really "kosher".
Funnilly enough using Foobar on "normal" mode sound is way worse even with crappy mp3s.
I'll try to get a copy of Wavelab and to give it a run. Thanks for the head ups. Rgrds.
|
|
|
|
Posted by el`Ol on
03-23-2008
|
Romy,
did you ever play Wavelab-converted CDs via the Lavry?
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
03-23-2008
|
|
Sure I did. The WaveLab is not good reader at all. I was converting CD to WAV file with EAC and the played it from EAC and from WaveLab – it was not good in both cases. In fact WaveLab is very bad for any file manipulations: change rate, change resolution and etc… damages sound much more in WaveLab ten in some other converters I tried. I feel that WaveLab is good only for raw recording, for raw play and for nothing else. Any resaving of the file kills is. Why do you think if my broadcast are broadcasted with inverted channels I keep the raw files with inverted channels instead to reverse the channels and resave the files?
Anyhow the TL0 is much more capable CD reads. However my PC-based CD transports were selected to please EAC not the WaveLab.
The Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by el`Ol on
03-23-2008
|
|
Pacific Microsonics are filter kings, but if the Lavry is the best hardware, wouldn´t it be nice to let it play the CDs, too? Ever tried a dCS converter?
|
|
|
|
Posted by coops on
03-23-2008
|
|
I borrowed a dcs 'Scarlatti' for the weekend and compared it to a Lavry 924 and the MSB Platinum, the DCS had the highest resolution of all three, not by a huge amount mind , particularly nice treble I thought, this was just solely with CD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
03-23-2008
|
 el`Ol wrote: | | Pacific Microsonics are filter kings, but if the Lavry is the best hardware, wouldn´t it be nice to let it play the CDs, too? |
|
I did, the TL0 transport reads CD with so much more quality that any further experiments with DACs are becomeing unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Posted by el`Ol on
03-23-2008
|
Sorry for being so nasty, Romy,
but I meant connecting the CEC TLO with the Lavry 924 via the dCS 974.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
03-23-2008
|
| el`Ol wrote: | Sorry for being so nasty, Romy,
but I meant connecting the CEC TLO with the Lavry 924 via the dCS 974. |
|
I do not see you being nasty, where did you get this from?
May I ask you- what you proposed to drive CEC TLO into dCS 974 and then into Lavry 924 then what you would like to accomplish? Saying this I do admit that I tried Pacific in D-D mode with desire to use the Pacific’s internals filtering and dither. Bidat relay kills those needs. Also, I have some prejudges against the dCS. A few years ago I had a DAC that called Edgar if I am not mistaken. I do not remember what transport I used at that time. It was before CEC. I used a few at that time; perhaps it was the Spectral 2000… Anyhow the dCS was OK but it was OK ass soon it was running in direct mode and no custom filter or rate conversion activated. As soon the conversion of any kind was activated then sound went to toilet. So, I presume that the dCS 974 D-D processor is the Edgar’s frond DCP section without the Edgar D/A section.
Anyhow, I do not see need for all of it I would prefer to have just one transport and one plan DAC, in fact I see why they should not be combined. The caT
|
|
|
|
Posted by el`Ol on
03-23-2008
|
| Romy the Cat wrote: | |
 el`Ol wrote: |
Sorry for being so nasty, Romy,
but I meant connecting the CEC TLO with the Lavry 924 via the dCS 974. | |
I do not see you being nasty, where did you get this from?
|
|
Sorry, language problem.
My attitude is :
If the Lavry is the best DAC for 24bit, 88kHz, then it is also the best DAC for 16bit, 44kHz when it is combined with the best filter/dither software.
|
|