What greatly surprises me is that fact that all playback software sound very different. I wonder if the playback software just read the WAV file and rout the stream to sound card devise then why there is such a huge difference between the playback software?

My configuration is very simple – XP, a playback software feed Lynx 16 I/O interface (bypassing window mixer). The Lynx interface allegedly does not do any processing and sends the signal to external D/A. So, I was trying a few playback software that can do 24bit players in different configuration, including a number of DJ players and memory players. It is very sad that they all sound different, particularly when they differently configured.

I discover that ‘expensive’ pro editing software do best sound: WaveLab, SoundForge, Samplitude. Unfortunately it is virtually imposable to hear from anybody about the sound of these software. Everyone talk about the great array of wonderful features in these software, the features that I do not use during my playback. No one I head talks actually about the sound of the playback engine. I do not know what in editing/playback software is responsible for quietly of sound. Still even the WaveLab, SoundForge and Samplitude – all sound very different.

The SoundForge sound all sound with some kind of strange noise and efforts – it is similar to many other lightweight players. WaveLab sounds very clean with very high level of brilliance. It has horrible rate/bits conversion engine though. The Samplitude has much better conversion engine and has good sound. However, the Samplitude sounds like a lightly equalized vision of WaveLab (or vice versa). I wonder: if the WaveLab and Samplitude are so accurate players then why they sound so different?

I have to add that none of the PC-based software that I trued do good rate conversion (88/24 to 44/16). The conversion engine in Pacific Microsonics in my view kills anything in trim of conversion sound quality. Unfortunately to use Pacific for ad-hoc processing is not too convenient.

So, I wonder what makes a WAV player to sound good. I would write up my own WAV player if I have any idea what makes a player to sound good…

DHT4ME wrote:

Well we know that Steinberg  who created Wavelab is also behind ASIO. The Ottachan ASIO notes state that Wavelab was the sonic standard for compiling the plugin. It is possible to get very close to the Wavelab sonic standard with some players and a whole lot of tweeking. I just would love to see Steinberg make a Wavelab inspired standalone player.

When I use WaveLab I use the ASIO, however I would not report that the result worse if I read data directly from the Lynx 16 card. The ASIO besides of everything is a mapper but the Lynx 16 has one mixer that sound perfectly good to me. I do not know what kind driver WaveLab used if it reads directly from a specific Lynx 16’s card channel. It might use ASIO or use some kind of Lynx’s own driver – I have no idea. The Wavelab has 3 options: Windows Mapper, ASIO or Lynx’s specific channel. To my ear the section either ASIO or Lynx’s specific channel sounds kind of identically. When I ran any other contesting players I also read the Lynx’s specific output channel, so I presume that I bypass the Windows generic driver.

I have to generally mention that I am not so good with understanding all those digital idiosyncrasies and when I asked people who know to explain to me the things then I got controversial, not to mention contradictory explanations. Frankly speaking all those digital gismos slightly freak me out. What I see an option screen with 34596th adjustments and each of them slightly alter sound then it really scares me. I have no idea what 99% of them mean and I have no interest to moderate sound on digital domain. All that I would like to do on digital domain is to read and write the digital stream into a file - how simple shell it be and what kind “tweaks” I need if I even set the stream’s level externally on my outboard A/D processor…

DHT4ME wrote:

I was very excited about a PC based server at first. After 4 or so weeks of trying to figure it all out I grew extremely tired of it all. I dare not mess with anything now and I constantly hear that this or that is better. It all makes me pissed actually, especially when the "bits is bits" people pipe up.

PS audio of cause would like to push own agenda but if I have to make $1500 music server then I would go to different direction. I would use the “expensive” Pro audio “mastering” sound cars like RME, or Lynx, or Digital Audio Denmark, with on board AD/DA converters. Such a case would do under $1K and for the rest you get a generic PC with the hardware you need. I would not make the foolish claims that it will be “better music servers available today regardless of price” as PS audio doe nit it shall be peaty good.

I have my suspicion about all those hand held devises, perhaps because I never owed any of them…

el`Ol wrote:

Meanwhile I did the Steinberg Waveleb test myself and the difference between it and the most common players is immense.

The pro editing software are lights miles ways in terms of sound quality from all any Foolbars that I tried. The fact insulting itself as it shells not be different between bits reading software player. I think in my case I had advantage over any non-pro versions because my pro editors talk directly to WDM driver of Lynx card that turn out to be even better then AISO drivers or anything else that I have seen. I think WaveLab and Samplitude are beter for sound, with SoundForge stay behind. The WaveLab is horrible for conversion – juts a nightmare.

What I think is a ridicules truth in all those views about digital recorders that unfortunately the digital recorders behave in the very same way how analog records do. Do you remember in your reel -to-reel time what we had a microscopic differences between the aliment, wearing, or pressing tape on the heads then we had the machine that did the recording played the given tape the best? Surprise, but I see the same with recording software.

With my completely multiprocessing Lynx interface I can run Rohde & Schwarz tuner via Lavry Gold to one Lynx input and then Sansui tuner via Pacific to another Lynx input. Since WaveLab can’t run two instances at the same machine (stupid!!!) I am forced to use to use another recorder, mapping WaveLab to read one Lynx channel and let say Samplitude to read other Lynx channel. So, I have the same live FM program record twice at the same time. Knowing the sonic difference between the Rohde & Schwarz and Sansui TU-X1 and knowing the sonic difference between Lavry Gold AD and Pacific it is not difficult to extrapolate the sonic differences between digital recorders.

For somebody who did not do that experiment I would reports and if somebody would tell it to me then then I would not believe. The major different in the setting described in the paragraph above is not in the tuners and not in the A/D coders but in …. digital recorders.  The sonic difference between WaveLab, SoundForge are Samplitude if larger than the difference between Schwarz and Sansui or between Lavry and the Pacific. How absurd is it?!