AUDIRVANA VS HQPLAYER CODE
Just some 20% of the code used for networking were based on BSD. Was disappointing since I liked FreeBSD when I tried it on my virtual machine. Using macbook, felt legit like a hipster trying to re-learn everything that used to be intuitive otherwise. Put up with it for over an hour and gave up. Gotta check the math of each, do analysis, and automate this.Īlso, gave a shot at macbook yesterday. That's 3000 combinations, some of which my cpu can't handle. But for now I think I'll have to learn more about the filters technically. I've tried few things and they gave me good hope. Hq player at 24 bit with proper dither and resampling at higher sample rate should sound better. Hq player at 24 bit for 16 bit input music without proper filter sounds worse not precisely sure why. If music is 16 bit, Hq player at 16 bit and winyl sound same. Geek out is a bit of a compressed sounding dac, though clean and full. Overall jriver sounded like my apogee groove was taken to sound like geek out a little.
Foobar vs my reference players were profound. But definitely gives a tougher fight on me when trying to compare. It's fine but not as good as winyl/hqplayer/xmplay.
AUDIRVANA VS HQPLAYER SOFTWARE
Overall hqplayer is, more like a feature packed variant of winyl, but minority clean is, just overall a higher fidelity medium.Winyl/any equivalent software + minorityclean is as good as the best any windows software could get in audio playback.Īlso tried Jriver. No processing on hqplayer even comes close to what minorityclean does. Hqplayer + minorityclean could sound identical to the above you don't upsample and don't add any processing but the point of hqplayer is those features. I'm still trying to experiment with different variants of minorityclean but the default version 8 brought marked improvements on most fronts. Winyl + Minorityclean is on a whole another level. I'll try to do the higher precision filters in matlab sometime and play around.ĥ. All that said, I prefer winyl because I find keeping things stock has an element of accuracy I don't find otherwise. I think they hold the most accurate rendition.Ĥ. Very few (the first one I told sinc-mp- long) didn't work well enough. Either way you can get the same filter on groove as you do on geek out with this processing.Ĥ. Maybe if i added a compressor on top it could sound identical to geek out. The mp (the graphs without pre ring) made it sound somewhat closer to geek out but since it retained dynamics it didn't sound as full/dark/compressed as geek out. Sinc-M and Sinc-M + couple of dithers worked fine for me. Making bit depth higher and increasing sample rate to 192khz (max supported by my unit) and adding processing makes it sound different and interesting. Making bit depth higher on hqplayer without doing any processing makes it sound a little worse. When bit depth and sample rate are matched, winyl and hqplayer sound identical.Ģ. My impressions after 1 hour of listening.ġ. Played around with hqplayer demo version. Microsoft's groove player has a layer of low pass on top of it. Winyl is measurably superior to foobar.ĭon't get me started on stock players they are even worse. Someone had measured it a while back couldn't find it now. I realized that playback software's like foobar actually limit fidelity (even when using asio or wasapi).
0 kommentar(er)
