Hi Res Music Source

[burbster]

Hi,

Just started trying out some Hi Res audio, using foobar2000 on a laptop, asynchronous USB in to the DAC on my saturn R. I am also using a bog standard USB lead, I think it came fee with my printer. The SQ is very good, I dont have any duplicate Hi Res files of CDs I own to directly compare, but overall I am impressed. (however I cant tell the difference between the 96K and 196K files)

Does anyone have any views on how foobar's SQ compares to other packages, my logical mind is telling me that if it outputs a bit perfect stream they must all sound the same, yet so many people claim one package has better SQ than another? Secondly, in a similar vein, I can't see how a USB cable (or any digital cable for that matter) can make a difference to SQ, unless its bad enough that is actually causing 1s to read as 0s or vice versa (which seems unlikely to me?). Yet, reviews on this very site claim, in quite a matter of fact manner, that certain USB cables produce sound superior to others. Is this possible, anyone have any first hand experience or views on this?

 

[Gray]

X

 

[Dom]

I don't like Foobar2000 SQ, try Windows Groove Music player.

 

[Gray]

I too use Foobar 2000 to play CD quality and hi-res files (through an Epiphany Acoustics E-DAC).

In a letter to Hi-World magazine, April 2016, I asked a few similar questions about file quality.

Two of their more experienced reviewers gave detailed replies to the effect that neither of them could hear a difference between 96 and 192kHz sample rates. Though they reckoned DSD was a different story.

My DAC has a maximum resolution of 96kHz but I don't think I'm missing much from the odd 192kHz files I play through it.

Original recording quality will always have more effect than playback sample rate on perceived sound quality (With lossless files at these adequate sample rates)

As for the USB lead. Don't worry about it. (Though for peace of mind you could go for one that's thicker than a human hair, if only for the purposes of durability).

 

[andyjm]

Hi,

Just started trying out some Hi Res audio, using foobar2000 on a laptop, asynchronous USB in to the DAC on my saturn R. I am also using a bog standard USB lead, I think it came fee with my printer. The SQ is very good, I dont have any duplicate Hi Res files of CDs I own to directly compare, but overall I am impressed. (however I cant tell the difference between the 96K and 196K files)

Does anyone have any views on how foobar's SQ compares to other packages, my logical mind is telling me that if it outputs a bit perfect stream they must all sound the same, yet so many people claim one package has better SQ than another? Secondly, in a similar vein, I can't see how a USB cable (or any digital cable for that matter) can make a difference to SQ, unless its bad enough that is actually causing 1s to read as 0s or vice versa (which seems unlikely to me?). Yet, reviews on this very site claim, in quite a matter of fact manner, that certain USB cables produce sound superior to others. Is this possible, anyone have any first hand experience or views on this?

Foobar2000 is highly regarded. For an async USB connection, any 'this bit perfect aysnc audio package sounds better than that bit perfect async audio package' is the usual nonsense you find on forums like this. Foobar2000 is as good as any other.

More interestingly, what you could do using Foobar and the SoX addin is to take one of your fancy 196 / 24 files and downsample it to 44.1 / 16 - which is standard CD resolution. You could then use Foobar's ABX comparator to see whether you can tell any difference between bog standard CD quality file and the fancy resolution file when you don't know what you are listening to. Given that both files came from the same source, the only difference will be sample rate and bit depth.

Please report back.....

Edit: Should have added that of course any properly made USB cable will be the same as any other properly made USB cable.

As for the reviews you read in magazines about USB cables - to quote Upton Sinclair "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on him not understanding it"

 

[manicm]

I don't like Foobar2000 SQ, try Windows Groove Music player.

Groove is all style and no substance - it doesn't do gapless playback. If one has been clever enough to upgrade to Windows 10 you'll find the bog standard Windows Media Player rips to Flac straight out of the box, and sounds good as ever.

 

[BigH]

I did google this and one site recommends:
MusicBee
Its free so maybe worth a go. Foobar is not rated that highly.

Here is the site: http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/best-free-music-players-and-organizers.htm

Another site has MusicBee as well, does not rate Foobar either.

Next best seems to be MediaMonkey.

 

[Reijer]

For my mac I'm using VLC and VOX, sometimes with a old dragonfly. I'm searching for a hi res M-tech hidac for better resolution because my build-in dac doesn't support the highest resolutions.

No experience with foobar.

 

[Gray]

Foobar 2000, as I would expect, sounds as good as the source I use. It looks OK (if you don't think so you can customise the appearance in just about any way you like) and it's free.

You say the SQ is good too burbster but reports say that some people dont 'rate it'.

How does it feel to be wrong? Imagine how good the other choices must sound.

 

[Deleted member 108165]

Foobar works for me too. Plays any file format I care to throw at it and sounds just as good as CD playback = happy bunny *smile* If you want to customise the appearance that's possible, if you just want bog standard, that's possible too.

 

[Dom]

Fair enough.

 

[Dom]

I don't like Foobar2000 SQ, try Windows Groove Music player.

Groove is all style and no substance - it doesn't do gapless playback. If one has been clever enough to upgrade to Windows 10 you'll find the bog standard Windows Media Player rips to Flac straight out of the box, and sounds good as ever.

Thats cool, JRiver does everything but costs money.

I actually think ALAC sounds better than FLAC.

 

[Deleted member 108165]

I actually think ALAC sounds better than FLAC.

*scratch_one-s_head* .....it must be wonderful to be so young with such incredible hearing abilities. I lost both a very long time ago *biggrin*

 

[Dom]

I actually think ALAC sounds better than FLAC.

*scratch_one-s_head* .....it must be wonderful to be so young with such incredible hearing abilities. I lost both a very long time ago *biggrin*

Fair enough, you can say its not audible if you want. I prefer AAC to MP3 and FLAC.

I see your piont though, and no my ears are pretty sh*t, lost the ability to hear crickets along time ago.

But yeah my lossless is stored as ALAC and my lossless as AAC. Laugh at me if you want.

 

[andyjm]

I actually think ALAC sounds better than FLAC.

... and I think I look pretty sharp in my new red trousers.

We would both be wrong of course.

 

[TomSawyer]

Fair enough, you can say its not audible if you want. I prefer AAC to MP3 and FLAC.

Dom,

if you prefer AAC to FLAC then there must have been something you didn't like about the original recording that was fortunately lost while creating the AAC.

Looking at your signature, unless you have a DAC you don't mention, the only way to get access to the internal DAC of the K2 is by Bluetooth which you presumably do from an Apple product.

 

[burbster]

Thnaks for that, I will read up a bit more on how I implement your suggestion and I will report back, will be interesting to find out.

 

[Dom]

Fair enough, you can say its not audible if you want. I prefer AAC to MP3 and FLAC.

Dom,

if you prefer AAC to FLAC then there must have been something you didn't like about the original recording that was fortunately lost while creating the AAC.

Looking at your signature, unless you have a DAC you don't mention, the only way to get access to the internal DAC of the K2 is by Bluetooth which you presumably do from an Apple product.

I have decided not to argue about which is better, it is quite possibly just placebo.

I don't mention my DAC because i see it as the weak link. However I will update my signature.

 

[BigH]

JRiver is said to be the best but it costs £100, think you can get a trial though.

 

[Dom]

JRiver is £35, but you can trial for 30 days.

I'm listening to SHOUTcast, which is mostly MP3 and it sounds great.

 

[BigH]

JRiver is £35, but you can trial for 30 days.

I'm listening to SHOUTcast, which is mostly MP3 and it sounds great.

Is it maybe I'm getting confused with JPlay then.

 

[Dom]

JRiver is £35, but you can trial for 30 days.

I'm listening to SHOUTcast, which is mostly MP3 and it sounds great.

Is it maybe I'm getting confused with JPlay then.

I think against free players, they are rip off software. They fall perfectly into cable territory.

Where a person like me thinks SQ is improved. This is not the case, but I do like JRiver's sound.