WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions.
Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
I tried JRiver WDM last night, with Foobar as player for the experiment. Got latency and pops but it worked. I could probably have it to play clean with a bit of configuration but yeah, APO easier to use.
So they almost nothing load the CPU, unlike Firefox when works.
Just now JRMC v25.0.96 64-bits: 24/96 FLAC
24/96 FLAC A1 I Allegro Giusto from: Alfred Brendel - Schubert - Piano Works - Klavierwerke - Musique Pour Piano - 1822-1828 (1973), Vinyl x8, Philips, Netherlands
Almost a year ago I passed the tests proposed by PMA on diyaudio.com very easily with both soft players. When they were complicated they were still overcome without difficulty with JRMC but not with foobar2000.
More analog sound, more pleasant, less strident but more detailed. In the end, the really important thing: I get EMOTIONED much more easily.
I'm doing tests at the moment on my laptop to limit CPU usage so that the fan doesn't start (I don't like extra noise added to my ambient music).
Going from HDD to SSD was already a big step forward.
JRMC: 2%(file load to memory) and foobar2000: 1.5%
Very small values. With old Intel i5 4460.
About the HDD, I have optimized (audio files) to play multimedia. Western NAS Red (you know, the fiability is very important). And two one backup from music, external
BTW: I am almost all the time typing an imaginary piano. Very great sound and interpretation! Without clicks and any noises, without soft processing.
The more compression, the more CPU load for decompression. How much? I do not know. Only I can say I can hear the difference between FLAC 0 and FLAC 4.
Key phrase "do not know". How about finding out? More compression might cause slightly more cpu processing load, compensated by lower cpu load for not having to shift redundant extra data in and out.
Only I can say I can hear the difference between FLAC 0 and FLAC 4.
I know of a few who prefer WAV over FLAC. I have tried to convince them to do the WAV vs FLAC 0 test. The difference is minimal, I would not pass a blind test. But FLAC 0 vs FLAC 4 is easy. Years ago, with foobar2000, I appreciated the difference between FLAC 5 and FLAC 4. In those years I recommended FLAC 4 1024 kbps.
Never. And as you well know, for a few weeks, I will never trust foobar2000 or the ABX plugin for any type of test.
August 2011
Impresiones
...Las músicas suenan bastante mejor que antes de la última mejora de las cajas. Los dos temas del disco Get Out de Capercaillie Pige Ruadh y Dr. MacPhail's Trance suenan como un tiro, y es donde más se nota la diferencia en la comparación, mientras que en el viejo tema de Otis Redding Sitting On The Dock Of The Bay en Lo mejor del Soul es en la percusión donde se nota.
Tras hacer pruebas con Lo Mejor del Soul (1992) con FLAC 5 a 768kbps, FLAC 5 a 1024kbps y FLAC 4 a 1024kbps, he decidido optar por la última opción pues la percusión resalta más, incrementando muy ligeramente el tamaño respecto a la primera opción por defecto.