Reclock is sounding fantastic

[Doman]

Jus' wanted to say Reclock is sounding fantastic :rock:

This is Wave Out too :agree:

I say this because i was trying Foobar2000 with ASIO. But i came back to this on Wave Out, and sounds full clear note to note goodness.

 

[leeperry]

yes! I'm banned on the foobar forum(I seem to like to break their TOS, like saying that KS sounds better than DS on XP w/o hard proofs..hah), but you should ask them nicely whether it's "placebo", and why does Reclock sound so much better/tighter/cleaner/clearer and more bassy than their "elite" worthless audio player.

it sure as hell doesn't sound like placebo to me, and to many ppl on head-fi

all the guys using XXHighEnd also said that foobar sounded like ****(which it does btw).

 

[Doman]

yes! I'm banned on the foobar forum(I seem to like to break their TOS, like saying that KS sounds better than DS on XP w/o hard proofs..hah), but you should ask them nicely whether it's "placebo", and why does Reclock sound so much better/tighter/cleaner/clearer and more bassy than their "elite" worthless audio player.

it sure as hell doesn't sound like placebo to me, and to many ppl on head-fi

all the guys using XXHighEnd also said that foobar sounded like ****(which it does btw).

Ha Ha your funny.
Btw I am not gonna go on the forum and ask that. Its like playing with matches in a haybarn. Hell, tbo I may just bask in the knowledge that im listening to better audio that the Foobar lot.

 

[leeperry]

well go KS/WASAPI if any possible...and make sure to use bit-perfect drivers(not C-Media/Asus/Realtek)

Computer Audio Asylum - RE: XXHighEnd Player Sounds!!!!! better than my foobar

The XX is the best player I've used in my system in terms of sound. Larger soundstage, everything fleshed out better/of a whole, low bass/bass/drums more impact better defined, everything highs on down more articulate....

there's zillions of posts like this on the internet, and I would strongly agree w/ the exact same differences between Reclock and foobar.

but well, these hydrogenic(that's gotta hurt btw ) ppl think that KMixer's distortion on XP is inaudible(even mentioning it ends up in a cold blooded ban <giggles>)...some guy on a french forum measured KMixer's distortion w/ a loopback on his Lynx soundcard, it's not that hard to give hard proofs(if you get the chance, before getting banned )

I'd love to compare XXHighend to Reclock, but the current version is broken and cannot work w/ KS on XP...better luck next time, I'll try the next version someday.

 

[leeperry]

just because I like to beat dead horses, the diff between foobar and Reclock(both in 100% bit-perfect) has been perfectly explained here(I fully agree w/ everything he says, and I was skeptic to death in the first place!!): http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/t...-notch-video-audio-player-438010/#post5901597

The first thing i notice when i launch a album in KMPlayer is the smoothness of the music, its much more closer to a music being played by instruments !
The instruments now have a holographic sound of their own body, its so realist you can easily "touch" the instruments with your ears. The instruments have now a darker blackness between notes.
The voice is less forward, less detach of the instruments but now blend with them naturally.
The music in itself has more emotion and it is less prone to ear fatigue.
The bass is also fuller and with more impact, that really amaze me !

I didn't thought that this will make such a huge difference and i wasn't even thinking i will be able to even hear it !

his english is a bit broken, but you get the idea...less harsh/agressive sound, better stereo imaging and much better low end bass response.

why? mystery....most likely something's utterly foobar'ed in the internal audio pipeline of foobar...like buggy integer>float conversions, maybe their 64bit attenuator code is also goofy...I don't believe in magic, but comparing Reclock to foobar is indeed night and day :bang:

 

[Doman]

First thing, woh dude thanks for pointing me towards KMPlayer, sounds really good. I can WASAPI with the SW1000XG but next to the RME its not as good, which is Wave Out.

Anyways, agreed the foobar player is not much cop sounds muddled and lifeless.
ReClock injects that life into its music with better flow and more interesting sound. And as you have said before LeePerry, better bass.
The KMPlayer is the next step too, better sound with about a zillion options for me to test.

Thanks Leeperry you have been quite a insperation :agree:

 

[leeperry]

hehe, no worries

well, the KMP/Reclock has several drawbacks:

-KMP is sloooooooow to open, I did some benchmarks here: http://www.kmplayer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11629

when I click on an audio file, I want it to open right away...so I've put all my HTPC files on a ramdisk, and use MPC/ffdshow/Reclock...KMP is too darn slow to me, it's great for videos, though..its slow opening time is well worth the fantastic video experience(seamless playback on AVI/WMV/MKV/MPG/M2TS for instance).

-Reclock doesn't allow gapless by design, which is annoying on gapless albums

but well, SQ is far better than foobar...I'll take improved SQ over gapless anytime :agree:

your RME most likely has bit-perfect MME drivers, so WaveOut is as good as KS/WASAPI anyhow.

 

[Qaq]

I also forgot about F2k since i've been finding more music with MPC+R (thank you James). I prefer to use wave parser, madFlac, ape.ax, wavpack ds/decoder, mp3lib.
And yes, it's impossible to say about on forums w/o flame war. It's like some ppl just can't hear music, they only see digits in measurements (wrong and useless).
So what exactly does ReClock in Slave to audio mode?

 

[Doman]

Its amazing what can software do to improve sound quality, i have been up and till recently missing something from my sound, just thinking it could be better, trying different players that i know about, which would be MPC or Winamp. But not really thinking much, and thinking that maybe the PC is not the route to go down, maybe the sound card is not good enough and need to spend 1k on a external DAC - that WOULD sound unreal - But i am actually starting to really enjoy listening to my tunes. KMPlayer is wicked for SQ and so is ReClock, these two have changed what i think PC audio can achieve:agree:.

Sounds are cool as f*ck, and i am also using FFDShow aswell.

A big UK shout out:rock:to James for ReClock. And a token of appreciation to Leeperry for guiding me to KMPlayer and generally being a top geeza :clap:.

On an end note. Its great to see such HQ software being available and its thanks to the internet that's bring us all closer together as a united world that communicates as one.

 

[ashlar]

I don't get the Hydrogenaudio bashing. Their TOS basically amounts to "we want to use the scientific method to analyze results and statements". What could possibly be wrong with that?

Now, don't get me wrong. I find leeperry's dedication to "perfect" quite astonishing, I respect that. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong in asking ABX on statements. If it's all in your mind and there can be no proof... what's the usefulness of even discussing it?

 

[James]

I don't get the Hydrogenaudio bashing. Their TOS basically amounts to "we want to use the scientific method to analyze results and statements". What could possibly be wrong with that?

Now, don't get me wrong. I find leeperry's dedication to "perfect" quite astonishing, I respect that. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong in asking ABX on statements. If it's all in your mind and there can be no proof... what's the usefulness of even discussing it?

Science? Proof? Ha! It's all placebo anyway.

 

[leeperry]

a proper ABX can only be done in their player anyway, so it renders the whole ABX process totally biased.

and only the XXHighEnd coder has a machine to measure jitter so far anyhow..I already posted the link of his measurements against foobar.

well, all the players do sound different...compare them, tell me that Reclock/XXHighEnd/foobar/xmplay sound perfectly identical.

believers will tell non-believers that they have wooden ears or a crappy set up, and non-believers will tell believers that it's all a big placebo and that they need a Xanax prescription to chill down....choose your side, but at least compare them.

I very much enjoy my music a lot more in Reclock than in foobar(both in 100% bit-perfect KS, and on several different soundcards/drivers)...if it's placebo, it works for me

 

[ashlar]

a proper ABX can only be done in their player anyway, so it renders the whole ABX process totally biased.

Not so. There are ways to do it with whatever program you want. They involve the presence of a second person and some calculations. But it can be done.

I very much enjoy my music a lot more in Reclock than in foobar(both in 100% bit-perfect KS, and on several different soundcards/drivers)...if it's placebo, it works for me

But that, you see, is the crux of the matter. There is nothing wrong in you enjoying your music more with Reclock than in foobar. And I don't believe anybody on HA would be against that. What the TOS implies is simply that, for their purposes, something that it's not demonstrable with scientific approach is not useful.

Everything we use in our modern lives comes from the scientific method. It's a sensible approach and I still believe that it can apply to audio as to anything else. Audio is not magic. Music maybe, not audio per se.

 

[leeperry]

well, all the cables sound different, science cannot prove it...does it mean that it's not true?

it's been thoroughly debated on head-fi, science always needs a way to prove differences the human brain can hear...it's just that noone's found the right way to compare cables, that's all.

this guy started to look for explanations: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/multimedia/display/asus-xonar_10.html

For those who don’t believe that the cable can affect the sound of your equipment, I publish the measurement results

I can also confirm that a Monster cable in the audio path gives much more low end bass on my MDR-CD3000 headphones...there is a lot of magic towards audio, because noone's got a clue what to measure to begin w/

here are the jitter measurements I was talking about btw, between foobar and XXHighEnd: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.0;all

I got banned on the morogenic forum when I said that KS sounded better than KMixer through DS w/o hard proofs...sure, you can get bit-perfect DS if your drivers don't have a fixed sample rate and keep all the sliders at 100%....but they actually believe that KMixer's resampling/distortion is not audible, when it very much is! E.Piat measured it on a french forum using a loopback on his Lynx soundcard.

there's always ppl who feel so smart by debunking idiophilism, it's like a religion...each to his own

now compare all the players I talked about, and tell me that they sound 100% identical

 

[Doman]

well, all the cables sound different, science cannot prove it...does it mean that it's not true?

it's been thoroughly debated on head-fi, science always needs a way to prove differences the human brain can hear...it's just that noone's found the right way to compare cables, that's all.

this guy started to look for explanations: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/multimedia/display/asus-xonar_10.html


I can also confirm that a Monster cable in the audio path gives much more low end bass on my MDR-CD3000 headphones...there is a lot of magic towards audio, because noone's got a clue what to measure to begin w/

here are the jitter measurements I was talking about btw, between foobar and XXHighEnd: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.0;all

I got banned on the morogenic forum when I said that KS sounded better than KMixer through DS w/o hard proofs...sure, you can get bit-perfect DS if your drivers don't have a fixed sample rate and keep all the sliders at 100%....but they actually believe that KMixer's resampling/distortion is not audible, when it very much is! E.Piat measured it on a french forum using a loopback on his Lynx soundcard.

there's always ppl who feel so smart by debunking idiophilism, it's like a religion...each to his own

now compare all the players I talked about, and tell me that they sound 100% identical

I'm with Leeperry on this one, the cable industry has capitalized that to get the best out of your hardware good cables are justified. Some cost £40 and some cost ££££. I honestly believe that it makes the difference. Maybe its not in your face. But if you sit there being blown away by your system, you have to ask yourself can hardware do it alone without good cabling connecting it up.

Now I can't come up with numbers or graph's but neither can you debunk it, so Ill live happily in bliss thinking it has made a difference. And you can complain we all being ripped off.

One more point, if you have spent £100,000 on a hifi, would you be happy connecting up with £40 cables ?

FYI KMPlayer rules... (and ReClock too) Bye

 

[r3alsp33dy0ne]

well, all the cables sound different, science cannot prove it...does it mean that it's not true?

I was with you right up until I read that. Sorry mate.

<Dons flame retardant suit>

 

[leeperry]

I was with you right up until I read that. Sorry mate.

well yeah, but I've recabled headphones on many occasions...I can assure you that:

-the stock cable
-this one: http://www.cryo-parts.com/cryopartscu.html
-and this one: http://www.amazon.com/Monster-Cable-126130-iCable-iPod/dp/B000068IH5

sound VERY diffferent...but headphones have highly sensitive transducers, so differences might just be more obvious than on a crappy cd player

the cryogenic cable was giving a very distorted bass and dead trebles(I sold it w/ a markup so I'm cool ), the stock cable was so-so, and the monster was great! everything sounded snappier and just more pleasant to listen to.

you know, saying that all the cables and players sound identical is a great idea, it'll save you from a lot of troubles comparing them....but cables all sound different, so do opamps, and so do players.

this guy tried to come up w/ -I think- a good roundup on cabling: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/3160410-post13.html

I even had a friend on head-fi telling me that he prefered SRC over the new resampler in Reclock, but he wasn't even aware of the change..

and this link: http://stefanaudioart.com/Equinox HEADPHONE Cable Tips .html

The Sennheiser HD600/580 stock headphone cable is MUCH better sonically than the Sennheiser HD650 stock cable. The HD650 stock headphone cable uses considerably more signal polluting dielectric which degrades the audio signal. If you want to improve the overall sound of your HD650's, change the stock headphone cable to the HD600/580 stock headphone cable.

"signal polluting dielectric" ? lol, ok I'll bite! ^^

 

[leeperry]

and it's even worse w/ video cables!

I compared this: http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-13-71-zp-49-en-70-1b4.html

to this: http://www.amazon.com/MONSTER-CABLE-Hookup-PlayStation-PLG200/dp/B0000524PE

the former looked very noisy on my DLP HC3100 pj, and the latter simply looked HDMI

I don't really believe in differences within digital cables(except if they're really messed up and major delay occurs), but transporting an analog signal is definitely not an easy task! EMI/RFI, triple shielding, twisted pairs, capacitance, distortion, skin effect.....compare some crappy and top end analog video cables, maybe you'll trust your eyes more than your ears

 

[r3alsp33dy0ne]

Dont get me wrong, I agree that cable quality is of the utmost importance... I'm a recording engineer by trade and have had plenty of experience with crappy cables.

I've just seen too many people carry on about "snake oil" cabling in the past. Like companies claiming that their cable is "directional" or requires "burning in" etc. That cryogenic cable you linked too looks like borderline snake oil if you ask me. "...proprietary CryoFreeze™ process..." !? If they freeze their cable, I'm not surprised it sounds like crap. At least they dont charge $100 per metre like some other companies.

The monster stuff you linked to looks decent enough, I'm not at all shocked that it sounds better than both the stock and cryo cables.

Sorry if I sounded a bit dismissive in my previous post, I thought you were refering to "pure silver, directional, telekinetic, super-mega star trek" cables that cost $500. If you get what I mean.

 

[ashlar]

Now I can't come up with numbers or graph's but neither can you debunk it, so Ill live happily in bliss thinking it has made a difference. And you can complain we all being ripped off.

It's your money, you can spend it as you like. Never questioned that.

Allow me to say, though, that I'm not the one needing to debunk something that goes against all the laws of electrical transmission of signals. You are. If you want others to take your statements seriously.
That's the only thing that HA people really care about. Because what you claim is no different from me stating that music is better for everybody when listened with an hand resting on one's belly. Is it better for me? Maybe. Psychological aspects could make that true for me. Is it better for everybody? I have to prove it, otherwise my claims are insubstantiated and pretty much worthless.

Again. All the technology you enjoy in life came from *this* method. Nothing else.[/quote]One more point, if you have spent £100,000 on a hifi, would you be happy connecting up with £40 cables?[/QUOTE]For regular lengths, yeah, pretty much so. Decently shielded and assembled cables do not cost in the hundreds. Also, if I had spent that amount of money on an hi-fi, I'd better have spent lots of cash on acoustical treatment rather than worry about the cables.

For leeperry, sorry but apparently you don't get what HA is trying to do. The fact that instrumental measurements detect differences doesn't substantiate your claim of you detecting them. Not in the least.

It's not religion, it's science.