Software - Music Player

[Welder]

If sound quality is the deciding factor then you might want to check this out
http://www.xxhighend.nl/

The guy who develops it has some interesting ideas.
Memory players are also an interesting concept but loading files into RAM prior to playing does have its drawbacks; difficult to manage long tracks requiring more than available RAM for example.
I still haven’t found anything better than foobar with AISO4all or kernel streaming for sound quality and functionality. Granted it isn’t the easiest player to get looking good if that’s an issue for you and despite much research there are still one or two minor irritations I cant seem to solve with regard to file organization.

You might also like Reclock.
http://reclock.free.fr/

[StanleyB]

In the future, I anticipate that DACs with asynchronous USB will overtake the Transporter and Caiman combination. I will then most likely choose xbmc as the player of choice.

I wouldn't bet on that. Once the fad of async USB has turned from marketing push into actual listening tests, its days will be numbered .

[squeezethatbuffalo]

If sound quality is the deciding factor then you might want to check this out
http://www.xxhighend.nl/

The guy who develops it has some interesting ideas.
Memory players are also an interesting concept but loading files into RAM prior to playing does have its drawbacks; difficult to manage long tracks requiring more than available RAM for example.
I still haven’t found anything better than foobar with AISO4all or kernel streaming for sound quality and functionality. Granted it isn’t the easiest player to get looking good if that’s an issue for you and despite much research there are still one or two minor irritations I cant seem to solve with regard to file organization.

You might also like Reclock.
http://reclock.free.fr/

Look no further than cPlay. It's free, has a very helpful community, and (IMO) sounds the best when properly set up.

[squeezethatbuffalo]

I disagree. Async USB is still affected by PC interference. Even Gordon Rankin himself admitted that.

Leave music playback to the streamer, and processing to the PC. Your audio system is much happier that way.

In the future, I anticipate that DACs with asynchronous USB will overtake the Transporter and Caiman combination. I will then most likely choose xbmc as the player of choice.

[Welder]

Sqeezethatbuffalo.

I’ve just downloaded it
It’s one of the few I haven’t tried out.
I’ve never been totally convinced that I could hear the difference between one player and another.
It was only after learning a bit about how different players retrieve data that I acknowledged there were at least rational explanations as to why one player might sound different to another.
As to whether one thing is better or worse than another; frankly I think such comparisons are a bit pointless, “better” and “worse” mean different things to different people.
I’ve never been a great fan of the dogma and ignorance that tends to underpin the, this is better than that, debates.

Edit.
But, but, isnt a streamer just another computer

[squeezethatbuffalo]

But it IS the best. In the Flat Earth subjectivist sense

Whether it works for others, well, that's what they need to find out!

Edit: Yes, but a computer that's (arguably) designed for audio playback. The power consumption, noise, and overhead are (supposedly) much less compared to an all purpose PC. I went a long way trying to "optimize" an x86 to play music. Let's just say it didn't work out as I have hoped. Oh, and during that bumpy ride, I discovered that the less the system load/processing power being used, the better the sound. So in principle, I think it's a good idea to let one "computer" do the processing and the other to handle the playback anyway.

Then again, that's just IMO, feel free to compare different solutions and see which you like best.

[Welder]

So far I’ve only found one player that I didn’t like purely on sonic performance and that was Winamp.
Not quite sure why that should be. I have read that some players use a small offset when retrieving data and Winamp is in this group.
Frankly, I would be very surprised if I could actually tell the difference in a controlled test between any of them. However, setting up cPlay on the laptop as I type.

EDIT.
Oh, btw, had a fiddle with my daughters Sonos and while it is a very neat gadget I didn’t think the sound quality matched my current setup.

[squeezethatbuffalo]

IME, cPlay truly shines when used with cMP (in terms of sound quality and ease of use). Navigating through the library is PAINFUL without cMP.

No experience with the Sonos, but thanks for sharing. Borrow a Touch if you can, I think it won't disappoint (as a transport)!

[Welder]

Hmm, don’t think this is going to work.
I only have 512MB of RAM and cPlay seems to want more.
I’ve gone the low power route with my Vaio, stripped everything out that isn’t needed to keep the thing ticking over.
With foobar+ASIO4all the RAM usage is hardly measurable and CPU runs below 5%.

Edit, may try putting the RAM modules i stripped out back in.

[Vincent Kars]

I have read that some players use a small offset when retrieving data and Winamp is in this group.

Almost all do and I think they should.
We talk about multitasking OS so a buffer is almost mandatory.
Likewise you probably won’t find a soundcard without a buffer.
Some suggest that buffer management has a strong impact on sound quality.
But it is highly unclear to me why this should be the case (except the obvious, buffer over/under run)
Much of the difference between players can probably explained by the driver used.
You might try one e.g. Foobar and try drivers like DS, WASAPI and Kernel Streaming.

In general a minimalist configuration is recommended.
Streamers are minimalist by design, no HD, no fan, small CPU.
The paradox is that de Squeeze Touch is often reported to sound better than the Duet or the Classic. However it uses quit powerful hard ware (500 Mhz ARM) compared with the other 2.