WASAPI output

I'm a Windows Vista user and I use Foobar with WASAPI pluging to get bitperfect output to my DAC. Bitperfect is important to many people who are into serious listening, e.g. the community at www.computeraudiophile.com, where Songbird's release was announced. I'd really like to switch to Songbird to get a better UI than Foobar, but I will never do that if it means losing bit-perfect output.

Great idea !

I too think this is a good idea!! iTunes comes out of the box bit perfect ready. From what I can see from other forums people are sticking to iTunes because it's bit perfect natively so if this feature get's implemented you will find lots of users stop using iTunes and use Songbird furthermore to this more people will adopt FLAC as there preffered choice of audiophile codec

Csaba,

From what I understand Mac's do not have the mixers that Windows has aka Kmixer. So like Linux its bitperfect out of the box.

It seems that there is truly no interest on Songbirds behalf to spend the few hours needed to make a WASAPI plug in or an ASIO plug in for Windows users. Indeed I have spoken to other developers and its really no big deal to make these plugins.

I also miss this option :(
I hope we will get it some day...

Schlunzen,

There has been a lot of talk about implementing mixers and DSP. However I hope the developers understand that Implementing WASAPI support would be a simple and adequate alternative, as most user's serious about music have a high-spec soundcard which at hardware level can act as as equalizer and (up)mixer to 5.1.

I own a Creative Titanium Fatal1ty Professional Series which does all this out-of-the box without putting any burden on the CPU.

Anyway, let's keep our fingers crossed. To be honest, so far what I have seen in SB is very promising, but it's still not a viable alternative to iTunes. However also Firefox took some time to overtake Internet Explorer.

So far, I see following:

iTunes
+ easy and most options out-of-the box
+ integration into iTunes store
+ rip and burn CDs
+ great search function
+ recognizes all file-formats
+ artwork included
- one-size-fits-all-approach, no skins, limited adaptability
- huge footprint and need to install other useless Apple software (QuickTime)
- no equalizer, no DSP, no WASAPI
- does not benefit from advanced soundcards

foobar2000
+ highly customizable
+ best DSP / WASAPI support around
+ tiny footprint and fast
- small development team
- no CD rip/burn
- limited ability to read various audio file formats

Songbird
+ open development, mozilla style and very reactive team
+ very customizable, with skins and plug-ins
+ medium footprint
- no artwork (at least will not import from iTunes8)
- still limited playback of audio file formats
- lack of CD rip / burn
- no equalizer / visualizer

For now I will continue to mainly use iTunes until March/April when the next major release of SongBird will come out.

What's the ETA on WASAPI plugin?

Support for bitperfect playback is an absolute requirement for the media player I choose. I submit that any media player that doesn't support WASAPI or ASIO isn't a real media player.

I also request bitperfect playback in the form of WASAPI support. Please make this possible so I can switch from foobar 2000 to Songbird fulltime.

Been lurking here for some time and decided to sign up. I really want to use Songbird but I NEED wasapi/asio support. So here's my input for you.

G'day,
I'm not hired by POTI, but I think they are correct in saying its not high priority

Firstly, its more important to get the core foundation stuff done. Because this opens up the possibilities of what developers can do. Exclusive mode is the slicing on the top technically. Whilst it adds a new way of outputting sound, it doesn't open up new possibility for developers. So only after video and other important functionality is added and the rest of the foundation, would I expect the developers to start working on stuff like this.

Secondly, whilst the argument is often made that it sounds better:

1) I just did a test, and I couldn't notice any perceivable difference in Windows7 (at least with NIN ghosts at 96Khz in flac) between exclusive mode and otherwise. Granted it wasn't the longest test, but:
- NO difference noticed (other then volume)
- I'm only 25, have had audiology exams before (for aviation and otherwise), so I know my hearing is good, and I never really went to any concerts when I was younger that would damage my hearing. The doctor even said I had good hearing.
- When working at an Applecentre with some younger people, I tested many employees to determine who had the best hearing range for the purpose of identifying the best candidate for listening which laptops had the "mosquito sound bug". Two of us had excellent hearing (I was one of them), but that was 3 years ago now.
- And yes, I'm also one of those guys who knows that a CRT is on by the slight background high pitched sound it makes.

2) If there is a difference in sound quality, it may be because your sound card has dodgy drivers, or you have stuff enabled in your drivers (like the X-Fi crystaliser and such). Or more likely, because you have set your shared audio quality setting too low. Exclusive mode bypasses that value, and that's why you notice a difference. Yes, I have seen this happen before plenty of times. So check that. It wouldn't surprise me if many creative sound card users had stuff enabled that was screwing with their sound (creative sound cards are like bose speakers, generally sell well due to good marketing).

3) If I played a song from a "pro-wasapi" persons collection, without telling them if exclusive mode was enabled or not, would they be able to identify if its being played by Directsound or wasapi. I don't think so. On my computer, even if I play the same song constantly, half the time on wasapi to pick the difference, I couldn't (other then the bleep at the beginning on foobar as it switches mode).

And if they weren't playing the same song over and over again, they would have no clue whatsoever, if it was in exclusive mode, because the differences are so minor. The reality is human hearing is pathetic. Even a mouse can hear more detail then us! Check the chart if you don't believe me. People love to believe that they can hear the full frequency range of their 48khz speakers, but the reality is, they can hear less then half of what they pay for.

Audio is unfortunately something quite known for a placebo effect, and sorry, now I've finally tested it, I believe that at least on my sound card, its totally unnecessary. Maybe its better that people who do notice a difference post more details about their setups, and what qualifies them as "audiophiles".

I actually find it insulting to get told that WASAPI/ASIO are required for "serious listeners". I consider myself a serious listener, but apparently because I don't notice the difference between bit perfect, and imperceivably close to bit-perfect I'm not?

There are uses for bit-perfect audio and exclusive mode that may benefit users (such as jukeboxes and such), but I am sure now that most people supporting this haven't done a proper test. So whilst I'd like to see it done eventually, I'd be surprised if its used much,

My current pc setup consists of an external DAC fed by the x-fi's coax out to a headphone amplifier. My current headphones are DT880s. Overall I qualify myself as an audiophile, as I love music and I appreciate it if my music is delivered the way it should.

My ears are also quite good. I am 17 so my ears are still young but fwiw I too can hear CRT monitors with ease.

Granted, WASAPI isn't going to improve the SQ of songs if your sound card is set up properly. However there are a lot of other reasons why I would want to use WASAPI. Low-latency, bypassing of Kmixer and by running exclusive mode you don't have to worry about any windows sound getting in the way of your music.

I just did a (short) test myself as well. Used a very high res Bob Marley vinyl rip, some Duke Ellington and some hip-hop.
I tested the WASAPI: SPDIF and DIRECTSOUND:SPDIF and DIRECTSOUND: SPEAKERS and truth be told I couldn't hear a difference.

Now, this is very weird. I tested before and the difference was definitely there. Like you said, it must have been something in the drivers that bugged the sound then. I guess I'll give Songbird a try and test it vs. Foobar2000/Wasapi.

They may possibly also have been fixed post SP1.. When I had an Auzentech X-fi (sold it), it used to skip all the time in early vista days.

In foobar2000 it's is not such a big deal to install and enable WASAPI. It's just a plug-in. If something like that was possible in songbird then there is no reason not to implement it. But if it is such a big problem then I too agree that there are more important things to take care of. I use Songbird as my main player and organizer of music and I think of it as a music player foremost so it would be nice to have WASAPI before web browser or movie player.

First of all, bit-perfect output is a requirement for audiophiles, and other players provide it, including itunes on a Mac or streamed to an Airport Express from Mac or PC, Foobar, MediaMonkey, Winamp, JRiver, WMP if set correctly. It's worth noting that "power users," like audiophiles in this case, tend to drive markets, and we want bit-perfect, period. Whether or not the difference is audible or significant, if it's possible to make something [bit] perfect and you don't, you will raise doubts. Why do that? Why not get audiophiles on board sooner rather than later.

Second,@ Andrew, I appreciate that your hearing extends into the very high frequencies, which is a plus for assessing audio quality. However, identifying a hf tone is not the same as making a qualitative judgment, and here experience matters. As in the fine distinctions of audio quality are difficult to judge if you don't have experience of very high quality playback (which you don't mention) or of live instruments (depending on the program material, of course). Personally, my hearing shows some or ravages of age yet I do better on public abx tests than most because I am a sensitive listener with good hi-fi.

Are audiophiles often obsessive and subject to placebo? Yes and yes. But is perfect perfect (and it can't be too hard to achieve if multiple non-VC funded shareware players do it) and imperfect not? Yes and yes.

I personally am in the market for a new player because I love Media Monkey's interface but the damn thing keeps crashing or stuttering (library is 60k tracks), I love the iphone interface for itunes but it doesn't play flac and the interface sucks for browsing while listening, I love foobar's stability and flexibility and resource use but not the interface or iphone app. I would download Songbird, but not without bit-perfect. There are many like me, and as more and more audiophiles turn to computer audio, there will be yet more.

Hello. Check out XXHighEnd. Free demo version, small cost for the full thing. Its' a work in progress, and yes sure, sometimes it crashes, but it is a universe above iTunes, Foobar & the rest in terms of SQ. I know that the developer is very committed and that once the SQ is sorted the GUI will follow. Vista only. Go see / hear and report what you find. Use your ears / forget your prejudices. Love & peace! Tim

First, I have not done this test blind. But that is beside the point. At best that test could convince me that any differences are transparent TO ME. That's not good enough. If several prominent editors at Stereophile etc. did a double blind test and said it made no difference, that might be influential. But me test will only carry weight for me.

Whether or not it actually makes a material difference is not the issue. The core issue is this: if Songbird eschews bit-perfect playback, they announce to audiophiles that we are not a priority or even a concern. That is alienating. The result will be that, as with iTunes for Windows, audiophiles will denigrate Songbird on-line and to their friends. On the other hand, if Songbird does offer bit-perfect playback, audiophiles will think "oh, a cool open-source multi-platform bit-perfect alternative to iTunes" and tell their friends about it.

Either Songbird's developers and backers care about this segment or they don't.

Also, I don't know how to do a blind (much less double-blind) ABX test of WASAPI exclusive mode, and certainly not how to do so on-line. You can't just do a Foobar ABX because the comparison is between Foobar settings. So you need someone to administer the test to get single blind, and switching is not instantaneous as ABX protocol requires. If I am wrong about this, please point me to where I can do this test on-line.

Finally, most likely, in the time it would take a half dozen audiophiles to do single blind ABX tests whose results are essentially anecdotal, the developers could just fix the issue in the first place and no one would have to think twice about it ever again. That's by far the best solution IMO.

G'day,

Don't get me wrong, I agree that WASAPI support would be nice for other reasons (exclusive mode makes it good for carPC's, parties, and jukeboxes with the right skins).

But, I don't think its a matter of "not caring" or "caring". Developers already prioritise what the audience wants (not themselves), and they do so in order of usefulness and popularity. There are always limited resources :( Whilst Songbird at this time will probably lose many audiophiles anyway (cue support is missing and advanced selection of sound card options is missing), by prioritising features such as CDripping, better codec support and video, they may get a lot more home users and could collaborate with a company to set up a movie rental store for instance (which would generate more money to hire more developers).

In fact, this reminds me of the case for "64bit support in Xplane". The forums were hounded with requests for 64bit support, until the lead developer pointed out that 16bit was enough to cover every location on earth, 32bit for the solar system, and 64bit will only be neccessary when navigating via the galactic centre. I think it ever became a serious debate, provided the developers justified the decision publically (and the justification was accurate), that many would accept the decision to delay it at least temporarily (of course, if it was just random rubbish, then there may be a riot). Furthermore, if it started getting enough serious interest, I'm sure someone would code an addon. Thats the great thing about songbird, it can be extended by anyone ;)

So yeah, i would like to see it eventually. But, I wouldn't use it personally (except for the reasons I specified above), and unless Windows7 fixes it, I wouldn't use it on my computer at all, because of the annoying stuff it does during a format change.

Its all about the target audience. At this point of time, I think many audiophiles would be complaining about the speed of Songbird anyway (lets face it, people who live their lives listening to music, will have too many tracks currently for Songbird to be useable). So even for audiophiles, serious performance work is probably still more important then WASAPI at the moment (and the wheels for performance work do seem to be spinning now, because I heard them discussing it on IRC, although, I might be wrong). We'll just have to see though.

WASAPI is most important and required for any audiophile to use your player .... please add it very relevant

Tested.. Works here on Windows 7 X64, Songbird 1.4.1a (Nightly)

I can also confirm it does seem to be working in exclusive mode (as other players wont work).

I believe my problem has to do with using Watch Folders with this :[

Actually, I have found a bug with using it. If you click the time-line for a song to skip ahead, playback breaks.

G'day, No errors/warnings in error console, but it happens in korn, and using Mp3 (Windows 7 X64 RTM, SPDIF, Realtek HD). It make have something to do with the buffer, because it happens reliably, when clicking forward on the time timeline (changing the position 2 or 3 times a second).

I have tested without the plugin, and it doesn't happen... Might be worth asking other people what their experience is though, because tbh, WASAPI isn't something I'd normally use ;)