MusicBee and RAM File Storage

[ArthurDaniels]

Does MusicBee utilize RAM to store files selected for Play?

[Steven]

yes depending on the buffer size set in the Player preferences. It doesnt load the whole file if that was your question

[ArthurDaniels]

Hi Steve,

Yes, that was my question - I wondered if the whole file was loaded into RAM before playing.

Since a portion of the file is loaded with buffers set, is there a sonic difference between using high buffer settings to force more data into RAM versus using the lowest possible buffer setting for "direct streaming"?

Thanks,

Art

[Steven]

Since a portion of the file is loaded with buffers set, is there a sonic difference between using high buffer settings to force more data into RAM versus using the lowest possible buffer setting for "direct streaming"?

i do not believe there is any difference. If you want to research it more then https://hydrogenaud.io/ is a very good scientific site that relies on double blind testing rather than people just making claims. I am sure this theory has been discussed there

[ArthurDaniels]

Hi Steven,

I did some research on the suggested Website.  I did not find any reports upon double-blind tests on this subject, so I posted a question.  I received an answer that there should be no difference.

As far as I am concerned, the question is closed.

I use both MusicBee and MusiCHI players.  I believe I can detect slight differences in sound when listening to certain files, but the differences are subtle (if they are there at all).  The MusicBee Player offers the advantage of continuous play across adjacent tracks when there is continuous music (as encountered in operas and other classical recordings).  The MusiCHI Player loads the entire file into RAM for playing and the developer claims that this approach retains the bit-perfect reproduction.

Quien sabe???

Now, I find myself wondering if hardware players offer a superior sound to software players, so I am researching this topic.

Best,

Art

[ArthurDaniels]

Since a portion of the file is loaded with buffers set, is there a sonic difference between using high buffer settings to force more data into RAM versus using the lowest possible buffer setting for "direct streaming"?

i do not believe there is any difference. If you want to research it more then https://hydrogenaud.io/ is a very good scientific site that relies on double blind testing rather than people just making claims. I am sure this theory has been discussed there

Hello again, Steven:

Just thought I would let you know about an unfortunate experience I had on the hydrogenaudio website.  Initially, my questions and comments were treated with respect.  Then, some infantile person whose tag identified him/her as a Global Moderator, respond to my question with a very nasty post which included personal insults directed toward me.  I responded in kind to his little tirade and told him that I was done with him and his site.

Again, just info for you as you consider whether or not to refer someone else to this site.

Best,

Art

[vincent kars]

"You're a self-described placebophile with no apparent understanding of electronics and computer science"

That is even to HA standards a bit hard but unfortunately not uncommon as a treatment for  those who don't share the rigid anti everything mentality of HA.
Personally I wouldn't call it a scientific site, far to narrow minded.

Anyway, memory playback is a bit controversial.
My take can be found here: http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Intro/SQ/MemoryPlayback.htm

Maybe this site is one for those looking for facts instead of opinions: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/

[ArthurDaniels]

Hi Vincent,

Interesting that you took the trouble to look at the thread in order to see the post I found offensive.  I trust you also saw my response.

I enjoy participating in civil discussions regarding audio and the various options available for reproducing music.  I will not engage in the type of dialogue which I encountered on the HA site.  So, I'm done with them.

I have looked at your comments about music players.  After a lot of personal listening, I believe that there is much truth in the thought that "beauty is in the ear of the listener".  I also believe that the particular combination of equipment, environment, music type(s), aural capabilities of the listener and probably several other factors all combine to present each listener with his/her preferred sound.

I will admit that I am not a computer sciences expert and I have no interest in becoming one.  My interest is in listening to music and in exploring ways in which to improve sound reproduction that fit within my fiscal and physical constraints.

Thanks for your comments.

Best,

Art

[Steven]

Just thought I would let you know about an unfortunate experience I had on the hydrogenaudio website.  Initially, my questions and comments were treated with respect.  Then, some infantile person whose tag identified him/her as a Global Moderator, respond to my question with a very nasty post which included personal insults directed toward me.  I responded in kind to his little tirade and told him that I was done with him and his site.

Again, just info for you as you consider whether or not to refer someone else to this site.

Just reading through it now and that was a pretty obnoxious response from the moderator and completely out-of-order unless some prior posts were removed.
I still think overall its a great site even if you just use it for reading information and most people are very helpful - certainly in my interaction on that forum, so it was unfortunate in your case.

[hiccup]

I will admit that I am not a computer sciences expert and I have no interest in becoming one.  My interest is in listening to music and in exploring ways in which to improve sound reproduction that fit within my fiscal and physical constraints.
Thanks for your comments.

The only difference between a player pre-loading the complete music file to the computers's memory and one that doesn't would be experienced in case of problems while streaming the data from the source drive to the cpu > soundcard fast enough.

Taking the current state of computer's topology and performance into account you shouldn't experience any issues or differences at all.
The only possible interfering factor here would be a hiccup in the path from the drive providing the data to the cpu.
That would probably present itself being audible in the form of stuttering, or even stopping playback.
(which could be caused by problems with drivers, antivirus software, or even other hardware claiming bandwith/cpu burden)

So the only reason to pre-load a music file into memory would be to circumnavigate around such issues.
Other than that it will not make any difference in the sound quality at all.

I myself do wonder however why a player such as MusicBee wouldn't pre-load a track into memory by default.
There are probably reasons not to do that, by I don't know what they are.


edit,
Thinking this through, in case you have a very noisy hard-disk, or one that blasts terrible electromagnetic pulses to your sensitive soundcard, playing from memory would be better.  (insert very serious/just kidding smiley here)

[ArthurDaniels]

I will admit that I am not a computer sciences expert and I have no interest in becoming one.  My interest is in listening to music and in exploring ways in which to improve sound reproduction that fit within my fiscal and physical constraints.
Thanks for your comments.

The only difference between a player pre-loading the complete music file to the computers's memory and one that doesn't would be experienced in case of problems while streaming the data from the source drive to the cpu > soundcard fast enough.

Taking the current state of computer's topology and performance into account you shouldn't experience any issues or differences at all.
The only possible interfering factor here would be a hiccup in the path from the drive providing the data to the cpu.
That would probably present itself being audible in the form of stuttering, or even stopping playback.
(which could be caused by problems with drivers, antivirus software, or even other hardware claiming bandwith/cpu burden)

So the only reason to pre-load a music file into memory would be to circumnavigate around such issues.
Other than that it will not make any difference in the sound quality at all.

I myself do wonder however why a player such as MusicBee wouldn't pre-load a track into memory by default.
There are probably reasons not to do that, by I don't know what they are.


edit,
Thinking this through, in case you have a very noisy hard-disk, or one that blasts terrible electromagnetic pulses to your sensitive soundcard, playing from memory would be better.  (insert very serious/just kidding smiley here)

Good points, all.

I have experience an occasional sound interruption, but it occurs so infrequently that it is just an annoyance when it happens.  I do use 1-2 seconds of buffering to reduce the possibility of more frequent interruption events.

My Seagate 4 TB HD, containing my 23,000 + FLAC files, is not noisy and I am not aware of any other electronic interference or spurious signals present in my setup,  When I dedicated my Toshiba laptop to serve as a music player, I stripped all unneeded programs.  In addition, by using WASAPI instead of Direct Playback, I believe I am either partially or fully bypassing the sound card in my laptop (but, I'm not sure I fully understand these playback options yet, so I stand to be enlightened).  I am using a separate, outboard Peachtree DACiTx 24/192 DAC, connected to the laptop via USB.

I am now exploring what, if any, substantial additional sound improvement might result from adding a dedicated music player, such as a Cambridge Audio 851N, to my system.  I am in email conversation with Cambridge technical folks in this regard, but I would also be interested in comments from other experienced folks. 

[vincent kars]

In addition, by using WASAPI instead of Direct Playback, I believe I am either partially or fully bypassing the sound card in my laptop (but, I'm not sure I fully understand these playback options yet, so I stand to be enlightened).

Your sound card is a on-board DAC
The Peachtree is a out-board DAC
By design if you use one, you are not using the other.
Sounds silly but this is exactly how it works.
2 different DACs connected in a different way to the PCI bus but completely independent.

WASAPI or DS is a different story.
DS is routed through the mixer. Hence the audio is converted to float, dithered and converted back to integer.
If the sample rate of the audio doesn't match the sample rate as set in the Win audio panel, it is re-sampled as well.
Windows re-sampling is not the best there is: http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/11/measurements-windows-10-audio-stack.html

You have a bit perfect audio path the moment you use WASAPI or ASIO

Maybe this diagram is of  use: http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Windows/Win7/Win7Audio.htm
Anything ussing shared mode is using the mixer, exclusive mode talks straight to the driver of the audio device.

[hiccup]

I am using a separate, outboard Peachtree DACiTx 24/192 DAC, connected to the laptop via USB.
I am now exploring what, if any, substantial additional sound improvement might result from adding a dedicated music player, such as a Cambridge Audio 851N, to my system.  I am in email conversation with Cambridge technical folks in this regard, but I would also be interested in comments from other experienced folks. 

A quick look tells me that with the Peachtree dac you own, you have a very capable and musically sounding asynchronous usb dac already.
I would suspect that the Cambridge would not be a substantial improvement in sound quality, but I haven't actually listened to either of them, so that's yours to investigate and find out.
What you will gain with this Cambridge player, is a display, and the option to control it, and play music over a network.
But be aware that if you do want to use it as a network player, sourced by MusicBee, it is not guaranteed to work beforehand.
(network/dnla/upnp/router protocols etc. are still a bit tricky)
So if that is important to you, make sure you can try before you buy, or find other user experiences with this setup working.

[ArthurDaniels]

I am using a separate, outboard Peachtree DACiTx 24/192 DAC, connected to the laptop via USB.
I am now exploring what, if any, substantial additional sound improvement might result from adding a dedicated music player, such as a Cambridge Audio 851N, to my system.  I am in email conversation with Cambridge technical folks in this regard, but I would also be interested in comments from other experienced folks.  
[/quote]

A quick look tells me that with the Peachtree dac you own, you have a very capable and musically sounding asynchronous usb dac already.
I would suspect that the Cambridge would not be a substantial improvement in sound quality, but I haven't actually listened to either of them, so that's yours to investigate and find out.
What you will gain with this Cambridge player, is a display, and the option to control it, and play music over a network.
But be aware that if you do want to use it as a network player, sourced by MusicBee, it is not guaranteed to work beforehand.
(network/dnla/upnp/router protocols etc. are still a bit tricky)
So if that is important to you, make sure you can try before you buy, or find other user experiences with this setup working.
[/quote]

Thanks again for taking the time to educate me.  When I made the initial decision to digitize all of my music, I did not realize that I was entering a whole new esoteric world of sound reproduction options.  I am slowly learning how to manage my brave new world, so your help is really appreciated.

Your comments about possible gains and issues related to implementing the Cambridge 851N reinforce my thoughts.  In my present setup, I use Windows Remote Desktop to provide direct control, through my home wireless network, of my "music laptop" from my "business laptop", while sitting in my Preferred Listening Position ("PLP").  So, one of my questions about implementing the Cambridge unit is whether or not I can control the Cambridge unit in a similar fashion.  Not being able to remotely control the Cambridge unit would likely kill my interest in this approach.

You have also commented that I might not notice any significant improvement, when comparing the Peachtree DAC to the Cambridge DACs.  I have considered this point and, if I purchase the Cambridge unit, I will have 60 days to audition the unit with full return privileges.

I have read a good bit of your comments on your Well-Tempered Computer site.  You mention that MusicBee does not support WASAPI, but I currently have the MusicBee Player configured for WASAPI and my Peachtree DAC.  These options are available in the MusicBee Player Preferences.  Comment please.

Another WASAPI question:  I presume that I am not in WASAPI Exclusive mode because I can hear some computer sounds on top of my music, if I am listening and editing my FLAC files or my music libraries at the same time.  Otherwise, I am having no issues playing files in WASAPI.  But, I know how to try WASAPI in Exclusive Mode -- is there a setup option somewhere?

My overall impression is that the development of digital music reproduction under Windows has been just as chaotic as everything else in the Windows world.  I have worked with PCs since the early 1980s and it has been quite a ride and learning experience for me.  I probably know a great deal about some aspects and practically nothing about other aspects of the PC world.  Certainly, I am in the learning mode with regard to digital sound.

Please continue to help me learn.  If we need to take this dialogue off-line, we can do so, either by PMs or by exchanging email addresses.

Best,

Art

[vincent kars]

MusicBee not supporting WASAPI?
Where did you read that in my website?
This page tells different.

http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Players/MusicBee/MusicBee_audio.htm


You probably need to configure your DAC
Set it to "allow applications to take exclusive control" in the Anvanced audio settings
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Windows/Win7/USBDAC.htm