IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Directsound vs WASAPI vs ASIO
Midiman
post Apr 8 2012, 05:10
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 6-April 12
Member No.: 98463



After reading many of the posts on this forum, it appears that there is no evidence that ASIO or WASAPI sounds any better than Directsound on Windows 7. I understand the importance of ABX testing - and I am interested in a way to do a double blind test of such claims. Let me first of all state that I cannot hear any difference. For me to be objective, I have used the same player for all tests - foobar2000 - and simply changed the Output from Directsound to WASAPI to ASIO. However, to do this, I have to stop the playback, change the driver, and then restart playback. This means comparions are doubtful at best due to the delay involved and my knowledge of what driver I selected.

How have others conducted such tests? Please note I am not trying to prove a difference exists - just to find a way to do the test properly. The ABX plugin for foobar2000 has been very useful to compare different WAV files. Obviously, one cannot use it for this sort of experiment.

Thank you for any suggestions or pointers to where this has been proved one way or another.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nimd4
post Apr 8 2012, 05:23
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 31-August 05
From: Belgrade, Serbia
Member No.: 24220



http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=92280

PS.
ASIO is direct-hardware, low-latency and Directsound is emulated, layered.

This post has been edited by nimd4: Apr 8 2012, 05:26


--------------------
Z68A-G43*i7-3770*Ven. 2x4GB 2133MHz*WD 1TB 64MB SATA*Win7 Pro/64
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Midiman
post Apr 8 2012, 05:59
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 6-April 12
Member No.: 98463



QUOTE (nimd4 @ Apr 8 2012, 14:23) *
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=92280

PS.
ASIO is direct-hardware, low-latency and Directsound is emulated, layered.


Thanks, I have read that thread. ASIO being "direct" and Directsound being "layered" is surely irrelevant? The point of a listening test is not whether ASIO "should" sound better/different - but whether it actually "does" sound different in ABX testing. In terms of "layers", one would expect ASIO to sound better than WASAPI which in turn would sound better than DS. I see no evidence presented anywhere to substantiate this claim. Therefore, my request for a suitable test to prove the claim one way or another.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Apr 8 2012, 08:03
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 5163
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (Midiman @ Apr 8 2012, 00:10) *
How have others conducted such tests? Please note I am not trying to prove a difference exists - just to find a way to do the test properly. The ABX plugin for foobar2000 has been very useful to compare different WAV files. Obviously, one cannot use it for this sort of experiment.


I would get a really good sound card, and then record the output in both modes. With good equipment it should be easy enough to tell if there is any mathematical difference, and if there is, to then use any ABX tool you like to test audibility.

Another interesting thing might be to try both in 16 bit mode, recording with a good 24 bit A/D. That might exaggerate any differences introduced by the playback software while greatly reducing the requirements on the recording A/D.


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nessuno
post Apr 8 2012, 09:02
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 423
Joined: 16-December 10
From: Palermo
Member No.: 86562



QUOTE (Midiman @ Apr 8 2012, 06:59) *
The point of a listening test is not whether ASIO "should" sound better/different - but whether it actually "does" sound different in ABX testing. In terms of "layers", one would expect ASIO to sound better than WASAPI which in turn would sound better than DS. I see no evidence presented anywhere to substantiate this claim. Therefore, my request for a suitable test to prove the claim one way or another.


A properly conducted ABX test can prove the existence of perceivable differences, but not the contrary, especially when a single or a few of testers are involved.

All the more, when testing a layer of software which interacts with other ones in a multitasking OS and that can run on very different hardware, to draw sufficiently general conclusions a lot of different use cases must be taken into account.

In my opinion, if you cannot hear any difference in your system in its usual working conditions, then it's OK: just enjoy the music!

HAPPY EASTER to all!!! smile.gif

This post has been edited by Nessuno: Apr 8 2012, 09:04


--------------------
... I live by long distance.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Roseval
post Apr 8 2012, 10:58
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 496
Joined: 26-March 08
Member No.: 52303



The difference between ASIO/WASAPI and DS is that DS always use the Win mixer.
All audio is dithered by the mixer.
If the sample rate of the audio differs from the one set in the sound panel, it will be resampled.

ASIO/WASAPI (exclusive) will bypass the mixer.
No dither and no resampling if the hardware is able to play the sample rate of the audio.
This is about the protocol. The media player might do all kind of DSP like volume control + dither.


--------------------
TheWellTemperedComputer.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nimd4
post Apr 8 2012, 19:23
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 31-August 05
From: Belgrade, Serbia
Member No.: 24220



Midiman I get what you're saying, sorz 4 being so brief. For listening, or reproduction, there really is NO (audible) difference. For recording, it's a whole different story. Google threw this my way:

CODE
http://www.native-instruments.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98447

So providing the CPU, RAM and the sound card are up to par, there is no replacement for ASIO (ofc).

Otherwise for a somewhat 'similar' comparison, I'd mention the argument over which version of the LAME encoder is the 'right' one to use. When there hasn't been an advancement in quality, it basically comes down to personal preference. That sort of thing, if you can agree.


--------------------
Z68A-G43*i7-3770*Ven. 2x4GB 2133MHz*WD 1TB 64MB SATA*Win7 Pro/64
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Apr 8 2012, 23:42
Post #8





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10339
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (nimd4 @ Apr 8 2012, 11:23) *
For recording, it's a whole different story.

Depending on the application, sure. A bit misleading and ill-advised being presented as a general statement, even with a link, however.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Apr 9 2012, 06:11
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 2519
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



If the stream is resampled and is no longer bit-perfect that WILL break some applications -- e.g., AC3 or DTS bitstreaming. The result will be noise, which I think anyone could ABX wink.gif

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
item
post Oct 8 2012, 19:29
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 7-August 12
Member No.: 102085



ASIO, WASAPI and DS are different things. Which means they are different. In theory (for reasons outlined) ASIO and WASAPI are more satisfactory from the viewpoint of low-overhead, unmolested data transmission.

Whether or not that maps to a practical benefit is hard to make a general statement about.

If you could test your system with sufficient accuracy, those results would not be valid on a different machine running a differently configured OS on different hardware with a different cable and DAC. Given that it's tough to test every setup even indifferently well, we're in the realm of guesswork and supposition. Whether a blind ABX tells you much of genuine interest is also open to question!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post Oct 8 2012, 22:55
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 1798
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



@item: The possibility to have an unaltered, bit-for-bit output with either of those three methods exists, and in such case, neither ABX, nor guesswork and supppositions play any role.

In the event that they aren't bit-perfect, the election of one over another is most of the times about performance/usability than about quality. (Expecting very low latency, wanting to play multiple streams at the same time, sampling rates and bit depths supported, etc..).

There are only two scenarios worth mentioning about Directsound or MME failing:
The old "AC97"-compatible hardware/drivers that used to resample with low quality 44.1Khz signals to 48Khz, and the newer "MME waveout recording resampling with low quality, even when unneeded" in Vista and 7 (which was patched some time ago).

That's as much about quality that any Windows user should care when using the different audio APIs (Other than when requiring bit-for-bit signals)

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AiZ
post Oct 8 2012, 23:10
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 4-February 02
Member No.: 1251



[Not that fun mode on]

For me, ASIO is vastly superior. Evidence?
Currently, the whole sound subsystem of my Windows Seven is broken. Literally. How it has happened is still a mystery, four or five days ago, sound disappeared from my videos, etc. I've reinstalled sound card drivers, tried a restore point, nothing, nada, rien. The only thing that surfaced was a lot of chkdsk errors during restoration process which led to a total restoration failure. But Windows is happy with it, saying nothing about probably crunched system files.
That's quite frustrating:
- Using MME/DirectSound, usual programs output no sound without any error, playing anything I throw them,
- Players using WASAPI don't work, there's an unknown error when cueing music,
- Eventually my beloved Foobar2000 -> ASIO -> Musiland Digital Times -> S/PDIF -> Audio-gd Sparrow -> Superlux HD668B setup plays music flawlessly while I'm gathering information, downloading software updates and making backup of my documents in order to prepare Windows 7 reinstallation. huh.gif

ASIO, what else?

AiZ

[Not that fun mode off]


--------------------
AiZ stupid homepage - http://aiz.free.fr
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
item
post Oct 8 2012, 23:10
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 7-August 12
Member No.: 102085



QUOTE ([JAZ] @ Oct 8 2012, 22:55) *

@item: The possibility to have an unaltered, bit-for-bit output with either of those three methods exists, and in such case, neither ABX, nor guesswork and supppositions play any role.

In the event that they aren't bit-perfect, the election of one over another is most of the times about performance/usability than about quality. (Expecting very low latency, wanting to play multiple streams at the same time, sampling rates and bit depths supported, etc..).

There are only two scenarios worth mentioning about Directsound or MME failing:
The old "AC97"-compatible hardware/drivers that used to resample with low quality 44.1Khz signals to 48Khz, and the newer "MME waveout recording resampling with low quality, even when unneeded" in Vista and 7 (which was patched some time ago).

That's as much about quality that any Windows user should care when using the different audio APIs (Other than when requiring bit-for-bit signals)


The possibility exists that DS can be bit-perfect, but it's less likely. It is likely that if there is a positive difference, it will be on the side of ASIO / WASAPI.

As I said, whether there will be a practical difference in every - indeed any - system depends on many factors that are hard to rule in or out.

This post has been edited by item: Oct 8 2012, 23:12
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
devhead
post May 6 2014, 19:42
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 6-May 14
Member No.: 115947



I have a Asus Xonar Essence STX sound card, and I can say that there is a significant difference in the sound quality between DirectSound and WASAPI (or with ASIO). I have the audio coming out of my digital coaxial output of the sound card and into my amp, and JRiver Media Center sounds much better using WASAPI and/or ASIO.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post May 6 2014, 19:51
Post #15





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



Prove it with double-blind testing as mandated by our rules or keep your probably imagined claims to yourself.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post May 6 2014, 19:53
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 1798
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



@devhead:

First, Welcome to hydrogenadio.
Hydrogenaudio is a technical, factual, and informational forum. It is not a forum where to post opinions.

If you have a notable difference in that setup, first it is on your side to demonstrate that such thing happens. You might be able to record the audio in some way and then analyze and post samples for all us to verify the claim.

If that proves true, the most probable reason is wrong setup on your system.

If that proves false, then it demonstrates how easily it is to fool oneself to believe some things are better than the other.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post May 7 2014, 11:29
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 1995
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE ([JAZ] @ May 6 2014, 20:53) *
Hydrogenaudio is a technical, factual, and informational forum. It is not a forum where to post opinions.


That was a bit strong. Rather, it is a forum which has ruled out - explicitely - certain unfounded opinions known to be biased by (and way too often nothing but) artifacts of imagination.

To devhead: that link tells you both what you have to conform to (or post somewhere else) and the rationale behind it.



--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tweety61
post Sep 10 2014, 21:50
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 10-September 14
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 117223



QUOTE (db1989 @ May 6 2014, 19:51) *
Prove it with double-blind testing as mandated by our rules or keep your probably imagined claims to yourself.


Hello There, been new on this forum read about this thread with interrest about differences between asio wasapi and ds
For the DS part you can proove it yourself by testing, it depends wether or not you are listening to a build in soundcard or using an external dac.
If the latter is true (external dac) you can test and hear the difference yourself.
try the following in Foobar, make sure a DS sound output is selected as output standard for your soundcard
In sound properties (taskbar) set the output to 2 channel 48khz 24 bit studio quality
What you need now is a test sample of a test tone recorded on cd ie: 1khz -90dB
The testtone must be as soft as possible (-90db or less) to clearly hear the difference
Now play this track in foobar and listen at your external dac, be careful with volume control here.
Now stop the track and put the output device in foobar to a KS or ASIO (if supported)
Play the same track again
You should notice that in the first sample artifacts are included in the track wich shouldn't be there
Turn the output device back to DS output in foobar and again in properties volume control set it to 44,1khz 16bit CD quality
play the track again and listen carefully
At last again in foobar sat the output to KS and listen again
In the first sample (DS) you will notice artifacts are gone but noise is added to the track
In KS (ASIO) there are no artifacts or noise added when listening to the track.

I have tried this setup with M-audio delta soundcard with spdif dac attached to it with pcm56 dac's installed (Windows 7)
And did the same test on a tablet w8.1 with a dac from audio gd attaced to it
On both with the same tests i got the same results, artifacts in the first test and noise added in the second

So for me ASIO,WASAPI, or KS are the only correct settings when you are listening to music with an external DAC because what comes in goes out, period.
The type of music played decides how to set the output device ie: CD 44,1khz 16bit dolby digital 48khz 24 bit, hd tracks 96khz 24 bit etc, etc.
The only fallback is when your dac doesn't support a tipical format (192khz 24bit) then you have to downsample it to a supported format but Foobar has a plugin for this.

Greetings Pieter
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mephiska
post Nov 15 2014, 03:18
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 15-November 14
Member No.: 117815



QUOTE (tweety61 @ Sep 10 2014, 12:50) *
QUOTE (db1989 @ May 6 2014, 19:51) *
Prove it with double-blind testing as mandated by our rules or keep your probably imagined claims to yourself.


Hello There, been new on this forum read about this thread with interrest about differences between asio wasapi and ds
For the DS part you can proove it yourself by testing, it depends wether or not you are listening to a build in soundcard or using an external dac.
If the latter is true (external dac) you can test and hear the difference yourself.
try the following in Foobar, make sure a DS sound output is selected as output standard for your soundcard
In sound properties (taskbar) set the output to 2 channel 48khz 24 bit studio quality
What you need now is a test sample of a test tone recorded on cd ie: 1khz -90dB
The testtone must be as soft as possible (-90db or less) to clearly hear the difference
Now play this track in foobar and listen at your external dac, be careful with volume control here.
Now stop the track and put the output device in foobar to a KS or ASIO (if supported)
Play the same track again
You should notice that in the first sample artifacts are included in the track wich shouldn't be there
Turn the output device back to DS output in foobar and again in properties volume control set it to 44,1khz 16bit CD quality
play the track again and listen carefully
At last again in foobar sat the output to KS and listen again
In the first sample (DS) you will notice artifacts are gone but noise is added to the track
In KS (ASIO) there are no artifacts or noise added when listening to the track.

I have tried this setup with M-audio delta soundcard with spdif dac attached to it with pcm56 dac's installed (Windows 7)
And did the same test on a tablet w8.1 with a dac from audio gd attaced to it
On both with the same tests i got the same results, artifacts in the first test and noise added in the second

So for me ASIO,WASAPI, or KS are the only correct settings when you are listening to music with an external DAC because what comes in goes out, period.
The type of music played decides how to set the output device ie: CD 44,1khz 16bit dolby digital 48khz 24 bit, hd tracks 96khz 24 bit etc, etc.
The only fallback is when your dac doesn't support a tipical format (192khz 24bit) then you have to downsample it to a supported format but Foobar has a plugin for this.

Greetings Pieter


Longtime lurker, but I made an account specifically to reply to this.

Everything you say is nonsensical and entirely based on your own perceptions. Unless you can prove to us that what you are saying is true with actual tested and independently verifiable data then please just stop.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Roseval
post Nov 15 2014, 10:55
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 496
Joined: 26-March 08
Member No.: 52303



There must be a mathematical difference.
WASAPI in exclusive mode and ASIO talk straight to the audio device
Assuming the media player is configured the same in both cases, they will send the same bits at the same sample rate

DS expect multiple streams. Hence the mixer is involved.
If the sample rate of the audiofile differs from the rate of the mixer, the audio will be resampled
Regardles of the sample rate, each sample is converted to float for the mixing and converted back to integer and dithered
Hence there will be a difference in the LSB compared with ASIO/WASAPI




--------------------
TheWellTemperedComputer.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Nov 15 2014, 18:29
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 4485
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (tweety61 @ Sep 10 2014, 15:50) *
QUOTE (db1989 @ May 6 2014, 19:51) *
Prove it with double-blind testing as mandated by our rules or keep your probably imagined claims to yourself.


Hello There, been new on this forum read about this thread with interrest about differences between asio wasapi and ds
For the DS part you can prove it yourself by testing,


As I read TOS 8 trying to bully other people into doing the DBTs that it requires doesn't count.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Nov 15 2014, 18:49
Post #22





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10339
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Have a go at this one Arny, and he might give you a response:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=877041


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Chibisteven
post Nov 19 2014, 00:04
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 29-July 11
Member No.: 92633



I use WASAPI for it's exclusive mode. Take a resampler plug-in use the highest supported by the card and use the highest supported bit depth as it is what I have often set for Windows direct sound mixer (eliminates the problem of pops, drop outs when the card changes rates, also prevents error messages when a rate your card doesn't support is encountered). Can't say I can honestly tell a difference. It's an easy way to salience web pages you stumble on that blast 50 thousand different videos or songs while not being disturbed listening to your own music.

As people said it allows for bit-for-bit perfect playback to use WASAPI or ASIO. Applications that would benefit from this is moving Dolby Digital or DTS audio out an SPDIF port, but your player can not alter anything. I mean nothing at all or it's pure noise.

ASIO has it's own advantages when recording depending on the application.

WASAPI has an advantage of grabbing audio from the Windows mixer when recording (skipping the digital to analog and analog to digital stuff) at a specified common rate and depth. Can grab Surround Sound with this method on cards that can output analog Surround Sound but can only record 2-channel stereo.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fairy
post Nov 28 2014, 15:46
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 27-July 02
Member No.: 2813



QUOTE (Chibisteven @ Nov 19 2014, 00:04) *
I use WASAPI for it's exclusive mode. Take a resampler plug-in use the highest supported by the card and use the highest supported bit depth as it is what I have often set for Windows direct sound mixer (eliminates the problem of pops, drop outs when the card changes rates, also prevents error messages when a rate your card doesn't support is encountered). Can't say I can honestly tell a difference. It's an easy way to salience web pages you stumble on that blast 50 thousand different videos or songs while not being disturbed listening to your own music.


I always set the default audio channel to a port I do not use for playing music. For example when using my DAC for music, I put the default audio device to the onboard sound chip. That way a program or website can never interfere with the music.
Off course in combination with WASAPI playback.

Currently I have my DAC connected with USB to my Raspberry PI with RuneAudio and that is my main choice now for playing audio. I can use my phone or tablet to select anything I would like to play.


--------------------
MF V-DAC II - AVR-2308 - B&W DM603 s3 - HD580 - AKG K550
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th December 2014 - 03:11