Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 or Windows XP Pro SP3

B

Baster

New member
Hello good people. What's up...

I used both operating systems for a long time... Vista and XP... I never had any problems with them, great systems, also fast, good looking... But my Vista license has expired and I cannot use it anymore, so I switched back to old XP for some limited time (when I get money I'll buy new VISTA license - if it wins)...
OK, point of this thread is: I noticed that Vista has richer audio quality then my XP... I'm using same drivers, same mp3 song I know... and definitely Vista wins... I still dint try producing something via m-audiophile 24/96 on XP... Should I start producing here on XP, or should I wait until I get money for new Vista license? (I'm asking this because I fear that if I re-record same track on Vista i will get better quality... Also i moved from "color-picture to black-and white" <<poor sound quaility, acctualy its not poor just not "rich" as on Vista>>, which is annoying very much... don't know why is that)
Oh And please, don't bullshit how Vista is bad, slow.. thats not point, Vista is great, as any other operative system (if you know how to "operate" it!! ;)
 
Last edited:
Baster said:
Hello good people. What's up...

I used both operating systems for a long time... Vista and XP... I never had any problems with them, great systems, also fast, good looking... But my Vista license has expired and I cannot use it anymore, so I switched back to old XP for some limited time (when I get money I'll buy new VISTA license - if it wins)...
OK, point of this thread is: I noticed that Vista has richer audio quality then my XP... I'm using same drivers, same mp3 song I know... and definitely Vista wins... I still dint try producing something via m-audiophile 24/96 on XP... Should I start producing here on XP, or should I wait until I get money for new Vista license? (I'm asking this because I fear that if I re-record same track on Vista i will get better quality... Also i moved from "color-picture to black-and white" <<poor sound quaility, acctualy its not poor just not "rich" as on Vista>>, which is annoying very much... don't know why is that)
Oh And please, don't bullshit how Vista is bad, slow.. thats not point, Vista is great, as any other operative system (if you know how to "operate" it!! ;)
Click to expand...

woah!!....hey man, if you're happy with Vista, and you actually reckon it "sounds better (?)", then stay with it.......

......I have to admit, that I've never heard anything so strange as Vista "sounding" better....anyways.

If you've managed to get your drivers working for Vista...then great!!

I personally won't be using it, as it gives me no improvements at all...not even in a 'productive' way....and certainly not in an audio sense....!

I'm sorry but.....bwaaaahahahaha....bwahhhahahaha.....:)

oh, and PS.....Don't tell us not to "bullshit" when your posting it yourself, it's fuckin moronic!

I'm giving you some Positive Rep, because I'm sure you're just playing with us....and you made me smile.
 
Sorry for bs word... but where ever I go i see people talking bad things about Vista... anyway, vista has better sounding bass and high end = richer sound... because microsoft improved sound api's or what ever, but it is improved, thats good thing :D ... and now sp2 is released and vista is better then ever. :cool: Just i need a cash to buy new key... :( or should i kidnap Bill Gates and ask him to give me new key for free, or I'll trow him pie in da' face!:D
 
Baster said:
Sorry for bs word... but where ever I go i see people talking bad things about Vista... anyway, vista has better sounding bass and high end = richer sound... because microsoft improved sound api's or what ever, but it is improved, thats good thing :D ... and now sp2 is released and vista is better then ever. :cool: Just i need a cash to buy new key... :( or should i kidnap Bill Gates and ask him to give me new key for free, or I'll trow him pie in da' face!:D
Click to expand...

you're a good sport Baster......hahaha...I'd kidnap gates!!!:)
 
If you use XP rather than Vista you'll have more RAM available for the stuff you actually want it for.

I'm pretty sure I don't need to say this, but Vista really has no bearing on sound quality whatsoever. It may be possible that there's some kind of EQ in there. But when it comes to playing back your mixes, you don't want your operating system making things 'richer sounding'. You want it to be accurate sounding. It's up to you to make your mixes sound good, not your playback setup.
 
I think there is misunderstanding in the air... Look I'll give you example:
Vista: does not color audio, just it sound more "richer" * more pleasant sounding...
XP: No mater what format, mp3, wav.. Everything sounds like I'm listening mp3 file on 96kbps... That sucks... Is there any way I can fix/improve this? Thanks in advance...
 
You need to be looking at what's WRONG with your XP setup, not what you THINK is right with your Vista set up. To say that audio is "richer" over Vista but then say you're not talking about it being colored makes no sense. "Richer" stills falls under the catagory of coloration, if it is not part of what the original should sound like, it's coloration. Sounds to me like you have a problem with the way XP may be set up, or the eguipment your'e using with it.
 
the audio is NOT richer in vista, you are either ignorant (which is totally ok) or stupid.

I used vista64 and its really great but i have a new pc with 8 gigs of RAM...

i wouldnt suggest it for older computers.
 
The OS has a LOT to do with the actual sound quality before it is passed onto either the SPDIF out or to a sound card's D/A converters. The holy grail of audio from the PC is something called bit perfection. Whether this can be perceived depends on the individual. But, by default, both the OS's used some sort of mixer that ultimately modifies the bits from a music player ever so slightly so as to mix elements of audio that would originate from Windows itself. XP's infamous kmixer apparently distorts the bits to a greater extent than should be tolerated according to any self respecting audiophile. Vista's new audio pathway, on the other, allows for a more "direct" pathway to the audio renderer thereby reducing latency and potential manipulation. Both XP and Vista are built with the capability of producing sound that is in no way of being altered, but there are only a couple players that can take advantage of the pathway, and then, only if a specific plug-in is installed. Additionally, the default pathway that most players and drivers use, more than likely will sound better than if used on XP due to the new audio architecture in Vista, provided the volume is maxed out and no other players are opened.

Bit perfection can be determined to be present if you have an AV receiver on hand that can decode either AC3 or DTS and connected via SPDIF. There are numerous "test" files out there that are essentially 5 channel decompressed AC3/DTS files in WAV format. If the receiver sees these files as true AC3/DTS files, they will be audible, and you can definitively say you've achieved "bit perfection" from your OS. In other words, you are hearing exactly what is encoded in your music files.

That's post from this forum: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21143431-Vista-audio-quality-vs-XP-audio-quality-music-playback
 
Baster said:
Both XP and Vista are built with the capability of producing sound that is in no way of being altered, but there are only a couple players that can take advantage of the pathway, and then, only if a specific plug-in is installed. Additionally, the default pathway that most players and drivers use, more than likely will sound better than if used on XP due to the new audio architecture in Vista, provided the volume is maxed out and no other players are opened.
Click to expand...

It comes down to this. Both XP and Vista are capable of producing sound that is in no way being altered. Only a couple of "players" take advantage of this? Sure, that could be true. But this post does not seem to be talking about audio recording software, it sounds like it comes from an audiophile perspective. I'm pretty sure this capability would be used by any self-respecting recording software. That would be interesting to confirm.
 
I always thought that ASIO drivers are not processed or mixed, and go "straight" to the soundcard.
Does anyone know any text about this?
 
Baster said:
XP: No mater what format, mp3, wav.. Everything sounds like I'm listening mp3 file on 96kbps
Click to expand...

If it sounds like that then you definitely have something wrong with your XP setup, because that's ridiculously bad, and I don't know of any other XP users who have that probem. I certainly don't. Maybe you've got it set to play back at a shitty sample rate or something. Check the sound and audio stuff in control panel


kubeek said:
I always thought that ASIO drivers are not processed or mixed, and go "straight" to the soundcard.
Does anyone know any text about this?
Click to expand...

Yeah I kinda though that was the point of ASIO drivers in combination with your soundcard drivers and the recording software you're using.

Nice avatar by the way. If it's from what I think it's from anyway. :D
 
Ok i did few settings and i think now sound playback is ok... but when i play music, during playback it skips few sec's which is fcking annoying... why's this happening... crappy windows... :mad::mad::mad::mad:
 
Baster said:
Ok i did few settings and i think now sound playback is ok... but when i play music, during playback it skips few sec's which is fcking annoying... why's this happening... crappy windows... :mad::mad::mad::mad:
Click to expand...


I'm sorry Baster, I'm totally lost with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top