I have no comment on JPlay as I have never heard it. However, as Gordon says, it is not a scam. It is good value if it delivers. There has clearly been a massive investment in developing it. The fact that you don't like it is fine, but don't write it off on that basis, as many others swear by it and pay for it willingly.jesuscheung wrote:last time i heard ks vs wasapi, ks has more quantity in bass and seems smoother. that's was it.nige2000 wrote: ...
ks probably needs alot of mucking out,
think were close to a really good version of avx mqn
improvement is infinite
were going to have to stop somewhere
make a perfect wasapi mqn first...
They have at least tried more adventourous technical solutions, and may not have succeeded yet.
I think you are (indirectly and unintentionally) making the same point as I am. Personally, I think we are close and Gordon has said so several times in recent versions. When we have a (close to) perfect WASAPI version, the lessons learnt in structuring the render loop will be very helpful in moving forward with say KS.
Those who followed Gordon with JLP found definitely that it running as a service was beneficial to SQ, no doubt about that. Also, with JLP we found that KS was a great benefit.
Noone has mentioned DMA, which again has the potential to be very beneficial. After all, at the end of the day, MQn is moving samples through to RAM and out again involving CPU cycles. If the CPU could effectively be removed from the equation, or at least minimised in its involvement, it seems very likely to be beneficial.
Gordon can of course tell us if I am barking up the wrong tree or just plain barking more likely!
Jonathan