Bug Head Player

[jls001]

Has anyone tried versions after 6.88?

I'm still running 6.88.

Anyone tried playing around with the five "+" buttons? I once tried using all five and the bass became to much for my liking, but realized it's a good way of EQ-ing the bass response to one's liking.

6.97 is out, BTW.

 

[jmascreen]

I am using 6.95. Its not bad. Even I use the 5 +

 

[Rajiv]

Hi,

I missed most of the versions after 6.88. I tried 6.96 and liked it but kept returning to 6.88. 6.88 is easier to listen to,6.96 had a little edginess to it in my system.

Downloaded 6.97 and listened to it for a while. Liking what I am hearing. Will need to listen more.

Most versions of this superb player are very good and it finally boils down to personal preference and system compatibility. It is like trying out a new DAC with every new version.

I too use the 5+ setting.

Regards
Rajiv

 

[jls001]

Hope the Bugheads are still keeping the faith

I am, running version 7.23.

BTW, for those keen on remotely controlling their Bughead PC, I just tried the Splashtop remote from an Android tablet to control the Windows Server 2012 R2 server. It works without stuttering music playback.

Only drawbacks is fitting a PC screen on a smallish tablet screen (7 inch) reduces the sizes of icons so selecting/clicking a file or folder is fiddly. It ought to work much better on a larger tablet.

The second issue is I start skipping through tracks without listening through the full album This is exactly the bane of having a remote controller for your CD player or being able to remotely change tracks that are playing on your computer.

 

[jls001]

Version 7.26 Test 1: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ah0hXQ9iXrGVjiVvwszO8K0t4Foq

Probably the best sounding version to date. Download it while it's still available.

To add: 7.27 is also available from the usual Bughead page.

 

[jmascreen]

Version 7.26 Test 1: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ah0hXQ9iXrGVjiVvwszO8K0t4Foq

Probably the best sounding version to date. Download it while it's still available.

To add: 7.27 is also available from the usual Bughead page.

his item might not exist or is no longer available
This item might have been deleted, expired or you might not have permission to view it. Contact the owner of this item for more information.

 

[jls001]

Try 7.27 then.

 

[dheerajin]

Running 7.23, crystal clear highs, good bass and sweet mid range. Yet to try 7.27.
My settings are simple, stardust4X, galaxy35 , MMX+2, No Upsampling.

 

[jls001]

Try 7.27. I think it's much better than 7.23.

Also when you have time, make a virtual drive of about 2 GB (name it something like Z: ) on your RAM and copy the BH files to that drive and run it from there. There are free programs to create such drives. I think it improves the sound (hope it's not bias confirmation on my part).

Also, it is pleasant to note that initial startup is much faster on recent versions. Stopping a track that's playing is also now much faster, as is the time for a track to start playing from the time one presses Play, or the time it takes to play on Skip. There are lots of improvements in the efficiency of the code though the player icon is messed up on my computer (doesn't affect playback).

 

[keith_correa]

Also when you have time, make a virtual drive of about 2 GB (name it something like Z: ) on your RAM and copy the BH files to that drive and run it from there. There are free programs to create such drives. I think it improves the sound (hope it's not bias confirmation on my part).

2 GB? Why is so much space needed? Works fine with ~125 MB of RAM Disk space.

 

[rikhav]

2 GB? Why is so much space needed? Works fine with ~125 MB of RAM Disk space.

Maybe to store atleast 10 to 15 tracks in one go

Just a guess

 

[jls001]

2 GB? Why is so much space needed? Works fine with ~125 MB of RAM Disk space.

Audiophile excess

1 GB also works fine.

 

[Nikhil]

Is it still Win10 only? I am still running Win7 on my Audio PC.

 

[jls001]

Give it a shot. Lots of users are still on Win 7 and 8 or Win Server 2012, though the author is developing for Win 10.

You may also like to consider upgrading to Win 10. In this instance, I think it's worth the trouble.

 

[dheerajin]

Running version 7.27. Good overall improvement. Will try running it by creating 2GB space in RAM. When running infiniity blade my memory usage normally remains within 2GB to 2.5 GB. So I think 3 GB space is required in RAM for BH folder.

 

[keith_correa]

When you create a RAM Disk, the amount of RAM reserved for the virtual disk is reserved exclusively for the disk and no application can use that amount of RAM as RAM. It has got nothing to do with the amount of memory the application uses while loaded/running. So, if you have 2 GB of RAM free and BH uses 1 GB on load/playing and you reserve 500 MB for the RAM disk, the RAM usage when BH is loaded/playing will be 1 GB + 500 MB. The 500 MB that is used is treated as a HDD and BH [or any other application] is not allowed to use that as Random Access Memory.

If you want to keep the full BH player folder in a RAM Disk and load BH from that RAM Disk allocate around 125 MB of RAM for the RAM Disk [the BH player folder takes ~88 MB of space]. More than that is wasted RAM, IMO.

Edit: Some RAM Disk creation programs allow imaging and mounting/unmounting the RAM disk and it's image automatically between reboot's so if you find the RAM Disk beneficial maybe you can think of creating a persistent RAM Disk. That way you eliminate the hassle of copying the BH folder each time.

 

[jls001]

Good suggestion :thumbsup:

I'll reduce the size of my virtual drive to about 200 MB.

 

[Nikhil]

Give it a shot. Lots of users are still on Win 7 and 8 or Win Server 2012, though the author is developing for Win 10.

You may also like to consider upgrading to Win 10. In this instance, I think it's worth the trouble.

No luck. Will have to wait till I upgrade to Win 10.

 

[jmascreen]

Can you suggest any good program for RAM Disk?

When you create a RAM Disk, the amount of RAM reserved for the virtual disk is reserved exclusively for the disk and no application can use that amount of RAM as RAM. It has got nothing to do with the amount of memory the application uses while loaded/running. So, if you have 2 GB of RAM free and BH uses 1 GB on load/playing and you reserve 500 MB for the RAM disk, the RAM usage when BH is loaded/playing will be 1 GB + 500 MB. The 500 MB that is used is treated as a HDD and BH [or any other application] is not allowed to use that as Random Access Memory.

If you want to keep the full BH player folder in a RAM Disk and load BH from that RAM Disk allocate around 125 MB of RAM for the RAM Disk [the BH player folder takes ~88 MB of space]. More than that is wasted RAM, IMO.

Edit: Some RAM Disk creation programs allow imaging and mounting/unmounting the RAM disk and it's image automatically between reboot's so if you find the RAM Disk beneficial maybe you can think of creating a persistent RAM Disk. That way you eliminate the hassle of copying the BH folder each time.

 

[keith_correa]

Can you suggest any good program for RAM Disk?

Much freeware out there. Google is your friend.