To my ears the ASIO is still easily the better sound because the alternative exaggerates high frequencies and merges what could be called metallic sounds into just one frequency. This is particularly noticeable with percussion and each part of a drum kit sounds the same and cymbals seem to die at the same rate with only one colour. In addition bass is more distinct with better instrument colour/tone.

Can anyone explain why this might be and in particular expand on what the M2Tech "exclusive" device concept is when chosen as output? Because the M2Tech is not readily available now I am also considering a CYP AU-D6-384 device which appears to have a similar function.

Any advice or comments very welcome

Both wasapi exclusive and ASIO pass unaltered audio directly from the source file to the audio device, bypassing the Windows Mixer.  Unless you are inadvertently inserting some DSP effect into one of the choices (EQ, fade, filters) they will both sound exactly the same.  The difference in "colour" and bass you mention are from a placebo effect or not playing the output at the same audio level.  Of course the output device may be altering the sound as well.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,3974.0.html#post_tos8

Foobar: I would need a time-critical thread priority setting. (Like ASIO plugin)
No "only" 1-7.

Sorry I should have been clearer. I am not comparing the wasapi exclusive mode but the one labelled "speakers (HiFace2) exclusive" in the output device list.

it sounds better this way—closer to the magic of LPs

After all, not everyone has a high-resolution system that allows them to hear the differences.

A high-quality LP player with high-quality records (both are necessary) sounds better than a CD—or any format equivalent to a CD.

As long as the master is good. However, PCM 192 kHz/24-bit is sufficient for everything. Let me repeat that—sufficient for everything. With a good remaster.

A digital player will never provide the exact experience of an LP, but a good digital player can get closer to the advantages found in LPs or even master tapes. And I’m only talking about the advantages.

You don’t have to agree with me, and you don’t have to use the player the way I do (Time Critical, Realtime Priority, memory-based playback, etc.), but regardless, I and many others need this—while also respecting that many others do not.

Dear Case,

You are wrong. Time-critical thread priority is absolutely necessary, just like in the ASIO plugin, where it works. Quite simply, it sounds better this way—closer to the magic of LPs. I am an audio diyer, so I know what I'm talking about. I accept that others may not hear the difference, but I know it can be done. It's quite frustrating to have to set this manually all the time—for every piece of music...

I never would have thought that we live in such different worlds, but I have to add that everyone has their own system—and they use it the way they like or based on their experience. However, dismissing someone else’s experience as nonsense isn’t exactly constructive. Because I’ll have my own opinion about that.

Foobar2000 is a high-end player, but I find one major feature missing—the optional time-critical setting for thread management. This is how I use it now.

But to wrap things up, let me ask you a question, since you seem so sure that you’re right: Why do so many people prefer AP Linux, and why does it sound better? Even though it’s less convenient?

Why do so many people prefer AP Linux, and why does it sound better?

The thing is, theory and practice don’t always align. And this only becomes clear when something is tested and actually listened to.

I requested a very important setting option, but that doesn’t mean everyone has to use it that way. There is no system that suits everyone equally. There are systems that work for one community of enthusiasts but not for another. And even within those communities, there are debates and disagreements.

I’ve tried Bitsum and similar programs—they don’t work here. Because we’re talking about thread priority, which is not the same as simply setting a program to real-time priority. That’s already there, and it’s automatic—just like the high I/O priority. If these programs could handle thread priority properly, I wouldn’t be bringing this up.

There’s a range from 1 to 7—I’ve experimented with MMCSS Audio and Pro Audio, but this should be improved optionally so that the time-critical setting is accessible.

I’m not trying to change anyone’s worldview or force my preferences on others—and they shouldn’t do that to me either.

But while we're at it—does this mean ASIO's role should also be questioned? Why is it better than, say, Kernel Streaming? Because for me, Kernel Streaming used to sound much better. So does that mean anyone using ASIO is dumb?

So this is where we are. I won’t dive into AP Linux here, but if you're interested, check out what people are saying about it online. I only brought it up because for some people, it simply sounds better, even though theoretically, there shouldn’t be any difference.

That said, I use Foobar with time-critical thread settings, but it’s frustrating to keep adjusting it all the time. And no, this is not the same as just setting it to real-time in Task Manager.

How am I supposed to provide proof of anything over the internet? This is something you experience in person—listening to different systems and evaluating them.

The setting I’m asking for is available in System Informer, but it can’t be saved because it applies to threads—which is exactly why I brought this up on this forum.

If you have a high-resolution headphone and set time-critical priority for the threads that require continuous CPU priority, you’ll hear the difference—at least on Windows 11 24H2.