|
Post by covenant on Apr 1, 2013 8:52:03 GMT
I have tried a few like JRiver and JPlay but don't think the quality is any better than Foobar. What is your experience?
|
|
|
Post by gazjam on Apr 1, 2013 11:55:09 GMT
Hi Jerry, In my experience Jriver is best for windows playback. I tried it with Jplay and found it better without.
The Jriver guys don't recommend it.
Used Foobar with ASIO for a long time, until I stumbled across Jriver.
|
|
|
Post by covenant on Apr 1, 2013 12:53:25 GMT
Well your the expert now Gaz with your servers! Seriously though, it is probably better when running W7 or 8. I am just using XP.
|
|
Javier
Administrator
Digital bytes
Posts: 986
|
Post by Javier on Apr 1, 2013 17:10:56 GMT
JRiver "may" have some potential technical advantage as it processes internally at 64bit floating point level whereas Foobar only does at 32bit floating point but that only applies IF any processing is carried by its internal engine. When both are set for bitperfect output they should sound exactly identical as Matt and Jim from JRiver themselves have said a few times in different places. If digital volume, resampling or what have you is applied then JRiver could be the winner. I've also found that JRiver non DS outputs like ASIO or WASAPI modes are more reliable than Foobar's own.
|
|
Javier
Administrator
Digital bytes
Posts: 986
|
Post by Javier on Apr 1, 2013 18:21:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by clausdk on Apr 1, 2013 18:41:51 GMT
I have never liked foobar, I had it for a week many years ago nad decided it was not for me..
I have been using Musicbee for about ½ a year or so, it is a nice player, but I got some troubles when playing ALAC files, if that could get better It would be perfect..
I have read somwhere that all this wasabi, asio etc. is a thing of the past, if people are using newer OS than XP, that is...
BTW I keep returning too Itunes, as I honestly can not hear any difference between any of the players out there..
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Apr 1, 2013 19:18:48 GMT
Trouble with Itunes Claus is once you get a lot of files on it, it runs SO slow. It regularly takes my computer over with updates and is slow to load.
It's also very reliant on tags and if you get them wrong, your music goes awol. It resides somewhere you don't necessarily want it.
I find it's a bit invasive on the computer.
|
|
|
Post by clausdk on Apr 1, 2013 19:46:18 GMT
You just need a more powerfull computer, I got 12.000 songs in my library and it runs smooth without any problems..
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Apr 1, 2013 20:46:26 GMT
On my laptop, there are now 18,000 songs and much more on a drive that I don't use with it!! I think I'm an old fashioned drag n' drop guy.
|
|
Javier
Administrator
Digital bytes
Posts: 986
|
Post by Javier on Apr 1, 2013 21:06:03 GMT
I have never liked foobar, I had it for a week many years ago nad decided it was not for me.. Hi Claus Did you try to configure it properly? or is it just you didn't like the aesthetics? I have been using Musicbee for about ½ a year or so, it is a nice player, but I got some troubles when playing ALAC files, if that could get better It would be perfect.. Indeed a very nice player, not as flexible and powerful as Foobar but certainly much easier to get running I have read somwhere that all this wasabi, asio etc. is a thing of the past, if people are using newer OS than XP, that is... How so? Vista, W7 and W8 all still use Direct Sound just as XP did, no difference whatsover. Direct Sound does not allow for bit perfect except for material in the same sample rate as the system's default. If you want each file to be palyed at its native sample rate and bit depth there is no alternative but Kernel Streaming or ASIO in XP and WASAPI or ASIO in W7 and W8. BTW I keep returning too Itunes, as I honestly can not hear any difference between any of the players out there.. If you have them all setup to use their default Direct Sound configuration then it is abolutely correct for them to sound the same, also you'll get the same sound from any type of file as they'll all get resampled to whatever you have as system default. If it is the usual 16/48 then you'll forfait the possibility of any potential SQ higher bit depths or sample rates may bring. If you only use 16/44.1 then it is fine though I suggest you set system default to 16/44.1 and avoid Windows resampling algorithms, they are a long shot form being the best. Cheers PS. JRiver is much, much better at importing and cataloguing files than iTunes, no need for a more powerful computer, just better code. Then there is the question of additional unnecesary software installed by iTunes,,.
|
|
|
Post by clausdk on Apr 1, 2013 21:27:59 GMT
Forbar is simply to ugly and complicated to set up, I like my stuff to work from the get, do not want to spends hours looking for skins, downloading plugins etc. etc. I read about the win vista and win 7 new sound engine here blog.szynalski.com/2009/11/17/an-audiophiles-look-at-the-audio-stack-in-windows-vista-and-7/I tried Jriver and it is a nice player, but I like my player set on random at all times and when I choose a song in Jriver it stops playing random and plays the album from which I have chosen the song.. If that could be changed I would have no problems using Jriver..
|
|
Javier
Administrator
Digital bytes
Posts: 986
|
Post by Javier on Apr 1, 2013 22:15:12 GMT
When it comes to aesthetics personal taste... horses for courses. Some love plenty of bells 'n whistles with disc covers, scrolling lyrics, vu meters or spectrographs, link to the artist's biography on wikipedia and whatnot. Others like simple, quick and efficient. Another member has asked for a section dedicated to interface configuring and if I find the time I'll try to write it.
It is true that to get the most out of Foobar some effort is required but following the Foobar guide at our blog I'm sure you can get there in lest than 1hr and it'll be quite rewarding. Though if you are happy with iTunes no need to change.
In the link you mentioned it says exactly the same as I wrote, i.e. Windows resamples everything to the system's default and does it with a rather mediocre algorithm. As to increasing and decreasing bit depth for volume processing, it is the same as Foobar does but I trust its dithering or truncating methods far more than I do Microsoft's.
I'm no expert in JRiver but I think what you want can be done with play lists. If you think Foobar is complicated then JRiver is not for you, the configuration options it offers are just mind boggling, it is so flexible and powerful it is almost insane.
|
|
|
Post by clausdk on Apr 1, 2013 22:48:27 GMT
I will try foobar once more, just to see if I can be helped. Does it has the possebility to create Smartlists like Itunes, jriver, musicbee and all the others ??
|
|
Javier
Administrator
Digital bytes
Posts: 986
|
Post by Javier on Apr 1, 2013 23:09:12 GMT
I you finally decide to give it second chance and need any help you just nned to ask There are quite a few play list plugins for Foobar and I believe it can do the same as iTunes but TBH I don't use play list, I have all my music in well named and structured folders and have setup my Foobar with a pane that looks like Windows Explorer so I can access the artist/album I want to listen to very quickly. BTW, I'm not a Foobar fanboy though I may sound like one. I regularly use all the players mentioned a few posts back and some others too (JRiver, HQPlayer, etc.) even in Linux like Amarok, DeadBeef or MPD server plus GMPC client. Each player has its strong points and its weaknesses. All good fun and instructional.
|
|