Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: JRiver Mac vs JRiver Windows Sound Quality Comparison


Recommended Posts

Eloise, I am dumbfounded how you see my post as impolite?? I take that personally. I must have completely miscommunicated!! Mitchco did an amazing job of comparing recorded music from both systems, and explaining and diagramming not only his efforts but also his workflow and logic. They are clearly both bit perfect. But do they sound the same on different systems? Maybe I am misinterpreting the experiment, but it seems he's ABX'ing via Foobar, which doesn't run on both systems, it only compares two tracks recorded on both systems..so I simply wanted to know...via one's ears. I'm sorry this question, as legit as I can make it, seems somehow impolite...

But this thread wasn't about "how it sounds" it was about how they measure.

 

Perhaps to say it's impolite is a little far from the mark - but your comments were as wide of the mark (IMO) as when people take offence at someone asking "did you blind test this?" in (for example) a thread on how two USB cables sound different. Both types of thread are valid and Chris encourages both...

 

Eloise

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
I agree with you Steve

Who is Steve - well I assume Mercman but can I make a plee than unless people sign their name on their threads that you (meaning the wider audience not specifically aimed at Paul) use their signon name not the name that you may know is their real name but others don't... Much easier to follow that way.

 

Thanks

Eloise

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment

No, you are right. That was impolite of me. Sorry Merc.

-Paul

 

 

Who is Steve - well I assume Mercman but can I make a plee than unless people sign their name on their threads that you (meaning the wider audience not specifically aimed at Paul) use their signon name not the name that you may know is their real name but others don't... Much easier to follow that way.

 

Thanks

Eloise

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

I once invented a type of filter that, although a combination and/or derivation of existing filter types, didn't necessarily seem to make much sense except it sounded better to everyone who had a listen. This was while working on a loudspeaker project on and off for seven years. Sometime later I figured out how to reliably measure what I'd perfected in extensive listening tests, so that the next time round, I was able to finish a similar, if slightly smaller project in a mere three weeks. I won't say this taught me to trust my ears, as I'd always done that. Nor will I say it taught me to distrust measurements, as mine tend to be accurate and the results for the most part informative. Except there's no way of telling (let alone any basis of discarding) the relevance of what we cannot or will not (yet) measure, be that for lack of equipment or experience. In short, what articles on digital audio are making me wonder about is how long from now we're going to look back smiling at our own ignorance. The way things have been evolving, hopefully sooner rather than later.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Link to comment

There's one issue with this test.

 

You need to play back the test signal through one DAC to analog domain, and then record it using completely independent ADC. This way it would display the possible differences of all kinds of USB interference no matter whether it is affecting the DAC's clock or analog stages.

 

You should never use A/D/A combo device to bot play back and record if you want to check the playback quality, since it would rule out most jitter effect because both DA and AD converters are running off the same clock.

 

I've been doing some measurements of different DACs when connected to different kinds of computers and there is varying amounts of difference depending on DAC and computer combination.

 

And it is not actually at all certain than asynchronous USB would give lower jitter or less interference than good S/PDIF...

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment

There's one issue with this test.

 

You need to play back the test signal through one DAC to analog domain, and then record it using completely independent ADC. This way it would display the possible differences of all kinds of USB interference no matter whether it is affecting the DAC's clock or analog stages.

 

You should never use A/D/A combo device to bot play back and record if you want to check the playback quality, since it would rule out most jitter effect because both DA and AD converters are running off the same clock.

 

I've been doing some measurements of different DACs when connected to different kinds of computers and there is varying amounts of difference depending on DAC and computer combination.

 

And it is not actually at all certain than asynchronous USB would give lower jitter or less interference than good S/PDIF...

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment

Hi mitch. Appreciate all your work here. I'm not a JRiver user, and probably won't become one in the foreseeable future, but these tests are still interesting. A couple of general thoughts:

 

- Agreed that signal/noise -120db, or even louder, will be masked. But it's not the noise I'm trying to hear. My question would be, turning things around, to what degree will noise in an extremely low range, -115 to -120db, tend to mask very low-level details of the music? Keith Johnson has said/written that noise in this range will detract from musical realism. (Yeah, I understand we're talking loudness of the approximate volume of gnats blinking. But Keith's a smart guy.)

 

- To what degree does the inherent noise of the test equipment mask differences, particularly differences at very low levels? (This is related somewhat to what Miska is talking about.) Putting it another way, if we can run these tests with everyday computer equipment, why are companies spending tens/hundreds of thousands on finely calibrated lab and test rigs?

 

- Ken Pohlmann's knowledge is encyclopedic on digital audio. It doesn't necessarily prevent him from having a particular point of view, however. He was often cited back in the early CD player days by folks who said CD players (or any two digital systems) could not sound different from each other. (I don't have the early versions of his book to know whether such citations were necessarily completely accurate, but I can say that I don't recall reading citations to it in support of the proposition that two digital audio systems could differ in sound.)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

Audio playback on a "system" is a chain from bits to ear/brain. Keeping all other things equal, the only thing that really makes sense for a user is to vary one and only one element at a time. The vast differences between using even the most current Apple hardware with OS X versus Windows 8 and the variety of hardware it can and does support can get in the way of any analysis. Each layer of hardware, firmware, drivers, let alone which player is used comes into play. Moving from a generations old Mac Mini with Mountain Lion and Amarra to a new CAPS 3 Lagoon running JRMC 18 was a real eye opener. There is no way to do a true apples-to-apples comparison of JRMC on a Mac OS X versus Windows environment. Even running Windows on a Mac will be different as the ultimate control of Windows on a Mac is dependent on how Boot Camp or any layer affects the outcome. I don't know much about how virtual software, like Parallels or VMware interact with MacOS, but I suspect that's fraught with even more questions.

 

My own feeling is that if the objective is to garner the "best" sound from a source, then start with the simplest and cleanest line from musical bits to your ears. For me, that's now the CAPS 3 design. I'm not subject to a single vendor's hardware solution on the hardware front. And with this platform and Windows 8, and maybe a Linux/Unix solution down the road, I can hone the pipeline. The KISS principal seems best. Unless, and until, someone actually designs a better mousetrap, this is the horse I'm going to ride. Oh, and JRMC, from an end user perspective, along with JRemote, leaves Amarra in the dust. Maybe Sonic Studios will finally get off the iTunes bandwagon and do their own player. That would certainly help.

Steve Schaffer

Grimm MU1 / dCS Vivaldi Upsampler - APEX DAC - Clock / Spectral DMC-30SV preamp / Spectral Anniversary monoblocks / Wilson Audio Alexia V /  Wilson Lōkē subs / Shunyata Everest / Shunyata Omega interconnects, power cables, Ethernet / Shunyata Altaira / Uptone EtherREGEN switch / Cybershaft OP21A-D / Uptone JS2 LPS / HRS racks - Vortex footers - damping plates

Link to comment
Even running Windows on a Mac will be different as the ultimate control of Windows on a Mac is dependent on how Boot Camp or any layer affects the outcome. I don't know much about how virtual software, like Parallels or VMware interact with MacOS, but I suspect that's fraught with even more questions.

Just to clarify, BootCamp isn't really a "layer", it's just a utility to enable the Apple hardware boot an OS that isn't Mac OS X. Once booted there are no more "layers" than running Windows on any other hardware.

 

Parallels / VMWare / etc on the other hand do put another layer between the OS and the hardware...

 

Eloise

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
Just to clarify, BootCamp isn't really a "layer", it's just a utility to enable the Apple hardware boot an OS that isn't Mac OS X. Once booted there are no more "layers" than running Windows on any other hardware.

 

Parallels / VMWare / etc on the other hand do put another layer between the OS and the hardware...

 

Eloise

 

Well that's interesting. I was under the distinct impression that Apple provides drivers for installation of Windows versions on its platform. Though it may be quite possible, for instance, to install Windows 8 without recourse to Apple's own drivers, it's not a wise, or possibly, supported environment.

 

Not an official source but: No support? No problem! Installing Windows 8 on a Mac with Boot Camp | Ars Technica

 

And then there's Apple support itself: Boot Camp: Frequently asked questions about installing Windows 8

 

So, although I don't disagree that Boot Camp is a switch, it seems to rely on having a uniquely capable Windows OS for a full working environment -- and one that Apple supports. This is as I'd expect.

Steve Schaffer

Grimm MU1 / dCS Vivaldi Upsampler - APEX DAC - Clock / Spectral DMC-30SV preamp / Spectral Anniversary monoblocks / Wilson Audio Alexia V /  Wilson Lōkē subs / Shunyata Everest / Shunyata Omega interconnects, power cables, Ethernet / Shunyata Altaira / Uptone EtherREGEN switch / Cybershaft OP21A-D / Uptone JS2 LPS / HRS racks - Vortex footers - damping plates

Link to comment

No, I think you are mixing up the installation and the running. Apple computers use an EFI boot bios, not well supported by Windows. There is a EFI boot loader that starts the windows Boot process, but that's it.

 

Most of the "drivers" Apple provides are simply to enable all the hardware in each computer. Ethernet drivers, video drivers, sound drivers, etc. Nothing at all different from what any other PC provider, IBM, Dell, HP. Samsung, etc. provide.

 

The Apple "specific" drivers are a control panel that allows you to select the boot drive, and a driver that allows you to read HFS partitions. Nothing more. And Windows runs fine without them installed.

 

-Paul

 

 

Well that's interesting. I was under the distinct impression that Apple provides drivers for installation of Windows versions on its platform. Though it may be quite possible, for instance, to install Windows 8 without recourse to Apple's own drivers, it's not a wise, or possibly, supported environment.

 

Not an official source but: No support? No problem! Installing Windows 8 on a Mac with Boot Camp | Ars Technica

 

And then there's Apple support itself: Boot Camp: Frequently asked questions about installing Windows 8

 

So, although I don't disagree that Boot Camp is a switch, it seems to rely on having a uniquely capable Windows OS for a full working environment -- and one that Apple supports. This is as I'd expect.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
No, I think you are mixing up the installation and the running. Apple computers use an EFI boot bios, not well supported by Windows. There is a EFI boot loader that starts the windows Boot process, but that's it.

 

Most of the "drivers" Apple provides are simply to enable all the hardware in each computer. Ethernet drivers, video drivers, sound drivers, etc. Nothing at all different from what any other PC provider, IBM, Dell, HP. Samsung, etc. provide.

 

The Apple "specific" drivers are a control panel that allows you to select the boot drive, and a driver that allows you to read HFS partitions. Nothing more. And Windows runs fine without them installed.

 

-Paul

 

Paul has it right. Apple is just providing the drivers for their hardware. And it works very well.

Steve Plaskin

Link to comment

Chris, Mitch,

 

First I think this is totally premature since the MAC version is in beta.

 

Second you guys cannot declare things being the same this way!! believe me I have already been bitten in the A*** for saying that on a number of occasions.

 

~~~~~~~~

 

Ok so 2 years I used the following test to work out some things about my view on USB cables and such. My lab is just freaken full to the hilt with expensive testing equipment.

 

MacBook Pro 15 8G/256G SSD and bootcamp WIN7/OSX 10.6.8, we will call this computer.

 

Computer<==USB Protocol Analyzer===Cable tested===>WaveLink HS USB to SPDIF converter-----SPDIF----->Prism dScope III or AP

 

Tektronix scope looking at the EYE pattern of the USB @ the WaveLink HS. Also I have an I2S module in the scope which can decode the digital portion which was also streamed out to test points.

 

So I could look at the data file (PCM flat, AIFF or WAV using 0xED great little app for OSX), I could look at the data on the USB Protocol Analyzer and also look at the time stamps of each packet sent to the WaveLink HS. I could look at the I2S data and the SPDIF data. I could look at USB errors, but there usually wasn't any except on some cables which will remain quiet. I could look to see if the SPDIF jitter changed I could all this in Windows and OSX and I spent weeks looking at this and nothing... nothing at all between iTunes, Pure Music, Audirvana, Decibel, Fideleo, J River and Foobar. Some apps not mentioned at the time were not bit true and of course setting up iTunes to be bit true is a pain but really not that hard.

 

So with that said I placed a Coscant and Crimson into the same picture but this time also listened. Each applications sounded different, each had their own particular sound. As a long time drummer and guitarist to me using tracks I know or was involved in the recording process is best for me to judge. Really good vibe tracks is a dead giveaway as well as thick open picking on a well mic-ed acoustic guitar piece.

 

I told all this to John Atkinson and Charlie Hansen of Ayre and they both agreed with me but said that maybe your time is better served making and designing stuff and maybe we are not looking at all the variables right now.

 

So when I read this review it makes me think of how basic of testing was used here to reach a conclusion which is surely wrong.

 

I think the MAC sounds better than the PC version when I use bootcamp in the same machine.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

Link to comment

I applaud the obvious effort and work expended to produce the comparisons.

 

However, when at the end of the article, a similar comparison pronounced no delta between the USB cables tested (i.e., both are bit perfect), I question the efficacy, of the Software comparison -- i.e., its use to me; simply because in over 40-years, I have never purchased an audio component based on its measurements. While in the early years, I did pay attention to test results, presently, I haven't a clue how the components in my rig measure.

 

I tend to listen to music, not measurements and have learned that the equipment that is pleasing to my ears and sensibilities, is also pleasing in my audio room.

 

As flawed as it is, I use forums such as this to obtain other's subjective opinions. I've found that when enough samples are obtained (i.e., post's are read), a picture about a component begins to appear, or a conclusion about an individual's taste and conclusions begins to form. Using these findings, I have sought out and purchased the equipment discussed, with superb results.

 

While I appreciate the measurement based comparison performed, and certainly don't contest the results, I'm at a loss as to how to personally use it for software or cable purchasing decisions.

-Mike

Link to comment

I applaud the obvious effort and work expended to produce the comparisons.

 

However, when at the end of the article, a similar comparison pronounced no delta between the USB cables tested (i.e., both are bit perfect), I question the efficacy, of the Software comparison -- i.e., its use to me; simply because in over 40-years, I have never purchased an audio component based on its measurements. While in the early years, I did pay attention to test results, presently, I haven't a clue how the components in my rig measure.

 

I tend to listen to music, not measurements and have learned that the equipment that is pleasing to my ears and sensibilities, is also pleasing in my audio room.

 

As flawed as it is, I use forums such as this to obtain other's subjective opinions. I've found that when enough samples are obtained (i.e., post's are read), a picture about a component begins to appear, or a conclusion about an individual's taste and conclusions begins to form. Using these findings, I have sought out and purchased the equipment discussed, with superb results.

 

While I appreciate the measurement based comparison performed, and certainly don't contest the results, I'm at a loss as to how to personally use it for software or cable purchasing decisions.

-Mike

Link to comment
Chris, Mitch,

 

First I think this is totally premature since the MAC version is in beta.

 

Second you guys cannot declare things being the same this way!! believe me I have already been bitten in the A*** for saying that

 

So when I read this review it makes me think of how basic of testing was used here to reach a conclusion which is surely wrong.

 

I think the MAC sounds better than the PC version when I use bootcamp in the same machine.

 

Thanks,

Gordon

 

Why is the conclusion wrong? If You think one sounds better, that's ok.....but it's a subjective opinion where this is based on measurements. Since you have the gear on hand and the lab to perform the required testing, maybe you might impart some enlightenment on what to actually measure to show these readily audible differences in the digital realm?

Link to comment

Hi Gordon - Every version of this article was run by Matt at JRiver before publication to make sure the company had no issues with Mitch's methods and use of an Alpha version of JRMC.

 

We have to use the testing methodology available to us not the methodology we wish we're invented. I completely get what you're saying but this article simply provides a limited set of facts readers can use or set aside.

 

The article is just a snippet of objective information not meant to be the final answer on anything.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

To put is simple, this test is complicated way to prove that both players can do bit-perfect playback...

 

That's not going to tell much about how it sounds or how the analog output is going to look like.

 

Usually just measuring DAC analog output with spectrum analyzer while playing back dithered 24-bit silence is enough to show differences between two source computers. I'm usually using 500 kHz measurement bandwidth and a 1M point averaged FFT for that and then zoom & pan the output plot to inspect the noise floor.

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
Usually just measuring DAC analog output with spectrum analyzer while playing back dithered 24-bit silence is enough to show differences between two source computers. I'm usually using 500 kHz measurement bandwidth and a 1M point averaged FFT for that and then zoom & pan the output plot to inspect the noise floor.

 

Putting this together with Gordon's impression that the Mac version of JRiver sounds better to him than the Windows version on Boot Camp on the same computer - Would you happen to have a Mac to test with, Miska? I have no idea whether it would be at all responsible for any audible difference, but I wonder whether your measurement described above would show any difference between the Mac hardware working with OS X drivers, and working with Windows drivers.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

Hi Chris- the conclusion I read in the article was that JRMC sounds exactly the same under MacOS and under Windows. Implied was anyone hearing any difference was just imagining it, with proof of that being the test results and explained by the reference material quoted.

 

Many folks disagree with that conclusion, and the implications implied, including me. But I am sure just as many agree with them. This is a very tricky subject, with a history going back to "all amps that measure the same sound the same" type thinking.

 

In the meantime, enjoy the same JRiver Media Center sound quality whether on PC or Mac.

 

Paul

 

 

Hi Gordon - Every version of this article was run by Matt at JRiver before publication to make sure the company had no issues with Mitch's methods and use of an Alpha version of JRMC.

 

We have to use the testing methodology available to us not the methodology we wish we're invented. I completely get what you're saying but this article simply provides a limited set of facts readers can use or set aside.

 

The article is just a snippet of objective information not meant to be the final answer on anything.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
But this thread wasn't about "how it sounds" it was about how they measure.

 

 

Eloise

 

The darn (polite enough?) title says "sound quality comparison"! Why are you making my comments out to be some sort of whacked left field perspective? I am not alone here. I am not questioning his efforts or techniques (in fact they are models for other articles), just asking the follow-up..how did they sound on the two platforms!!!

 

I could take two Chevy Cleveland 500 engines, built in different shifts for different car mfgers, and put them on a test bench and measure that they have the same horsepower, torque, etc...but I'd think they would perform quite differently if dropped into say, a Corvette vs a Mack truck. That's all I'm asking.

Link to comment
The darn (polite enough?) title says "sound quality comparison"! Why are you making my comments out to be some sort of whacked left field perspective? I am not alone here. I am not questioning his efforts or techniques (in fact they are models for other articles), just asking the follow-up..how did they sound on the two platforms!!!

 

I could take two Chevy Cleveland 500 engines, built in different shifts for different car mfgers, and put them on a test bench and measure that they have the same horsepower, torque, etc...but I'd think they would perform quite differently if dropped into say, a Corvette vs a Mack truck. That's all I'm asking.

Oh well... you can think that if you like...

 

To me the article was clearly an objective view (i.e. based on measurements only); yet it's okay for the subjectives to come in and say thats rubbish. Yet if an objective view is posted on a subjective thread then the objective person is belittled and called disruptive (or similar). Perhaps to Mitchco (and I don't want to put words into his mouth) they do sound the same as the measurments would indicate...

 

I thought the rules were meant to work both ways but obviously not!

 

As for the stupid automotive analogies - they wouldn't measure the same with different shifts...

 

Eloise

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment

I always enjoy this type of stuff. Engineers with all the latest test gear seem to think that just because you measure something you can either "prove" differences or not. Put a human being into the mix who sits and listens and ... bingo - where no difference is "measured" -- a difference is heard. And often double blind testing bears this out in a consistent manner. So, that also deflates the notion that if you cannot measure it, it simply doesn't exist. Science would die on the vine if that were true. Gotta' love it...the human ear/brain is capable of much more than merely trying to measure. Ah, and then there's "perfect sound forever!".

Steve Schaffer

Grimm MU1 / dCS Vivaldi Upsampler - APEX DAC - Clock / Spectral DMC-30SV preamp / Spectral Anniversary monoblocks / Wilson Audio Alexia V /  Wilson Lōkē subs / Shunyata Everest / Shunyata Omega interconnects, power cables, Ethernet / Shunyata Altaira / Uptone EtherREGEN switch / Cybershaft OP21A-D / Uptone JS2 LPS / HRS racks - Vortex footers - damping plates

Link to comment

As for the stupid automotive analogies - they wouldn't measure the same with different shifts...

 

Eloise

 

??Huh? A shift is an 8 hour work schedule. The folks on second shift better darn well build the same spec'd engine or they'll lose their jobs. My point was that two of the same engine (i.e JRIVER) can be built to the same spec for different platforms (OSX or Windows) but once dropped into that platform will perform differently, possibly. I'm allowed to ask...really! I haven't broken any rules nor have I called anyone's (especially Mitch's) ideas stupid or even wrong.

 

I'm not sure how I've deserved these belittling comments from you; I always thought you were reasonable.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...