Article: JRiver Mac vs JRiver Windows Sound Quality Comparison

[stevebythebay]

Bulls**t! I don't need a panel of people or an ABX switch to tell me that the differences I hear are real. My system is resolving enough and my experience in the pursuit of musical reality is more than plenty to be able to make decisions about "better 1?", "better 2?" It can be s/w players, upsampling filter settings, a resistor type, a capacitor type, a particular mastering of a recording, operating system versions, or whether the draperies should be open or closed a few more inches.

 

All of these constant long threads about if people can hear this or that change have become so tiring. Frankly I think those who doubt the ability of the human ear either: a) don't have a system--or room acoustic--evolved enough to resolve what are admittedly sometimes subtle changes; b) don't have enough of a connection to the feeling that well performed/recorded music can evoke; or c) are not listening at all and are just arguing based on what they think/wish should be perfect theory.

 

How do I reach the above conclusions? Easy. I just listen. With my ears, my heart, and my experience. It is not that hard--at least for me as I have been doing this my whole life. I am not an audio engineer (though I am close with many), I not a musician (though I have lived and been lifelong friends with several), I am just deeply connected to a wide range of music and to the pursuit of a truly accurate and moving recreation of it in my home.

 

I hope others here will ignore the rhetoric and listen for themselves. I have listened to most all of the software players and there is, to my ears and my mind, no denying that there are real and significant differences between them. Someday, someone will find a way to measure those differences, but now and always, I will use the only instrument that counts, my ears.

 

Peace,

ALEX

 

Yep, though I'm a bit more diplomatic about this issue. It's always good to try and use instrumentation, outside of our ear/brain combo, to help guide us. That's particularly true when tweaking our systems or trying to help us decide where to alter components in the chain. What's particularly challenging for any audiophile is that each of us is different (age, musical background, etc.), and we live in different homes with all the room issues, and have varying power companies to deal with. Some electronics are more immune to power related problems. And some amp/speaker combinations are less compatible with each other than we'd hope. Some cable/interconnect designs seem to make huge improvements in some systems, but not others.

 

All of this, and more, along with the fact that few, if any, companies who produce audiophile class components make a full range of products that we can use end-to-end. Last time I had that was in a college dorm room with a Henry Kloss (KLH) stereo system. It was a great price performer and had been designed to deliver a great sound, though at a low level output. 'Course that was so long ago, when my ears were more capable than today, though my appreciation of music was just getting going, and my bank account wouldn't allow for what I can afford today. Still listen to a wide variety of music, old and new. And I've gotten better at very quickly knowing when I'm hearing great playback from mediocre. And it often comes down to who has set up the system. Though you can't make "a silk purse out of a sow's ear" if you know what you're doing you can get the very most out of a collection of components through proper room placement and making adjustments to room reflections and other problems.

[Superdad]

Yep, though I'm a bit more diplomatic about this issue.

 

Well I had had a bit more than usual to drink when I wrote that last night. Not that I didn't mean every word.

 

 

All of this, and more, along with the fact that few, if any, companies who produce audiophile class components make a full range of products that we can use end-to-end.

 

I guess I am fortunate in that regard (take a look at my profile). I was a partner in Hovland Company since the '80s, and we produced some amazingly true-to-the-music gear which has been praised worldwide. The thing about it is, customers partnered our preamps and amps with many other brands of sources and speakers--and the musical values and qualities did still shine through. To bring it closer to this forum, I liken it to the fact that so many people here have all reported hearing the same tremendous improvement when Audirvana released 1.4.6. It was great before, then it took another leap (with the same bits!) and everyone was blown away.

[mitchco]

At the bottom of this post: Computer Audiophile - Guide to Converting Analog Vinyl To Digital Files Using Windows I prepared a subjective listening test:

------------------

"Do you feel you can hear the difference between the LP and CD rips? Do you think you can pick which one is which? I have to stack the deck a little, as starting out from dead silence would be too easy. But once the music masks the noise floor, who knows…

 

I picked the last 60 seconds of the recording starting with the bass drum ramp up and finale of the three transient hits of the bass drum. I lined up the tracks timing and matched the levels as best as possible. The vinyl rip and CDROM version alternate every 15 seconds. Meaning for the first 15 seconds, you are listening to either the vinyl or CD rip, then it switches to the other rip, every 15 seconds, swap. In fact, you will hear the digital edits for the first couple of 15 second transitions. You have a 50/50 chance on getting whether I started with the vinyl rip or the CDROM rip. You could open the file in a Digital Audio editor, but that is no guarantee to figure out which is which either. There are a few telltale signs, but the point of the exercise is to use your ears Luke and have some fun.

 

24/441 Which is which (18MB WAV)

 

Does the recording start with the vinyl rip or CDROM rip?"

------------------

It seems many in this thread, with highly resolving systems and trained ears, should easily hear the difference between a vinyl rip and CD rip of the same master. Even when I heavy handed the declick and decrackle DSP on a less than stellar vinyl disc, this should make it even easier.

 

A 50/50 chance is better odds than Vegas, so to really test those ears, lets hear some subjective terms on which one is which and why. My turn to call bullshit :-)

[acousticsguru]

At the bottom of this post: Computer Audiophile - Guide to Converting Analog Vinyl To Digital Files Using Windows I prepared a subjective listening test:

------------------

"Do you feel you can hear the difference between the LP and CD rips? Do you think you can pick which one is which? I have to stack the deck a little, as starting out from dead silence would be too easy. But once the music masks the noise floor, who knows…

 

I picked the last 60 seconds of the recording starting with the bass drum ramp up and finale of the three transient hits of the bass drum. I lined up the tracks timing and matched the levels as best as possible. The vinyl rip and CDROM version alternate every 15 seconds. Meaning for the first 15 seconds, you are listening to either the vinyl or CD rip, then it switches to the other rip, every 15 seconds, swap. In fact, you will hear the digital edits for the first couple of 15 second transitions. You have a 50/50 chance on getting whether I started with the vinyl rip or the CDROM rip. You could open the file in a Digital Audio editor, but that is no guarantee to figure out which is which either. There are a few telltale signs, but the point of the exercise is to use your ears Luke and have some fun.

 

24/441 Which is which (18MB WAV)

 

Does the recording start with the vinyl rip or CDROM rip?"

------------------

It seems many in this thread, with highly resolving systems and trained ears, should easily hear the difference between a vinyl rip and CD rip of the same master. Even when I heavy handed the declick and decrackle DSP on a less than stellar vinyl disc, this should make it even easier.

 

A 50/50 chance is better odds than Vegas, so to really test those ears, lets hear some subjective terms on which one is which and why. My turn to call bullshit :-)

 

Sorry, seem to have lost the thread of conversation: what's this got to do with our inability to measure sonic differences to the extent needed so both opposing parties w/could come to an agreement?

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[stevebythebay]

Well I had had a bit more than usual to drink when I wrote that last night. Not that I didn't mean every word.

 

 

 

 

I guess I am fortunate in that regard (take a look at my profile). I was a partner in Hovland Company since the '80s, and we produced some amazingly true-to-the-music gear which has been praised worldwide. The thing about it is, customers partnered our preamps and amps with many other brands of sources and speakers--and the musical values and qualities did still shine through. To bring it closer to this forum, I liken it to the fact that so many people here have all reported hearing the same tremendous improvement when Audirvana released 1.4.6. It was great before, then it took another leap (with the same bits!) and everyone was blown away.

 

Hovland, eh. Your preamp was what I chose from a store in Berkeley (don't know what happened to the guys who sold this to me) to replace an Audible Illusions I'd had for quite a few years (not certain, but this may have been either a Bruce Moore design or inspired by him). I paired it with my VTL-300 monoblocks (circa 1987) and used it for many years with both a pair of Mirage M1's and most recently Revel Salons (first edition). Still have both the Hovland and VTL's (boxed up), though I've recently gone to Spectral gear, and will soon replace the Revels with Wilson Audio Alexia speakers.

 

The Hovland really got to the heart of the music. So that explains why I feel you're in concert with my thoughts about music reproduction.

 

One thing that I find consistently is that for those of us who care about this sort of thing, we can discern differences among reproduction rather quickly, and appreciate the better systems. Those who are not attuned have a hard time doing the same. It's not, I think, about memory as much as it is about developing an educated "palate" and method of listening. What's really exciting is listening or viewing source material on a better system. We're drawn into the music and/or film more than ever and the system simply gets out of the way -- it neither adds or detracts in ways that call attention to itself. It's more subjectively real. I don't think we'll have a "simulation" anytime soon that will fool us completely (e.g. Star Trek holodeck style) but we strive for perfect mimicry.

[Superdad]

 

Does the recording start with the vinyl rip or CDROM rip?"

------------------

.... My turn to call bullshit :-)

 

Wow, that was too easy. You started with the vinyl. 100% certain of that.

Sorry, but IMO it was a mediocre recording.

[Superdad]

Does the recording start with the vinyl rip or CDROM rip?"

------------------

....My turn to call bullshit :-)

 

Wow, that was too easy. You started with the vinyl. 100% certain of that.

Sorry, but IMO it was a mediocre recording.

[Superdad]

(Sorry if this ends up as a triple post. Replying to a comment in an article does not seem to be working for me today.)

 

Wow, that was too easy. You started with the vinyl. 100% certain of that. Sorry, but IMO it was a mediocre recording.

 

Also, hello Steve. Glad you enjoyed an early Hovland preamp for a while. We evolved the product a great deal over the years, and the HP200-i was/is a far more accurate yet still very musically engaging preamp.

[Superdad]

Okay, I just now realized I was a jerk for perhaps spoiling the test for others. Sorry about that. Guess I should have just sent "mitchco" a private message with my conclusion. And sorry to have complained about the recording. I'm sure I would have enjoyed it more had it been more that 74 seconds long!

 

OT: Just downloaded the 24/96 of Joni Mitchell's "For the Roses"--very nice edition of an album I know well from my younger years. Always a favorite. Speaking of favorites, I think I finally found a version of Bill Evans' "Everybody Digs Bill Evans" to top the JVC XRCD2 edition: Its the "Keepnews Collection" version. I was expecting to be disappointed (so many remastering have missed the mark for me lately), but I was pleasantly surprised at the balance and impact--without loss of emotional intonation. About as close to the original vinyl as I have come with this--and of course the CD has better bass.

 

Regards.

[rom661]

I just have a question - if you do the same test with jriver versus any other playback software (e.g. windows media player or itunes), is there a difference?

 

I have the same question I actually have little or no interest in how JRivers compares with JRivers I know I prefer Amarra over Pure Music, on my system with my DAC, but I would love to see the Mac playback systems compared. And, I have to say it, I think ears are valid evaluation tools in addition to measurements.

 

Best

 

Rick

 

And I appreciate your working your ass off even it if wasn't what I was looking for...

[mitchco]

mitch, can you respond to my simple request to do the same test with other software on the same platform? for example, itunes vs jrmc.

 

Do let me know if this isn't feasible for some reason..

 

I have the same question I actually have little or no interest in how JRivers compares with JRivers I know I prefer Amarra over Pure Music, on my system with my DAC, but I would love to see the Mac playback systems compared. And, I have to say it, I think ears are valid evaluation tools in addition to measurements.

 

Best

 

Rick

 

And I appreciate your working your ass off even it if wasn't what I was looking for...

 

Hi Quest and rom661. Sure, I would be happy to run both listening and difference tests of other digital music players if there is enough interest.

 

One way to see if there is interest is to start a poll and list which music players people would like to see compared.

 

I agree ears are valid evaluation tools and I don't think I have said otherwise.

 

As far as measurements go, I believe difference testing is a powerful technique. If interested, have a read of Sonic Signatures: The Art and the Science

[Superdad]

Hi mitchco: I see you are back in the thread. On Wednesday I took your vinyl-rip versus CD test and answered promptly with regards to what I heard. Will you be confirming for all which was which? You called BS (I guess to the idea that it is easy to tell differences by ear) and I told you it took but an instant for me to determine which was the vinyl (entirely by ear).

[stevebythebay]

Hi Quest and rom661. Sure, I would be happy to run both listening and difference tests of other digital music players if there is enough interest.

 

One way to see if there is interest is to start a poll and list which music players people would like to see compared.

 

I agree ears are valid evaluation tools and I don't think I have said otherwise.

 

As far as measurements go, I believe difference testing is a powerful technique. If interested, have a read of Sonic Signatures: The Art and the Science

 

If Amarra ran natively on Windows you could at least have some assurance that the players could be tested on the same hardware with the same drivers and software layers. Today the closest you can come is using Boot Camp on a Mac. However, a CAPS3 PC just kills the Mac on overally sonic performance running Win8 / JRMC. At least that's been my experience, so far. But I've yet to get my hands on the very latest Mac technology.

[Paul R]

Now see - I have not heard a C.A.P.S. v3, but I find that a Mac running MacOS totally sounds much better than a CAPS v1 or CAPS v2 server, which I have heard. Obviously on different hardware.

 

I'm also one of those folks who imagines they hear quite a notable difference between JRMC/Windows and JRMC/MacOS on the same hardware.

 

-Paul

 

 

If Amarra ran natively on Windows you could at least have some assurance that the players could be tested on the same hardware with the same drivers and software layers. Today the closest you can come is using Boot Camp on a Mac. However, a CAPS3 PC just kills the Mac on overally sonic performance running Win8 / JRMC. At least that's been my experience, so far. But I've yet to get my hands on the very latest Mac technology.

[stevebythebay]

Now see - I have not heard a C.A.P.S. v3, but I find that a Mac running MacOS totally sounds much better than a CAPS v1 or CAPS v2 server, which I have heard. Obviously on different hardware.

 

I'm also one of those folks who imagines they hear quite a notable difference between JRMC/Windows and JRMC/MacOS on the same hardware.

 

-Paul

 

Well, I've only compared the CAPS3 Lagoon JRMC 18 vs. a Mac Mini that's a few generations older (last of the taller ones). I can only attribute this to the SotM USB adapter as the key hardware difference, but there may be many other factors both hardware and software that affect the result. It's been more than enough for me to pull my SSD drive from the Mini and use it to build a new HTPC, again on a Windows base for XBMC / AMD / Radeon platform.

[Paul R]

Actually, I meant it more to say that people choose different things to like "the best" than to cast any aspersions on one platform or the other.

 

I agree with you that the higher the quality of the PC, the higher the quality - at least potentially - of the music it can put out. The SoTA card makes a whopping big difference to me.

 

-Paul

 

 

Well, I've only compared the CAPS3 Lagoon JRMC 18 vs. a Mac Mini that's a few generations older (last of the taller ones). I can only attribute this to the SotM USB adapter as the key hardware difference, but there may be many other factors both hardware and software that affect the result. It's been more than enough for me to pull my SSD drive from the Mini and use it to build a new HTPC, again on a Windows base for XBMC / AMD / Radeon platform.

[Barnaby]

Hi. I am most impressed with the detail of this test. Thank you for running it.

 

I would like to add my voice to the request for the same test comparing various popular players on a mac. In particular I'd like to see A+ in integer mode compared with Amarra, Pure Music and A+ without integer mode.

 

I'm intrigued by the way these seem to work on different systems. I have a pretty reasonable Naim set up and it it A+ is very harsh on many recordings. I listen to a lot of classical and Amarra is my preference, although on some albums I do like A+.

 

I am aware Naim can sound quite forward to some ears so maybe its just the match with my set up. Anyway, a test with the same gear and different players would be of great interest to me if it was at all possible.

 

B

[Lowlands]

Mitch,

 

Great piece of work!

Not intending to participate in the objectivists vs subjectivists debate, I am interested in the question if human hearing as an instrument can (out)perform some of you measuring methods & tools used.....

 

Instead of trying to comprehend (or debate) if and/or why the human hearing should be able to discriminate what we cannot measure, have you checked your methods being able to measure what you CAN hear? If you make a change in your system (preferrebly in the digital domain, say a DSP setting, oversampling rate, whatever..) that you find subtle, but able to hear, will your test method also measure a difference...?

 

Hans

[mitchco]

Mitch,

 

Great piece of work!

Not intending to participate in the objectivists vs subjectivists debate, I am interested in the question if human hearing as an instrument can (out)perform some of you measuring methods & tools used.....

 

Instead of trying to comprehend (or debate) if and/or why the human hearing should be able to discriminate what we cannot measure, have you checked your methods being able to measure what you CAN hear? If you make a change in your system (preferrebly in the digital domain, say a DSP setting, oversampling rate, whatever..) that you find subtle, but able to hear, will your test method also measure a difference...?

 

Hans

 

Hi Hans, thanks. And thank you for your thoughtful questions. Yes, I have checked the differencing measurement technique to what I can and cannot hear. I did this for amplitude (i.e. adding digital eq), bit-depth reduction, and sample rate conversion. The results of these digital audio audibility tests and corresponding measurements will be posted soon.

 

Cheers, Mitch

[Superdad]

Mitch: Will you also be posting the results of the test tracks you posted regarding vinyl rip vs. CD rip?

[jay]

Hi Hans, thanks. And thank you for your thoughtful questions. Yes, I have checked the differencing measurement technique to what I can and cannot hear. I did this for amplitude (i.e. adding digital eq), bit-depth reduction, and sample rate conversion. The results of these digital audio audibility tests and corresponding measurements will be posted soon.

 

Cheers, Mitch

 

 

Mitch--

 

Not to rush you, but any updates?

[mitchco]

Mitch--

 

Not to rush you, but any updates?

 

jay, you can find the results here: Computer Audiophile - Fun With Digital Audio – Bit Perfect Audibility Testing

[star]

Hi Quest and rom661. Sure, I would be happy to run both listening and difference tests of other digital music players if there is enough interest.

 

One way to see if there is interest is to start a poll and list which music players people would like to see compared.

 

I agree ears are valid evaluation tools and I don't think I have said otherwise.

 

As far as measurements go, I believe difference testing is a powerful technique. If interested, have a read of Sonic Signatures: The Art and the Science

playing a cd through my laptop by using window media player in compare to if use jplay ,will I get better sound quality in one over the other ? in dynamic or fidelity or both ??

[DRB]

I tried JRiver MC 18 on the Mac. I just didn't dig the UI, I thought it was much too confusing for something of this nature, so I am sticking with Amarra. I'll try MC 19 when it's released to see if they improved it and then compare again.

[koblongata]

This test is flawed, you just route the digital stream out and back and save it in the software, the software recorder does not care about jitter, but in actual DA process, where the analog sound is actually forming, does.

 

A better test would be recording the actual analog output with a high res recorder.