Best player software

[nzlowie]

Hi guys, I've tried HQPlayer and thought it was pretty good. Before I purchase this software I wanted to see what you guys think, is it the best player software? I've also tried Jplay but didn't think it was much better than Foobar.

 

So..... what do you guys think?

 

Cheers

 

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

[lotriwer]

HQPlayer/Roon combination for me.

[One and a half]

Join the discussion? So far 250+ pages.

[k6davis]

HQPlayer/Roon combination for me.

 

+1

[Norton]

WTFplay is free and has the best sound I've heard to date. No gui (keyboard based) , no network, no art or meta data so clearly not for everyone.

[amatistringgerro]

Personally, I like Kodi, better sound quality IMHO and it's free!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paul R]

LOL! I think the "best player" is as individual as what clothes you choose to wear. In fact, you could probably map preferences against clothes styles...

 

Jeans, tee-shirts, and sneakers kind of guy?

One of the dozen or so top quality Mac software packages might be a good fit. Choose one to fit your budget.

 

Designer jeans and Tony Lamas?

HQPlayer might be the best fit.

 

Business casual?

J. River Media Center of course.

 

Shirt, slacks, no pocket protector?

A Sonos person if cheap, a real my Roon otherwise...

 

$3000 suit?

Soolos.

 

Buys $3000 suits on sale for $189?

Roon with HQPlayer.

 

Nerd ware with pocket protector?

Any of the players with inappropriate name, or Linux

 

Hipster?

Whatever tech Mom and Dad dislike but you can get them to pay for. (Mom and Dad ain't no dummies- that 50 year old Lloyds all in one stereo, with AM/FM, record player, and 8-track tape unit with two swivel out speakers is cool again! And cheap!)

 

(Grin) Obviously, I am joking a bit, but the truth is, the best sounding player is the one you like the sound of the most. You won't go wrong with any of the better players, but you will almost certainly like one more than the others. And which one you like the most will likely change over time too.

 

The sonic differences in playback between the different packages are minescule at best, until you start having then upsample or transcode music on the fly. Then, which package does what and which one does what better do start to make a difference. But in all honesty, that preference is far more personal choice than sonic differences.

 

If you pick a package that lets you manage your music library on a big honking server with a lot of CPU power and disk space, but also lets you play back the music on weeny little power sipping remote units over a wireless network, a lot of folks - including me - think you have the best of both worlds, and can achieve extraordinary sound without budget busting gymnastics.

[nzlowie]

Cheers Paul. What an awesome reply! I understand what you're saying...... yes they do have different sounds but to my ears HQPlayer sounds pretty good so might just stick with it.

 

Thanks

 

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

[Iain]

Hi guys, I've tried HQPlayer and thought it was pretty good. Before I purchase this software I wanted to see what you guys think, is it the best player software? I've also tried Jplay but didn't think it was much better than Foobar.

 

So..... what do you guys think?

 

Cheers

 

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

What's the issue with Foobar2000?

 

I have it and HQPlayer as well, and find Foobar2000 sounds better and is more flexible than any other player available.

 

Frankly, it sounds as though you don't have Foobar2000 configured correctly. Do you have all the plug-ins you require installed?

[bogi]

I know both Foobar2000 and HQPlayer in detail. For my ears HQPlayer sounds clearly better and it is not caused by the fact that I would not know how to configure foobar2000 correctly. It's about Miska's digital filters what makes the difference for me on my equipment.

 

It is nothing more than my personal opinion and I am not asking anyone to share my opinion. Listening to music is very subjective thing! And the result also depends on the equipment and settings used, we don't use the same for sure. So I am perfectly fine with Iain's personal opinion.

 

IMO everyone should find his own position and we should be tolerant to each other. nzlowie, do comparison yourself and decide for yourself.

 

I like the way how Paul answered.

[beerandmusic]

i haven't heard of wtfplayer or Kodi...going to check out...do either support native dsd?

 

For sq i like hqplayer, jplay, audiogate resonic

all seem to fall short somewhere for me...either in gui, native dsd support, sq, ease of use, fast....all seem to have their advantages, but all seem to fall short of what i am looking for...well 2 more to try for me...

[17629v2]

What's the issue with Foobar2000?

 

I have it and HQPlayer as well, and find Foobar2000 sounds better and is more flexible than any other player available.

 

Frankly, it sounds as though you don't have Foobar2000 configured correctly. Do you have all the plug-ins you require installed?

 

I have trouble trusting Foobar. This is from their website.

 

"Does foobar2000 sound better than other players?No. Most of “sound quality differences” people “hear” are placebo effect (at least with real music), as actual differences in produced sound data are below their noise floor (1 or 2 last bits in 16bit samples). foobar2000 has sound processing features such as software resampling or 24bit output on new high-end soundcards, but most of the other mainstream players are capable of doing the same by now."

 

I can't see why an audiophile would want to use a player like this. The designers are not even trying for good sound. Most of us do feel that there are real differences between players, so why get one from a company that tells us we are imagining the differences?

[Rexp]

I have trouble trusting Foobar. This is from their website.

 

"Does foobar2000 sound better than other players?No. Most of “sound quality differences” people “hear” are placebo effect (at least with real music), as actual differences in produced sound data are below their noise floor (1 or 2 last bits in 16bit samples). foobar2000 has sound processing features such as software resampling or 24bit output on new high-end soundcards, but most of the other mainstream players are capable of doing the same by now."

 

I can't see why an audiophile would want to use a player like this. The designers are not even trying for good sound. Most of us do feel that there are real differences between players, so why get one from a company that tells us we are imagining the differences?

Yes I read that but just because someone has the ability to design software, doesn't mean they have good hearing.

[satbox]

My personal taste: HQPlayer as player + Roon or JRiver for library management.

[Norton]

i haven't heard of wtfplayer or Kodi...going to check out...do either support native dsd?

 

For sq i like hqplayer, jplay, audiogate resonic

all seem to fall short somewhere for me...either in gui, native dsd support, sq, ease of use, fast....all seem to have their advantages, but all seem to fall short of what i am looking for...well 2 more to try for me...

 

WTFplay supports native DSD, but from your priorities above you may find its GUI "falls short". There isn't one.

[beerandmusic]

WTFplay supports native DSD, but from your priorities above you may find its GUI "falls short". There isn't one.

 

yea, and kodi doesnt support native dsd....

 

REsonic is now announcing native dsd support is in the works...

https://forums.resonic.at/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=396

 

this will probably be the ticket for me.

 

jriver = bloated and didnt sound as good as others (although somene above stated new version supports new mode which improves audio audio only?)

resonic=super fast and clean, sounds great, supports dsd and native dsd in the works

audiogate=fast sounds great, but native dsd ONLY for korg dacs

kodi=no native dsd support

foobar=sounds ok, but not as good as others and requires plugins to support dsd

jplay and wtfplay = sound great but no gui

HQPLAY=sounds great but don't like the gui

roon=requires subscription or hefty $500 price tag (wow ridiculous)

 

for me it's jriver short term and resonic for non-dsd until it supports native dsd.

[Sherwood]

roon=requires subscription or hefty $500 price tag (wow ridiculous)

 

I know that value is different to everyone, but to me Roon earns their subscription fee the old fashioned way.

 

I know I sound like a cliche, being a $3000 suit on sale kind of guy, but I *really* enjoy metadata, lyrics, reviews, and the feel of an endless library with beautiful art. Everytime I sit down to listen to music, I feel like my butler has spent all day preparing my collection for me.

 

Add to that the seamless HQPlayer integration, and you have the best possible sound paired with the best possible GUI. It is absolutely spectacular.

 

Obviously, this comes at a price. When I used JRiver, part of the price was my time. I'm busier now, though, and have more demands on my time and attention. When I take time to listen to music, I get to revel in every second. I'm happy to pay for that.

[Paul R]

I know that value is different to everyone, but to me Roon earns their subscription fee the old fashioned way.

 

I know I sound like a cliche, being a $3000 suit on sale kind of guy, but I *really* enjoy metadata, lyrics, reviews, and the feel of an endless library with beautiful art. Everytime I sit down to listen to music, I feel like my butler has spent all day preparing my collection for me.

 

Add to that the seamless HQPlayer integration, and you have the best possible sound paired with the best possible GUI. It is absolutely spectacular.

 

Obviously, this comes at a price. When I used JRiver, part of the price was my time. I'm busier now, though, and have more demands on my time and attention. When I take time to listen to music, I get to revel in every second. I'm happy to pay for that.

 

I think Roon and HQPlayer with small remote players is probably the best fit for me too. What holds me back is that I don't like Tidal and Roon doesn't do Apple Music.

 

I am sitting back and waiting to see if they ever get around to that.

 

-Paul

[17629v2]

Yes I read that but just because someone has the ability to design software, doesn't mean they have good hearing.

 

I agree. But do you really want to trust the sound of your high end, audiophile computer setup, to a designer that doesn't have good hearing? I don't. If you invest the time, money and effort into building the best system you can, you might as well get a player that is designed for how you're going to use it.

[Rexp]

I agree. But do you really want to trust the sound of your high end, audiophile computer setup, to a designer that doesn't have good hearing? I don't. If you invest the time, money and effort into building the best system you can, you might as well get a player that is designed for how you're going to use it.

I only trust my own ears...still looking for the perfect player.

[beerandmusic]

I think Roon and HQPlayer with small remote players is probably the best fit for me too. What holds me back is that I don't like Tidal and Roon doesn't do Apple Music.

 

I am sitting back and waiting to see if they ever get around to that.

 

-Paul

 

For that combo it would be like $700...too much for software imho.

 

When are they offering discounts on the lifetime roon again and how much was it when on sale?

I would prob do $300, but def not $500 for any player...that is just CRAZY imho.

[Paul R]

For that combo it would be like $700...too much for software imho.

 

When are they offering discounts on the lifetime roon again and how much was it when on sale?

I would prob do $300, but def not $500 for any player...that is just CRAZY imho.

 

Actually, that is not all that expensive for high quality supported software. HQPlayer is a bargain in fact.

 

Roon, with a $500 one time license cost isn't bad either, but I agree it is a non-trivial cost. I personally do not with to expend that cost until Roon is a closer match to everything I really want.

 

In the meantime, I can run iTunes and JRMC and get about 90% of the way to where I want to be. That is also only a $50 expense, plus the yearly upgrade cost. (seems like it is hovers around $20 or so...)

 

-Paul

[17629v2]

I only trust my own ears...still looking for the perfect player.

 

That's a different matter. If you pick Foobar because you prefer its sound over the other players, then its the right choice.

[Jud]

Is this Windows exclusively? XXHE can be advanced for those new to it, but I like the sound (HQPlayer as well).

[Iain]

Actually, I'm quite committed to multi-channel musik playback (DSD/FLAC), and stable hardware processors with connectivity via standards-based specifications.

 

As much as I like Foobar2000 better than any software player, I've decided to exit software player environment, now that Sony have release their new UHP-H1 player.

 

Good riddance.

 

BTW, if you desire good sound quality from Foobar2000, install ASIO support plugin and ASIO4All. Ensure it's properly configured for your system.