Jump to content
IGNORED

Subjective comparison of Software Music Player


Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I've found that there is no general rule to follow - previously, foobar2000 was always knocked out because the quality was too poor - with my latest, 2nd hand laptop, foobar2000 was neck and neck with Media Monkey, my preferred player up to that point; in fact, foobar was slightly ahead in some ways.

 

Why should this be? Perhaps the latest version straightened out some kinks, perhaps there was a better match between this hardware and the way the software operated - I would say, every time you change the hardware, and every time a new version of the software comes out, double check that the ordering of subjective quality hasn't changed ... just in case, 🙂.

 

  Perhaps you need to use some high quality S/W such as JRiver on something better than a 2nd hand Laptop ? ¬¬

 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

funnny this thread show up tonite...i have just upgraded to jriver 26 yesterday and just tried audirvana first time (windows version).  Jriver has so many features, but seems bloated...i was just thinking i would want something simple to work out of the box that supported dsd.  I haven't done any comparison testing, but i like the simple interface, and i didn't have to google to get it working out of the box like jriver or foobar with dsd. 

 

Is volumio the only player that has a self booting image (good for streamlined os for audio) that supports dsd?

I wish there were more software players that had a self booting image that would support dsd right after boot without hassle of configuring?  I downloaded volumio, but have tried it yet...maybe in a couple days.

 

I also have licensed copies of audiogate and hqplayer and they both sound great, but don't care for the gui...not paying for roon....will likely stick with jriver, but do wish there was something simpler and with better interface than what is out there that also sounds good.

 

I found that JRiver 26 had a steep learning curve. :$You also need to enable it to play from  System Memory.

 However, JRiver 26 can do many other things including conversion of Video formats which may save you from needing other paid software.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

JRiver has always had a steep learning curve, and has been very arcane with essentially no help from JRiver’s creators. That’s why I stopped using it. As annoying and low-Fi as iTunes was, at least it was fairly intuitive and easy for just about anyone to use.

 

Agreed, however , it's capable of very high quality Audio playback when correctly set up.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
9 hours ago, 4est said:

I always find humor that so many people don't realize that the vast majority of DACs internally convert to SDM/DSD, or in Alex's case, cannot seem to accept that simple tidbit of truth. But yes, people should use whatever software they prefer regardless.

 You are twisting my words and that of others,to justify what you and a select group of members are doing here with  the use of high powered PCs and specialised paid S/W to upsample everything to  a much higher frequency.

Can others like Teresa or myself for that matter, readily do this with our existing typical equipment including most Laptops ? NO !!

 Is there any major benefit to the typical consumer in doing this ? NO !!!

 

 As Rexp said : 

Quote

why bother with DSD upsampling when only .001% of the population use or will ever use it. 

 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
9 hours ago, jabbr said:

Alex doesn’t have access to a fast workstation or reasonably good gaming computer so depends on DSP chips.

 Yet I am still getting way better sounding Audio than the vast majority of members by correcting deficiencies in other areas that matter more.

In fact, it is more than good enough for me to assist John Dyson in his DNHRDS project on the listening side of it with feedback from me since March last year from me that John has acted on in numerous occasions.

 This suggests that my implementation here is more than good enough to pinpoint tiny differences of a fraction of a dB that many are unable to hear, without the need for an expensive high powered computer to upsample everything to DSD

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Whether you choose to do that is your choice, just as whether to use a particular cable or power supply or really any pice of equipment.

 

The fact that the software is paid or not should not be of concern — do you expect the ISO Regen to be free, or a particular cable? 
 

Do you even use Linux or Windows? 

 You are trying to justify the use of much more additional expense to obtain the results that your equipment should be already capable of revealing. We shouldn't need to use Iso Regens or expensive aftermarket USB cables etc. either.

Neither do I use USB for the same reasons as you avoid it , with you preferring to use an ultra wide bandwidth Optical link that most people couldn't justify the expense of.

I use Windows 10/64 which is more than able to reveal subtleties without the need for Linux etc. if the rest of your gear is good enough.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, jabbr said:

That’s a rather strange conclusion: how do you presume to say that you get way better sound than the vast majority of members here? That is extraordinarily presumptuous  and entirely witut basis.

Apparently, unlike many here, I was able to hear and clearly describe the differences between 16/44.1 and 24/96 in favour of 24/96 that most were unable to hear with the Frederic V X and Y test samples , as well as that other area that you refuse to accept, despite the series of correctly performed DBTs .

I noticed also your visits to MY Profile to see what I was doing in that area to achieve the improved results that I obtained.,

 where you didn't seem to find too much wrong technically with what I was doing in that area to obtain them.:P

 

http://klinktbeter.be/hushhush/x.wav
http://klinktbeter.be/hushhush/y.wav

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Of course everything above modifies the bits entering the DAC and I know you prefer to stick with approaches that don’t have an effect on bits. Just so.

 In my experience, every time you use S/W to convert to different formats , or process a file further , there is a minor penalty to be paid in the SQ area due to the electrical noise generated by less than perfect power supplies ,where the most obvious example is conversion to and from .flac , especially when done "on the fly" as many other members have reported, including Cookie Marenco from Blue Coast Records who records these days in your preferred DSD format, with unless I am mistaken, some mastering still done using LPCM ?

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
10 hours ago, ericuco said:

Years ago, everyone seemed concerned about getting “bit perfect” data to the DAC.

 

 It may come as a surprise to you, but the vast majority of A.S. members still appear to be fixated about Bit Perfect S/W and Bit Perfect CD rips. ¬¬

 One single Muted error due to a minor CD imperfection isn't going to change how the whole track sounds.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Why are you even commenting here? 

 

Why are you even commenting here? 

 The initial post in this thread was about differences between normal CD S/W players, and never about the diversion to additional DSD upsampling using high powered Processors etc. that has resulted.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I'm having a hard time understanding why someone sharing their first hand knowledge of a subject bothers you so much.

 

 It doesn't . However, it is off the original topic , and there are more suitable threads to discuss the niche upsampling of all music to DSD such as https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/19715-hq-player/, or another thread can be started on this subject.

 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
8 hours ago, jabbr said:

HQPlayer is more of a system than simply a player per se. It would be a project to fully employ its capabilities:

 

Which is exactly my point. Neither are my system or Teresa's system for that matter, capable of doing this .
 Most people do not need, or want, the added complexity and cost of implementing this kind of thing with numerous settings in Software , with no setting that appears to give a universally accepted best quality. This is exactly why I originally rejected Peter's generous offer of a free copy of XXHE some years ago, with numerous program updates.


 However, if the more technically adventurous wish to go this route , then that is there choice, however as Rexp said :

Quote

 

  • OP is correct, why bother with DSD upsampling when only .001% of the population use or will ever use it. 

 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Most folks here have no interest in nor the capability to do the DIY tweaks you do but this doesn't stop you from mentioning them.

That's absolute garbage.

 Many members do far greater and WAY  more expensive tweaks than I do.

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/#comments

There are now 654 pages in that thread alone, let alone the Uptone area etc.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
10 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

We all see what we want to see.

 

What percentage of registered users do you think are actively participating in that thread?

 

I'm guessing it's way south of 5%. Probably closer to 1%.

We all see what we want to see.

 

What percentage of registered users do you think are actively participating in ALL threads?

 

I'm guessing it's way south of 5%. Probably closer to 1%. :P

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

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...