advertisement


"JPlay is a hoax" say JRiver

This later post sums it up.

JPlay might make things sound 'different', but many audiophiles' inability to discriminate between 'better' and 'different' has to be heard to be believed.

:eek:
 
@Cliffpatte,

JRMC is a pretty solid package for all types of media. It is a solid all-in-one solution, very close to the bleeding edge, possibly at the expense of the latest eye-candy. It can also be a bit overwhelming initially.

Its interface is not as polished as Windows Media Center (which is more intuitive to use and better for live TV), but it has a much richer feature set.

For Audio, it is a valid substitute for Foobar, with good ripping, tagging and multizone features (and much more as it's kind of a Swiss Army knife with state of the art performance/features almost everywhere, combined with some 'fool proof' features).

For Video playback, it is state of the art, provided one has the right level of hardware (see Red October HQ feature, and read about MadVR, Lav filters and the like on the net). It does this without requiring some complex setup contrary to the alternative solutions

Main drawback, for some, is that it is not free.

I've been using JRMC, on and off, since version 8, mostly as a backup tool when my main solutions (Fb2K, MPCHC/MadVR/Lav, EAC) don't work properly
 
cliffpatte said:
so, what's so good about Jriver MC ?
Click to expand...

It's stable and does what it says on the tin.

If you require first rate sound and care for little else, the free Foobar is just as good, provided you use the WASAPI output module.

But JRiver has a lot of underlying sophistication when it comes to managing an extensive library. I think it's great value at around £30. I would be more sympathetic with JPlay were it a £10 add-on – it is, after all, a parasitic program that uses its 'host' for file management etc. while doings lots of silly things that claim to 'improve' sound quality.

If JPlay really have uncovered a better, presumably undocumented, way of managing audio through a Wintel PC they would be far better off patenting it and claiming royalties from anyone who wanted to implement their fabulous scheme, rather than sell an overpriced and under-performing program to sycophantic geeks who come to worship.

Many audiophiles have come to believe that something awkward and expensive is required to achieve the 'best' sound quality – their little 'sacrifice' if you like. Once you've got people into that mindset, they're hooked.

thumb_smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-animated-006.gif
 
Plutox said:
I would be more sympathetic with JPlay were it a £10 add-on – it is, after all, a parasitic program that uses its 'host' for file management etc. while doings lots of silly things that claim to 'improve' sound quality.[/IMG]
Click to expand...
Jplay sounds best when NOT using Jriver or Foobar. The order of best SQ is:
1st Jplaymini (no other players are used here)
2nd Foobar2000
3rd Jriver

You can't call it parasitic when its best sound is as a standalone player.
 
clivem2 said:
Jplay sounds best when NOT using Jriver or Foobar. The order of best SQ is:
1st Jplaymini (no other players are used here)
2nd Foobar2000
3rd Jriver

You can't call it parasitic when its best sound is as a standalone player.
Click to expand...

You make assertions that go against any sensible theory and current scientific understanding, with no evidence whatsoever. That would be trolling, then.
 
amdismal said:
You make assertions that go against any sensible theory and current scientific understanding, with no evidence whatsoever. That would be trolling, then.
Click to expand...
You mean saying that 3 entirely different codesets can't produce 3 different sounds? Bit and time perfect datastreams into to a shallow DAC buffer would I expect sound the same. But maybe if you measure the datastreams (packet arrivals) you'll find differences.

Of course if you come from the "all amplifiers sound the same" camp then we speak a different language.
 
Thanks for the meaningless techie gibberish :)

And no, I use mostly SET amps. I don't even think all digital sounds the same, but I do think that software players are either broken or not broken, and I use ones that are not broken. Some things in audio are straightforward, despite the attempts of the fooistas to persuade us otherwise.
 
amdismal said:
You make assertions that go against any sensible theory and current scientific understanding, with no evidence whatsoever. That would be trolling, then.
Click to expand...
In any other context perhaps it would be, but those sort of assertions pretty much go with this territory. Someone once described "Jerusalem" as a series of questions to which the answer is "no". So too the computer audiophile creed.
 
I remember a conversation in a Swiss French restaurant. An Italian person with impeccable French spoke to the waiter. The waiter couldn't understand the Italian person's French. A Swiss person repeated what the Italian had said, the waiter then understood. The waiter could only understand Swiss French people. Anyone else speaks gibberish.
 
I have JPlay here,and in all honesty I couldn't say it sounds any different to JRiver, when you A/B quickly between Amarra and ITunes there is a difference, but 'better'?
Keith.
 
Clive I suggest you go onto the Hydrogen audio forum and look at the results they got when testing the output of various players with and without Jplay. I'll make it succinct for you- it does nothing, no measurable difference was found. No bit differences, no FR differences, when measured at the output of the host or at the output of the subsequent DAC, it does nothing that affects the bits, the jitter or the noise coming from the source.
 
clivem2 said:
I'm not convinced it's wise to answer given the vitriol I suspect about to come my way.
Click to expand...

No vitriol, provided you answer factually and within the bounds of common sense.

If, OTOH, you say that one program or the other causes more goose bumps then people will respond at that level.
 
sq225917 said:
Clive I suggest you go onto the Hydrogen audio forum and look at the results they got when testing the output of various players with and without Jplay. I'll make it succinct for you- it does nothing, no measurable difference was found. No bit differences, no FR differences, when measured at the output of the host or at the output of the subsequent DAC, it does nothing that affects the bits, the jitter or the noise coming from the source.
Click to expand...
I've seen that thread. Given everything measures the same it should sound the same, providing the correct measurements are being made. I find Jplay sounds different to Foobar2000 with ASIO4ALL on the machines I have here. Maybe Foobar is more accurate and Jplay sounds better to my ears. I'm only using my ears. I would expect that that a music server that's really well set up and finely tuned for the task would result in my finding Foobar and Jplay sound the same.

I should add that I've heard Oppo 103 and 105 used as a music server running my ripped files. This got closer to what I'm used to with Jplay than do other players simply installed on a general purpose Windows machine. I've heard a purpose built linux server which sounded better than Jplay. The point about Jplay is that it removes some of the variability due to Windows which has loads of services running most of the time. On a non-tuned machine the difference between Jplay in hibernation mode and not in hibernation to me is clear to hear. If others don't hear it maybe their machines are highly tuned or the differences I hear are not relevant for such people. This is my perception, others will and do perceive differently.
 
Purite Audio said:
I have JPlay here,and in all honesty I couldn't say it sounds any different to JRiver, when you A/B quickly between Amarra and ITunes there is a difference, but 'better'?
Keith.
Click to expand...

You feel iTunes and Amarra to sound no better than each other, just different Keith. In which case which do you prefer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top