advertisement


"JPlay is a hoax" say JRiver

mcoteca said:
In my mind, such an explanation for the streamer influence on sq seems very tenuous, but who knows...
Click to expand...

What we do know is that whatever JPlay can possibly do to affect the sound quality while retaining 'bit-perfection' is so dependent on variables beyond its control so as to be, for all intents and purposes, random. That is why, I believe, they offer their users so many complex options. If they were entirely confident in what they were doing they would say, here you are, this is it; no options.

Certainly, in the case of USB transmission to a DAC, amongst the most significant of those variables is the susceptibility of the DAC itself to noise (or whatever) present at its input. Suffice it to say that a good device will be more or less immune to such external variables.
 
sq225917 said:
mcoteca, I think the noise john was looking at is related to the signal, ie it's correlated noise where some process on the die is modulated by the signal itself so it all takes place after the USb input and is unaffected by the preceding stages.
Click to expand...

I wasn't stating or implying otherwise.

Anyhow, I don't think I can contribute more to this discussion, good or bad.
 
They have offered no substantiated evidence that their program does anything that affects the audio output neither have they offered argument as to how it can affect the audio output. And they have offered no substantiated listening test evidence that their program affects the audio output in a so far inexplicable way. So, IMO, they haven't defended their product, in fact they've substantiated the objections to it.

There's also a bit of bogus nonsense in their reply. What this software actually appears to do is make your computer less convenient to use to play music.

Paul
 
I have to agree that I find the defense rather lame. What they claim their software does may have an effect on the S/PDIF output, but hardly anybody will use that on a computer. On async USB, I gather the effect will be so small as to be effectively non-existent, if it exists at all.
 
You know the saying: Even though something is clearly impossible, never say never. Because then an ordinary user comes along and does it, making you look like a fool.
 
If the JPlay corporation wants to defend its position, the best thing it could possibly do would be to free itself of its apparent dependence on a 'host' program – which appears to be the main irritant as far as other software companies are concerned. Do your own work managing the library, writing your own format decoders and all the other unsexy aspects of creating a media player; stand or fall on your own skill.

Don't be a parasite.
 
Plutox said:
If the JPlay corporation wants to defend its position, the best thing it could possibly do would be to free itself of its apparent dependence on a 'host' program – which appears to be the main irritant as far as other software companies are concerned. Do your own work managing the library, writing your own format decoders and all the other unsexy aspects of creating a media player; stand or fall on your own skill.

Don't be a parasite.
Click to expand...
Jplay comes with JPLAYmini, it's a totally standalone player. You don't need Jriver, Foobar or any other ASIO standard player. There is no dependence.

Corporation? 2 guys?
 
In which case, the best thing JPlay could do would be to remove any and all aspects of their software that depend upon other makers' products and live or die entirely by their own efforts. Simple.

clivem2 said:
Corporation? 2 guys?
Click to expand...

I notice that they refer to JRiver as a 'corporation'. While bigger than two guys, I don't think that JRiver is exactly Microsoft-ian in size.
 
Plutox said:
In which case, the best thing JPlay could do would be to remove any and all aspects of their software that depend upon other makers' products and live or die entirely by their own efforts. Simple.



I notice that they refer to JRiver as a 'corporation'. While bigger than two guys, I don't think that JRiver is exactly Microsoft-ian in size.
Click to expand...

To be honest, JPlay kind of reminds me of Item. The only difference is hardware vs software. Both are/were doing essentially a "good" thing for the audio playback - not that any of it would influence the (presumably isolated) digital output, but at least no damage to it is/was being done. For the end user, the effort might seem pointless, but it is/was "making things better", in a purely ideological view. The pricing is another thing, though.

It's like driving between point A and B using an ambulance vehicle or a gigantic monster truck. You will likely get to the destination in time using just the ambulance vehicle, but if you want to be REALLY sure, make sure to destroy eveything in the path, so it can't possibly stop you.
 
Plutox said:
In which case, the best thing JPlay could do would be to remove any and all aspects of their software that depend upon other makers' products and live or die entirely by their own efforts. Simple.
Click to expand...
In which case it's Jriver's fault. There's nothing Jriver specific in Jplay. Jriver use the ASIO standard, JPLAY complies with the ASIO standard. Jriver shouldn't be standards compliant if they want to be a closed system.
 
So with JRiver, JPlay exposes an ASIO interface and drives an ASIO interface. There is nothing it can do inbetween, at all, other than change the data. Which they say they don't do.

The tricky stuff with audio output is all down in the driver, over which JPlay has no control at all. And it's really not that tricky, especially if you go with ASIO.

Paul
 
It's rather pointless guessing at what Jplay do or don't do. If I carry on the pointless theme I would say it's all about how and when the data is moved as well as making windows look more like an RT system.
 
This is all really, really simple so don't complicate it.

If JPlay were to remove all references to JRiver in their approach and get on with being an entirely self-contained audio player, there would be no problem.

The fact that there is an attempt to hang on to someone else's coat-tails is the issue – and if you don't believe that is a problem, then perhaps a closer examination of your own ethical values would be prudent.
 
So you don't approve of software like Amarra et al. that hangs on the coat-tails of iTunes? And the myriad programs that hang on the coat-tails of Microsoft products?
 
If they want to prove it improves things then they have to show a measured difference at the dac outputs or a preference from users in a valid abx test.
If as they claim they do not have the test gear to provide these measurements then how did they come to the conclusion they had changed the sound in the first place.

It's just crappy software that feeds on your FUD. And like most of these players does nothing to deliver improved sound quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top