JRiver MC Version 18

[Clive]

Andre, I see positive-feedback have a number of mentions of JPLAY. Are your views representative of the site in your signature? They don't seem to match the promotion of JPLY in the publication.

 

[Andre Marc]

Andre, I see positive-feedback have a number of mentions of JPLAY. Are your views representative of the site in your signature? They don't seem to match the promotion of JPLY in the publication.

Clive, what views? I have gone on record in this thread saying I have NO views of Jplay. I actually plan on installing to use with Jriver when I get a few USB DAC in. I have not heard it. I only discussed the possible reasons why Jriver has gone on the attack, which for the record, I think is a bad idea.

 

[Clive]

Clive, what views? I have gone on record in this thread saying I have NO views of Jplay. I actually plan on installing to use with Jriver when I get a few USB DAC in. I have not heard it. I only discussed the possible reasons why Jriver has gone on the attack, which for the record, I think is a bad idea.

Ok, fair enough - I came to that view amongst the general negativity in the thread, as you say you've not crossed the line.

 

[Andre Marc]

Ok, fair enough - I came to that view amongst the general negativity in the thread, as you say you've not crossed the line.

I have a motto.."If you have not heard it, you don't have an opinion".

I DID say that it did give me pause that a plugin costs $130 for a program that cost $50. But if it really works, in the end
it costs less than a lot of USB cables.

I even linked a glowing review from Audiostream, so I am down the middle.

 

[Ki Choi]

I DID say that it did give me pause that a plugin costs $130 for a program that cost $50. But if it really works, in the end
it costs less than a lot of USB cables.

Agree.

Ki

 

[Clive]

I have a motto.."If you have not heard it, you don't have an opinion".

I DID say that it did give me pause that a plugin costs $130 for a program that cost $50. But if it really works, in the end
it costs less than a lot of USB cables.
.

Good motto.

I'm not sure if we should call it a plugin. It can work as a plugin for both Jriver and Foobar2000 but it also has JPLAYmini which is it's own hairshirt player so it's also a standalone player. Personally I use JPLAYmini though I have Foobar2000 configured the UI doesn't add much for me, the Foobar2000 display of artwork is nice but my screen blanks after 1 minute so that I don't have a bright screen distracting me whilst I'm enjoying music.

Re re cost, as I mentioned - there are no upgrade costs and so far no censorship on their forum either.

 

[jkeny]

Jkeny-As a manufacturer of digital products as your tag line claims, I'm a little surprised at the controversy you seem to generate on every digital thread. Just as Pig Pen in the Peanuts cartoon always has a cloud of dirt around him, you seem to have a cloud of controversy hanging over your head. I would think that you would tone things down a wee-bit and be more amenable to other people's opinions and not come off the way you do as seemingly always confrontational and ready for a 'good' fight.

For what it's worth, I don't own any JRiver/JPlay products. I am running FooBar which is free and plays back all of my hi-rez and DSD files perfectly as far as I can tell and hear. And if JPlay came out with a version of software to run with FooBar that you had to pay for called 'FooPlay,' I wouldn't buy it.

Thank you for your analysis
I see that knowing nothing about the product & never having tried it, you have decided that you wouldn't buy it.
That is your opinion - I have no difficulty with it.

 

[jkeny]

Says who? I love to see why you think we collectively fail left and right anytime we are subjected to DBT if what you say is true. In a large scale test on AVS forum, the person who conducted the test made a mistake and put two files up that were identical, bit for bit. Mass number of people thought they were different, including a top audio engineer who masters movie sound for a living with huge number of blockbusters to his name. If our senses are so good, how did that occur?

I'm talking about our senses being trustworthy enough to give us sufficiently accurate information from the real world to enable us to function at a high level. I'm talking about my hearing sense being reliable enough to be able to recognise familiar sounds/voices, no matter what acoustic space they are emanating from. I'm talking about my hearing being able to evaluate whether I can hear a wider/deeper soundstage, whether I have a better emotional connection with the music, whether I'm more engaged with the music. I'm talking about being able to identify a difference between Jplay & other playback software blind.

I have created and participated in huge number of blind and sighted tests. I have found myself to have superhuman abilities (caught the duplicate files above), but then failed miserably in another where I thought two identical files were wildly different in fidelity. Sounds like you have not had these humbling experiences to have the views you have. We can argue many things but you simply cannot say your sense are trustworthy. I guarantee you that you will fail left and right if subjected to such tests.

I couldn't really care less if I could pass this or not - I'm specifically talking about JPlay & I can pass this test.

It shouldn't be our job to justify the value of a product. It should be the job of the person selling the better widget. The entire reason for existence of this plug-in is better fidelity yet you are saying we should be the one going doing all the work to prove or disprove its ability. How did that become the norm? If I told you an air conditioner was more efficient than the one you have, would you trust me or take it upon yourself to do the testing??? How did we as consumers lose the right to ask for validity of claims?

Since when did evaluating a product in a stress-free home trial become changed to "It shouldn't be our job to justify the value of a product." I do this all the time with all sorts of products - I certainly don't feel like it's a burden or a job I'm doing to justify the product - I'm simply deciding if I find the product of value in my system. I really don't understand where you are coming from on this - do you only buy products that have certain measurements published for them that have been approved by some standards body or do you evaluate products yourself by listening?

 

[jkeny]

I could not possibly disagree more. I know way too many people (including some on this forum) who are well educated, have excellent hearing and have great audio systems who have failed miserably (and consistently) at trying to prove your assertion of trustworthy senses. We are far more easily fooled than you can imagine.

If you say so but that will not suddenly make me disrust my senses so I guess we agree to differ

 

[rbbert]

Mark, how do you know Foobar is playing your files back "perfectly" if you haven't heard them played through other software? Considering some of the other esoteric findings routinely discussed at WBF, controversy re: digital playback software seems in keeping.

 

[jriver]

Mark, how do you know Foobar is playing your files back "perfectly" if you haven't heard them played through other software?

It's possible to capture and compare the output. That's what Mitchco has done at ComputerAudiophile.

 

[Clive]

It's possible to capture and compare the output. That's what Mitchco has done at ComputerAudiophile.

Is that the test that used the analogue output?

 

[jkeny]

Mark, how do you know Foobar is playing your files back "perfectly" if you haven't heard them played through other software? Considering some of the other esoteric findings routinely discussed at WBF, controversy re: digital playback software seems in keeping.

It's funny rbbert but before he "discovered" the perfect sound of Foobar, MEP was using Media Monkey which he didn't like the SOUND of. Now, I wonder was Media Monkey outputting bit-perfect data? Yep, indeedy it was!! He started a thread here because he wasn't happy with the sound of Media Monkey http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2781-Server-software&p=39969&viewfull=1#post39969

Thanks to everyone who has responded here. I downloaded Foobar last night and loaded in some files. I have to say that my initial snapshot impression is that Foobar is doing something that makes digital sound better than Media Monkey. If who shot JR sounds even better than Foobar, I will go for it. I played a Lyle Lovett CD all the way through last night and the differences between Media Monkey and Foobar aren't subtle in my opinion. Instruments and voices sounded more "real" and life-like. I didn't want to get up and turn the damn thing off like I usually do so that says something.

Obviously he has changed his mind about what he said in the highlighted text - he now won't listen to Jplay as he has made up his mind already. Guess it wasn't called "who shot JR" so he's not interested?

 

[jkeny]

It's possible to capture and compare the output. That's what Mitchco has done at ComputerAudiophile.

So your software sounds exactly the same as bit-perfect Media Monkey - guess that rules out MEP from trying it as he thinks Foobar sounds bettter than MM & therefore must think Foobar sounds better than JRiver - he must be fooling himself, right?

 

[mep]

Mark, how do you know Foobar is playing your files back "perfectly" if you haven't heard them played through other software? Considering some of the other esoteric findings routinely discussed at WBF, controversy re: digital playback software seems in keeping.

I caveated my statement with as "far as I can tell and hear." It's just my opinion. Bottom line is that I'm very happy with the sound of my music server playing back DSD files and Hi-Rez files via FooBar through my Mytek Stereo 192.

 

[edorr]

I caveated my statement with as "far as I can tell and hear." It's just my opinion. Bottom line is that I'm very happy with the sound of my music server playing back DSD files and Hi-Rez files via FooBar through my Mytek Stereo 192.

".....differences between Media Monkey and Foobar aren't subtle in my opinion. Instruments and voices sounded more "real" and life-like......"

If one bit perfect server (Footbar) made a "not subtle" improvement in SQ over another (Media Monkey) to your ears in the past (albeit subjectively, and for entirely obscure reasons, and undoubtedly not backed up by measurement), you may be missing out big time on an even better way to serve up perfect bits (Jplay), available for a measly $100, and owe it to yourself to at least give it (free!) try. Just saying.....

 

[jkeny]

It's possible to capture and compare the output. That's what Mitchco has done at ComputerAudiophile.

That test is flawed!

 

[mep]

".....differences between Media Monkey and Foobar aren't subtle in my opinion. Instruments and voices sounded more "real" and life-like......"

If one bit perfect server (Footbar) made a "not subtle" improvement in SQ over another (Media Monkey) to your ears in the past (albeit subjectively, and for entirely obscure reasons, and undoubtedly not backed up by measurement),.

It was not backed up by measurement and I certainly never stated it was. It was my opinion which I thought was quite clear at the time.

you may be missing out big time on an even better way to serve up perfect bits (Jplay), available for a measly $100, and owe it to yourself to at least give it (free!) try. Just saying.....

Have you heard JRiver with Jplay and compared it to FooBar? If so, what do you think? The only reason that I didn't continue on with buying JRiver and Jplay was that I was so pleased with the sound of my files over FooBar I didn't feel the need to try and make digital files sound any better. If there are enough people on this forum who have lived with FooBar and JRiver listening to DSD files and they think that JRiver smokes FooBar, I will try it. I have no ties to any of these companies and therefore no loyalty. I only care about how things sound. If enough people who have heard both FooBar and JRiver playing back DSD files can tell me that JRiver is much better, I will give it a try.

 

[Clive]

Mep, the combination of JPLAY with Foobar is said to be a little better than with Jriver. JPLAYmini should be a little better still. You should try JPLAY with your existing Foobar install. You can easily compare with mini too.

 

[amirm]

I'm talking about our senses being trustworthy enough to give us sufficiently accurate information from the real world to enable us to function at a high level. I'm talking about my hearing sense being reliable enough to be able to recognise familiar sounds/voices, no matter what acoustic space they are emanating from. I'm talking about my hearing being able to evaluate whether I can hear a wider/deeper soundstage, whether I have a better emotional connection with the music, whether I'm more engaged with the music. I'm talking about being able to identify a difference between Jplay & other playback software blind.

All fine except when you got to the last statement. I am confident experiments can be set up that will make you fail that test blind. How about you testing that for us? Set up an AB test and have someone in your family run it and report the results.

Since when did evaluating a product in a stress-free home trial become changed to "It shouldn't be our job to justify the value of a product." I do this all the time with all sorts of products - I certainly don't feel like it's a burden or a job I'm doing to justify the product - I'm simply deciding if I find the product of value in my system. I really don't understand where you are coming from on this - do you only buy products that have certain measurements published for them that have been approved by some standards body or do you evaluate products yourself by listening?

Well, let me ask you this. I tell you that I am selling a set of balls that when you put them in your glove compartment, it will increase your car's fuel efficiency by 20%. I further say I have a money back guarantee. You you have to order remotely and return the goods if you don't like it. Are you honestly going to tell me you will go ahead and try this, and not ask me for some data that backs my claim?

Do I try other things in absence of such data? Sure. But the claim needs to be plausible and make sense to me. This one has the odds stacked against it because I know how the technology works. Just like you would have enough car knowledge to know said balls would not improve fuel economy.

I think the difference between us is that their claims are plausible to you. That they reduce certain activity and you equate that with potentially better performance. I got done explaining that reducing activity may make it predictable and reduce its high frequency down to audio frequency. Therefore if we are going to guess here, we better also accept the odds that this makes this worse. Based on this, they are the equiv to balls that in the glove compartment to me. Your notion that you would use your ears to determine it sounding better is like telling me that stuck your thumb out the window and thought your car was going faster with said balls . It doesn't carry any weight because you could very well be mistaken.

Let me be fair and say that we are open minded in this forum. We allow for many manufacturer's claims such as fancy cables, high precision DACs, etc. with no objective proof either. If that is your point, that fine. Just don''t say we should ignore what we know when we have knowledge of a difference a product can make and "just try it." I don't need to just try it if I have objective data that saves me the work and aggravation.

All of this said, if I have time to kill one day, I will try to measure the electrical characteristics out of the DAC with and without this plug-in.