More > JRiver Media Center 23 for Linux
Differences between JRiver and DLNA Renderer both running on Linux
Facel:
What are the Plus (and or Minus) for running JRiver rather than a simple dlna renderer
on a light linux machine in the case you also have JRiver running as a media server on a
Windows PC, remotlly controlled by JRemote ?
bob:
--- Quote from: Facel on January 22, 2018, 11:11:56 am ---What are the Plus (and or Minus) for running JRiver rather than a simple dlna renderer
on a light linux machine in the case you also have JRiver running as a media server on a
Windows PC, remotlly controlled by JRemote ?
--- End quote ---
A huge advantage is the you can play gaplessly, MC can play almost any format and sample rate and you can tune the abilities of MC on your lightweight machine to match the capabilities of any audio device you put on it.
Facel:
Thanks bob for your answer.
To me a (normal /good) DLNA player (Renderer/endpoint) could play any format and any sample rate like MC does.
Your answer rise the fact that MC will play gaplessy, but a DLNA renderer/endpoint will not or could not.
That's effectivly a huge advantage for MC
JimH:
--- Quote from: Facel on January 22, 2018, 02:43:16 pm ---To me a (normal /good) DLNA player (Renderer/endpoint) could play any format and any sample rate ...
--- End quote ---
That's not the case. DLNA requires just a few formats to be supported. MC supports far more formats.
bob:
--- Quote from: Facel on January 22, 2018, 02:43:16 pm ---Thanks bob for your answer.
To me a (normal /good) DLNA player (Renderer/endpoint) could play any format and any sample rate like MC does.
Your answer rise the fact that MC will play gaplessy, but a DLNA renderer/endpoint will not or could not.
That's effectivly a huge advantage for MC
--- End quote ---
As well as all of the tools you can apply to the output using MC's DSP studio. I'm doing that myself at home, tuning output for a specific set of speakers using an IdPi.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version