Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[henning65]

I would like to support the suggestion to make the IT road map more transparent.

For myself I can only say: I was disappointed with the last update and I'm disappointed with the handling of "communication" with clients.

I would like to suggest to establish a new forum category "feature request" including the option for each forum-user to support the feature with her/his vote (maybe also limiting the number of supporting-votes a forum-user has per year).

Concerning the debate on audio improvements:
I guess it's not only about sound quality but -at least for me- the experience of listening to music. This includes for example the way audio is sorted (the view). Especially the JRiver kind of sorting audio by "artist / song" and looking for related songs based on meta-data is kind of limited. I would love to see JRiver implement an algorithm which could find related songs based on the "finger-print" of the song which would offer a complete new approach to find "like-minded musicians" (or sonic similarity) and their products (See my post here: https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,130425.0.html)

I also suggested to improve the handling of cover-art: To support also "conductors" and other "performers" (For now its only the album-artist and the composer which are supported. (see my post here: https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,129812.0.html)

And finaly - not audio in it's pure meaning - audio-books: Audio books regularly consist of more than one audio file - but the bookmarking doesn't support multi-file-audio-books (see post: https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,129813.0.html)

@JimH:

A few people here and some recently departed think that I'm an idiot, but hey, we've been doing this since 1998 and I started the business in 1981.

It is one think to "Not-get-what-I-want" and another thing to think "JRiver doesn't care". And I guess as being 57 myself I might be allowed to say this: consumer-communication has changed since 1981. And that's a good thing.

[Awesome Donkey]

I would like to suggest to establish a new forum category "feature request" including the option for each forum-user to support the feature with her/his vote (maybe also limiting the number of supporting-votes a forum-user has per year).

I think this is a bad idea to do, hence probably why such a thing has never been done. Adding a forum section like this would be full of unreasonable requests which would get voted up, but they won't happen (e.g. Tidal integration) and it would also falsely raise expectations and hopes and there would be disappointments.

The simple fact is, JRiver can't do everything everyone requests and adding a forum section for requests would be a minefield containing requests that won't be done, to say the least. People do create feature request posts and some of them are done, but others are not. I think the current system suffices for this.

[henning65]

I think this is a bad idea to do, hence probably why such a thing has never been done. Adding a forum section like this would be full of unreasonable requests which would get voted up, but they won't happen (e.g. Tidal integration) and it would also falsely raise expectations and hopes and there would be disappointments.

I kindly disagree. Life is full of disappointments. Please be insured, that I'm able to handle the situation in which my desired feature is not becoming available.
A section for request would simply offer some kind of transparency for both: for users of JRiver as they learn if their desire is shared by others - AND - for JRiver as they learn better how to please (existing) JRiver-users to sell updates! This is - to my understanding - part of market knowledge a company would love to have - and we - the users (I hope) are willing to share. That's actually (I guess) the best case scenario for any company.

And - to get back to another post here: transparency is the goal

[smschulz]

All the information is about how to upgrade but nowhere do I see any info of improvements or new features in MC29 compared to MC28.

I am only into audio and video improvements don't interest me so I would like to know on what I will be spending  my money.

So, is JRiver going to give any info on improvements and new features or is this more of a 'subscription' or 'patreon' kind of situation?

I find that communication-wise JRiver is not very strong. They hide behind their wiki but why can't they like other companies have release notes for updates. If they have any info on the list of improvements and new features of MC29 then they hide it well.

Great point, as an IT guy by profession  I want to support the effort even if the upgrades aren't significant.
Better communication or perhaps only offer an upgrade after some development.
I upgraded primarily to support the project not for feature upgrades each time - I guess it is a subscription of sorts.
But it would be nice to know what is in store.

[mattkhan]

And - to get back to another post here: transparency is the goal

It has come up before, JimH was unequivocally against that sort of thing as I recall so I think it is safe to say, not going to happen

[henning65]

It has come up before, JimH was unequivocally against that sort of thing as I recall so I think it is safe to say, not going to happen

I still hope that the link to marketing might convince the CEO of JRiver... as I said: marketing has changed since 1981.

I'm sad to see a good product missing to find its buyers. That's my impression not only concerning the communication about upcoming releases - but that's not the topic of this post.

[toomanybarts]

That's not the issue Jim - I think all experienced users have complete faith in the JR Team to deliver a fine product. It's more about knowing what's coming along. I suspect that virtually everyone uses MC for Audio, many probably only for Audio (me), and a very small few who do not use it for Audio.

So I have a suggestion which would be beneficial for both sides (the Punters, and JRiver). If you were to list the things that you are definitely working on now, and going to work on later (particularly with respect to Audio) then we can make a much more informed decision as to whether to jump on board with the early bird pricing. The benefit for JRiver is of course in cashflow, plus a much earlier indication of upgrade sales.

The last thing I want to do is to get on board early only to find out I didn't really need the upgrade because there was little in the way of Audio upgrades that were of interest to me, but plenty for other media.

It would also be good if the nag screen bidding me for a new version could turned off. When I have no intention of upgrading it is a real PITA.

This ^^^^

Use Plex for video playback.
J River for audio.
I’ve skipped releases in the past as there just wasn’t a(n audio) reason to upgrade.
Holding for now on MC28.

[coronelj]

I’m personally not interested at all in video performance, but using JRiver just for audio purposes, so JRiver should not underestimate audio users…

[Awesome Donkey]

I’m personally not interested at all in video performance, but using JRiver just for audio purposes, so JRiver should not underestimate audio users…

I don't think they are underestimating audio users, they are working on DSP improvements in MC29 after all.

But you guys have to realize that audio support in Media Center in general is pretty mature and what I would consider mostly feature complete with a wide list of supported audio features. To me this would mean there isn't really major leaps and bounds Media Center can take besides improving existing features when it comes to audio. My point is, Media Center already supports bit-perfect audio output, has the SoX resampler as an option, has the TPDF dithering as an option, has tons of DSP effects, has support for VST2 and VST3 plugins, WDM driver, HDCD support, supports both ASIO and WASAPI on Windows, CoreAudio on macOS, ALSA on Linux, DSD bitstreaming support for native DSD, DoP and DoPE, etc. Which I'd argue is what most audio enthusiasts care about in a media player for audio only.

Yes, I know people want streaming service (Tidal, Qobuz, Amazon, etc.) support and things like MQA support or other things like implementing the full SoX suite or even things like integrating HQPlayer or just implementing the different filters HQPlayer has, etc. If you do a search of the forums you'll see posts from over the years with JRiver stating they're not interested in those things and have no plans on implementing them. And you have to understand, there are some rather elaborate audio-related feature requests I've seen posted that I don't really think are doable in a relatively short amount of time and ultimately they (JRiver) can't do everything that everyone wants/requests. That's one of the reasons why having a feature requests forum section (with upvoting) is a bad idea, in my opinion.

So, eventually there comes a point where expecting some new, amazing audio features hits a point of diminishing returns, and I hate to say it but we're probably past that point now. That said, there are audio features (or rather improvements to existing features) that I'd like to see like equivalents to the WMD driver on macOS and Linux. Implementing CD playback and ripping on Linux are also nearly at the top of my list. The Atmos audio only files with bitstreaming request seems intriguing to me as well. Also being able to extract individual DSF/DFF files from a SACD ISO like sacd_extract does without doing any conversions. Or if you want to "convert" DSF to DFF or vice versa, just repackaging and changing the container without any conversion.

I mean think about it for a few minutes and post here what you think is a tangible, realistic NEW audio-related feature that's missing from Media Center (that's not streaming service, MQA, full SoX, HQPlayer, new UI/skinning engine, etc. related)? I can honestly only think of improvements to existing features and macOS/Linux equivalents to the WDM driver.

[Gl3nn]

I mean think about it for a few minutes and post here what you think is a tangible, realistic NEW audio-related feature that's missing from Media Center (that's not streaming service, MQA, full SoX, HQPlayer, etc. related)? I can honestly only think of improvements to existing features and macOS/Linux equivalents to the WDM driver.

I've been off-grid for a couple of years, so this may have been discussed/dismissed but:  Sonos integration which allows for synced multi-room play?  Or a simple user-friendly front-end skinning engine for standard view?

Nevertheless, I've used MC since it was MJ, and I used to be an exclusively audio guy but have gradually embraced MC's video capabilities, to my benefit.  So, that.

And really... $28 for a full platform upgrade for 9-12 months... have you gassed-up your car lately? (or paid your electric bill...)

I don't mean to offend anyone but that's my take on a product I've enjoyed and used for a long time.

[JimH]

I upgraded primarily to support the project not for feature upgrades each time - I guess it is a subscription of sorts.

Thanks for your upgrade purchase.  It's not a subscription though.  There's no requirement to upgrade.  You can go on using the version you purchase indefinitely without ugrading.

[Awesome Donkey]

I've been off-grid for a couple of years, so this may have been discussed/dismissed but:  Sonos integration which allows for synced multi-room play?  Or a simple user-friendly front-end skinning engine for standard view?

I can't imagine Sonos integration happening, it's proprietary and I suspect there's a lot of hoops to jump through. It's not related to audio specifically (so I didn't add it to the no-go list above) but requests for a new UI/skinning engine has been discussed a lot, even recently, and that's probably not happening anytime soon, if ever. I should edit my post above and add that one, hmmm.

[JimH]

MC does work with Sonos and I believe Sonos handles playing to a second zone automatically.

[Awesome Donkey]

Oh! Didn't know that (as I don't have any Sonos equipment).

[dtc]

MC does work with Sonos and I believe Sonos handles playing to a second zone automatically.

MC sees Sonos speakers and can play to them through DLNA. However, MC does not interface with the Sonos app and does not support the multi-speaker synchronization that Sonos provides.

[JimH]

MC sees Sonos speakers and can play to them through DLNA. However, MC does not interface with the Sonos app and does not support the multi-speaker synchronization that Sonos provides.

Right, but if MC plays to one, doesn't Sonos handle the second?

[dtc]

Right, but if MC plays to one, doesn't Sonos handle the second?

Yes, you just have to go into the Sonos app and group the speakers, so it is a two step operation.

[Gl3nn]

Yes, you just have to go into the Sonos app and group the speakers, so it is a two step operation.

Correct (I knew that).  It's tedious, but it works.

[henning65]

@ Awesome Donkey

About the feature request: "sonic similarity"
As a user, this feature is kind of a UI. But it is so much more. It is a different way of analyzing files. It is a feature which - I guess - would ask for serious work on the JRiver-software.

For now - as far as I know - JRiver can find "related" songs by analyzing meta-data. "Sonic similarity" is analyzing the song itself and is looking for similarities to other songs. You might compare this with other "deep data" analyzing algorithms. This would offer a new approach of finding songs in a huge collection.... For sure, if you have 1-5.ooo songs, that's done intuitively. But with 30 k songs or more such a tool would be very helpful.


Coming back to the topic: Forum Request Board
With such a board the debate about features could be structured. And it would help me - to understand, if I'm alone with my idea and it would help JRiver to learn more about it's clients. Not more - but also not less.

And one last remark - I'm not waiting for the next feature to listen to "pur music". Still I use JRiver for music. If JRiver could help me to learn about music in the way explained - that would be nice.

[dtc]

@ Awesome Donkey

About the feature request: "sonic similarity"


For now - as far as I know - JRiver can find "related" songs by analyzing meta-data. "Sonic similarity" is analyzing the song itself and is looking for similarities to other songs. You might compare this with other "deep data" analyzing algorithms. This would offer a new approach of finding songs in a huge collection.... For sure, if you have 1-5.ooo songs, that's done intuitively. But with 30 k songs or more such a tool would be very helpful.

This is the approach Pandora took back in the early days. They used the Music Genome Project which used up to 450 "genes" to identify similar music.  It goes far beyond just matching metadata and is why Pandora is still the leader is creating "radio stations" based on a single artist. It is a very sophisticated approach and would be a nice addition to MC, but it is also a lot of work and is not an automated process.  Pandora does not license the process or the data. It is exclusive to them these days.  Some scaled down system like that might be possible, but would require a lot of work and lots of research.  And, as you say, that approach is probably better for a very large collection of music, rather than a typical user's database.

[Awesome Donkey]

I think such a feature would benefit Cloudplay more than anything else, but yeah, it seems like a lot of work and research would be needed for such a thing. If it's going to happen, I personally would be surprised if it happened in the short term, if at all.

Coming back to the topic: Forum Request Board
With such a board the debate about features could be structured. And it would help me - to understand, if I'm alone with my idea and it would help JRiver to learn more about it's clients. Not more - but also not less.

You're not alone, it's just this kind of thing has been brought up multiple times in the past and it was shot down by JRiver, that's why I don't see this happening. They have their own ways of doing things, and it seems to have worked pretty well for them over the years, so why would they change what isn't broken to them? Ultimately this is why the idea about a feature requests forum section is probably not happening - I would be incredibly surprised if it did.

[Wheaten]

it seems to have worked pretty well for them over the years, so why would they change what isn't broken to them?

It sure worked over the past 10 years, but the market is changing, despite of some controversial thinking of others.
We oldies still want to have local copies of files and click around, but looking at the current generation, they stream and swipe the crap out of everything. Spotify/Tidal/Qobuz/Amazon/itunes/Deezer/Youtube/HD-tracks/....
The same goes for movies.

I believe Blackberry and Nokia lost, these were the top brands for Mobile phones, the right to exist by clinging to the idea, they needed to build a phone, while the customers were in need for a small computer, which could also make a call.

Back to the topic:
You're absolutely correct, not to open a topic for feature request as it will open a can of worms. But create a predefined top 10 where your paying customers can vote and try to implement 1 or 2 top votes per major release, doesn't seem that odd??

[henning65]

This is the approach Pandora took back in the early days. They used the Music Genome Project which used up to 450 "genes" to identify similar music.

@dtc
I don't know the Music Genome Project. I know it from an outdated iOS app and from a feature PLEX is offering for music. ...

I believe Blackberry and Nokia lost

@Wheaten
That could be a benefit of a Forum-Request-Board: Giving JRiver direction to find the "next big thing"

such a feature would benefit Cloudplay more than anything else, but yeah, it seems like a lot of work and research would be needed for such a thing. If it's going to happen, I personally would be surprised if it happened in the short term

@Awesome Donkey
I agree on Cloudplay and that heavy work would be needed. ... And again... I believe a company would like to understand as good as possible the market for a new feature BEFORE investing a lot of work .... 

[David Sydney]

I realise that this is not simple, and has many technical hurdles with 3rd parties, but what I request... may be wish list is a better description... is some integration somehow playlists between non media file collections eg. spotify, Youtube, vinyl, Dicogs lists with Media Centre. ie. I would like to be able to manage a catalogue and playlists of items that are not stored as media files on a hard drive. Idealy be able to jump to those of they are URLs or similar? I have tried to do this several times with the built in Youtube page, with last years. upgrade to Edge allowing permanent log in, but youtube stays in the page and won't jump out to the Playing now windows so I can save the URL

Make sense - I have asked similar questions on this in the forum before to no avail?