Making more noise isn't going to change things.
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/37893-jriver-sox-upsampling-parameters-call-for-1/
JRiver's focus is on delivering the original sound as faithfully as possible, and not on providing lots of tools for tinkering with the sound.
Some of the more esoteric tools just lead from one rabbit hole to another. That's not our thing.
@JimH
1. I understand JRiver feature request is influenced on +1 requirements, as we previously had features implemented because of multiple +1s. So I see nothing wrong if I gather support for it elsewhere ("making noise").
2. Delivering as faithful is subjective now, isn't it? Linear phase brickwall filter has lower THD (good) but worst impulse response (bad). Minimum phase slow roll off has higher THD (bad) but better impulse response (good). Again, give us the OPTION to choose it (both on local and DLNA playback). Leave your preferred setting as default setting if you wish. Bury the option in an advanced menu if you like. Doesn't matter: just give us the option which is there implemented in SoX already.
Most DAC manufacturers "tinker" with upsampling filters. All your competing software have this option too. The most popular hi-fi magazine Stereophile measures and publishes the filter implementations. Why does JRiver insist this is not relevant?? ?
From JRiver main website:
Why JRiver?
For the purist
Because the sound engineered into the CD is the sound you will hear when you play the audio. No changes are made to it by JRiver. Nothing will come between you and the recording. The promise we deliver is fidelity and ease of use.
For the person who likes to experiment
If you need to manipulate the sound, you can use JRiver to modify playback. Upmixing, downmixing, bitdepth, speaker control. Because the audio path is fully 64 bit, any adjustments to volume, bitdepth and sample-rate are mathematically lossless.Isn't this your core value, "earned the respect of many leading audiophile manufacturers and their customers"?