Print

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

[rattosecond]

Is there a way JRiver can develop a simplified JRiver just for music. I feel that too much feature is adding to much unnecessary processing that affects sound quality.
 

[RoderickGI]

If you don't like all the features, go into Options -> General -> Features, and turn them off.

Not that those features are going to adversely effect sound quality. More likely background processing by your operating system, or audio settings set to high for the processing power of your device.

The thing is, most of the advanced features where developed first for audio, and then applied to other areas like video and TV. The database, optical disk ripping, Auto Import, Tagging, etc., all driven by audio.

So what are you really looking for? A simple player that lets you just play an audio file? There are plenty of those around.

[csimon]

Is there a way JRiver can develop a simplified JRiver just for music. I feel that too much feature is adding to much unnecessary processing that affects sound quality.

What sort of unnecessary processing is occurring?  Do you have any evidence that features you are not using are actually being processed in some way? And how does this affect sound quality?

[craigmcg]

You can click on View-Audio Only mode to change the appearance of MC20 but I don't know what if any processing impact this would have.

[rattosecond]

Here is why I asked this question..

I have been a JRiver user for 3 years and even influenced *all* my friends to move to JRiver on their macs and windows machines. It worked perfectly for many years.

Just recently I had an itch to try HQplayer and I was stunned. I sounds very good to the point it relaxing and very quiet to listen to at the time not sacrificing dynamics and details.

I do not want to say this here but for the aim of good sound -- I realized how much digital glare JRiver have.
I cannot believe this at first so it took some time for me to do some AB-ing but I keep coming back to HQplayer.

More on HQplayer due to the way it sounds it allows me to focus on music but it has a very awful library management and even I cannot remote control it.

I still love JRiver and plan to stick with JRiver if only it could inch closer to relieve my system of that digital sound.
I do not know how both apps works but my assumption is that  there is a lot more going on JRiver than HQplayer hence the difference in sound.

Hopefully the dev folks of JRiver would here my plea.

Please release a simplified version of JRiver with library and remote control functions intact.

FYI. I am believer of a quiet operating system that is why I use Audiophile Optimizer in my Windows 2012 R2 Essential/Uptone JS2 LPS/Paul Pang V2 Card/Samsung 840Pro.

[csimon]

I have to say that I don't believe that reducing the amount of processes in memory or reducing the amount of processing has such a huge influence over sound quality, unless you have very poor electronic components. I think you have found a "tonal quality" that you like in HQPlayer and have come to the assumption that this is purely down to the size of the program and/or what processing Windows is doing.

You can easily work out if this is the case.  Play music in HQplayer while your computer is performing a backup, or running some other program. Does the sound quality deteriorate so badly?

Here are some references from the Well Tempered Computer.

http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Windows/Win7/Tweaks.htm
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Intro/SoundQuality.htm

As mentioned above, you can disable lots of features in JRiver MC and put it into an "audio only" mode, as people seem to like it, but I think all this does is remove these features from menus etc. It will make absolutely zreo difference to what processing it is doing, as when playing audio this is all it is doing anyway. It doesn't run processes for no reason.

my assumption is that  there is a lot more going on JRiver than HQplayer hence the difference in sound.

No, there isn't a lot more going on...when you tell a piece of software to play music then that is what it will do. It won't do things that you haven't told it to do. And this won't affect sound quality.

Have you got any DSP processing going on in HQPlayer, or is it playing untouched music, bit-perfectly? What is it outputting to your DAC? And the same question about your setup in JRiver - have you set it to process the sound in any way?

[craigmcg]

I'm wondering if the gain matching in the A/B comparison is exact because IIRC differences in volume as small as .5 dB are perceived as sounding better, not louder. The slightly louder source sounds better. Placebo effect could also be a factor if you aren't doing double blind testing

[JimH]

I have to say that I don't believe that reducing the amount of processes in memory or reducing the amount of processing has such a huge influence over sound quality, unless you have very poor electronic components.

This is a good statement of our position, as well.  I would even go further, and say that it isn't possible that reducing processes affects sound (unless something was wrong with the computer in the first place).

If another player truly sounds different, it is probably modifying the sound.  A tiny volume boost, for example, might sound better.

You're also running a system that we would never recommend:

I am believer of a quiet operating system that is why I use Audiophile Optimizer in my Windows 2012 R2 Essential/....

Both Audiophile Optimizer and Windows 2012 R2 add nothing and may cause problems.

[rattosecond]

I have to say that I don't believe that reducing the amount of processes in memory or reducing the amount of processing has such a huge influence over sound quality, unless you have very poor electronic components. I think you have found a "tonal quality" that you like in HQPlayer and have come to the assumption that this is purely down to the size of the program and/or what processing Windows is doing.

You can easily work out if this is the case.  Play music in HQplayer while your computer is performing a backup, or running some other program. Does the sound quality deteriorate so badly?

My  i7 Intel 3770s 8GB machine is only dedicated to music. It is more than adequate to run JRiver. It does not conk out. If there is a tonal quality in HQplayer I would like to reach that in JRiver.

[rattosecond]

I'm wondering if the gain matching in the A/B comparison is exact because IIRC differences in volume as small as .5 dB are perceived as sounding better, not louder. The slightly louder source sounds better. Placebo effect could also be a factor if you aren't doing double blind testing

Even if I will claim that I can hear the difference nobody will believe me. I am a skeptic myself so I am asking friends to test it on their systems. One came back and said he hears the HQplayer sounding better. The sound is much more fuller and quieter for him and that the digital glare is gone.

[BryanC]

Even if I will claim that I can hear the difference nobody will believe me. I am a skeptic myself so I am asking friends to test it on their systems. One came back and said he hears the HQplayer sounding better. The sound is much more fuller and quieter for him and that the digital glare is gone.

Without an ABX your anecdote doesn't mean anything. Placebo and expectation bias are both stronger phenomena than audio-quality differences between modern DAPs.

[csimon]

HQPlayer contains a great deal of filtering, processing, upsampling etc that you can apply to the output. So does JRiver.  First of all, you need to find out what each piece of software is doing to the sound.  Do you have any processing turned on at all in either program?

[Arindelle]

my 2 cents for what they are worth as I'm more of a musician that a techie ...

As Brian and Jim said the gain has to be identical ==> google an ABX freeware, and make sure the output is the same

As CSimon said no DSPs should be in the comparison (if possible) Now I'm saying if possible be cause I just went to their website

Software upsampling / downsampling with selectable algorithm up to 32-bit 1.536 MHz or down to 16-bit 32 kHz PCM (14 options, most "apodizing")
Delta-Sigma modulators for upsampling PCM/DSD content up to 49.152 MHz 1-bit SDM (11 oversampling options)
Selectable dithering / noise shaping algorithm (7 options)

Order of the settings from left to right; resampling/oversampling algorithm, dither/noise-shaping algorithm, output sampling rate and output sample type (PCM/SDM).

this is a lot of DSP choice off the bat ... some of these are effecting the signal before its getting to your DAC -- can't compare apples and oranges. If you are upsampling or oversampling using this HQ program you must also do so through JRiver .. essentially this is no longer bit-perfect -- whether or not it sounds better to you is something else. Same goes with room correction, convolution filters, parametric eq.

CPUprocessing, especially on a bit-perfect stream to a DAC, run in JRiver in exclusive mode won't have any effect (positive or negative) -- its coming out bit perfect right?. Saying that though, it has been often cited that tweaks to the Windows registers (like Audio Optimizer) aren't going to improve sound, and combined with JRiver it could hurt (not to mention these server tweaks running on core mode or whatever its called I've been reading about). So compare JRiver without that -- its designed to avoid what you are worried about.

Leaving any biases aside, if there is a significant difference in what you are hearing, IMHO, it will be coming from either a higher gain (volume) or from something different in the DSP chain (or both). Can't be sure, but looking at the website, I bet its in the DSP (what they are calling "selectable algorithms"). If you like their DSPs, I pretty sure you can get the same with JRiver other than the dithering choices. But I leave that up to the experts to choose for me.

[rattosecond]

This is a good statement of our position, as well.  I would even go further, and say that it isn't possible that reducing processes affects sound (unless something was wrong with the computer in the first place).

If another player truly sounds different, it is probably modifying the sound.  A tiny volume boost, for example, might sound better.

You're also running a system that we would never recommend:
Both Audiophile Optimizer and Windows 2012 R2 add nothing and may cause problems.

"it is probably modifying the sound" Yeah it could be. What I understand is that there are filters in that player which I have not explored.

BTW My machine is as good as it gets based on my budget. It is a dedicated music server with proper clean linear power. I came from a gradual upgrade so I know what each component does to the overall sound of the system.

I am surprised that you said "Both Audiophile Optimizer and Windows 2012 R2 add nothing"... as this is one of the most surprising upgrade for me... I came from a Windows 7 and 8 and hears that Windows 2012 is good for music as it make the music more effortless.

I cannot of course let you just trust my opinion since there is no science behind it all the more our listening environments are totally different but I sincerely sharing to you guys there is a difference in sound. Its up to you if you will take it as an input.

I just want to clarify I am on the side of JRiver and the aim for great sound.
I dont want this thread to come down as negative as similar to the other ones out there. I understand the hard stance of the team behind this great app.

I am not here to convince people of my finding and just merely sharing my experience for the betterment of JRiver.

[rattosecond]

HQPlayer contains a great deal of filtering, processing, upsampling etc that you can apply to the output. So does JRiver.  First of all, you need to find out what each piece of software is doing to the sound.  Do you have any processing turned on at all in either program?

I like listening to pure sound. Even in JRiver I do not turn on any of the processing. have you tried the HQP?

[Arindelle]

I just want to clarify I am on the side of JRiver and the aim for great sound.
I dont want this thread to come down as negative as similar to the other ones out there. I understand the hard stance of the team behind this great app.

No problem. I didn't read it like you were being negative at all, just like you want to find an explanation to what you were hearing. I just don't think it has anything to do with additional cpu processing. Maybe try using the DSP engine in JRiver, it is a very good one. After all it all about the music right 

[rattosecond]

my 2 cents for what they are worth as I'm more of a musician that a techie ...

As Brian and Jim said the gain has to be identical ==> google an ABX freeware, and make sure the output is the same

As CSimon said no DSPs should be in the comparison (if possible) Now I'm saying if possible be cause I just went to their website this is a lot of DSP choice off the bat ... some of these are effecting the signal before its getting to your DAC -- can't compare apples and oranges. If you are upsampling or oversampling using this HQ program you must also do so through JRiver .. essentially this is no longer bit-perfect -- whether or not it sounds better to you is something else. Same goes with room correction, convolution filters, parametric eq.

CPUprocessing, especially on a bit-perfect stream to a DAC, run in JRiver in exclusive mode won't have any effect (positive or negative) -- its coming out bit perfect right?. Saying that though, it has been often cited that tweaks to the Windows registers (like Audio Optimizer) aren't going to improve sound, and combined with JRiver it could hurt (not to mention these server tweaks running on core mode or whatever its called I've been reading about). So compare JRiver without that -- its designed to avoid what you are worried about.

Leaving any biases aside, if there is a significant difference in what you are hearing, IMHO, it will be coming from either a higher gain (volume) or from something different in the DSP chain (or both). Can't be sure, but looking at the website, I bet its in the DSP (what they are calling "selectable algorithms"). If you like their DSPs, I pretty sure you can get the same with JRiver other than the dithering choices. But I leave that up to the experts to choose for me.

I am tempted to do an ABx but I just want to enjoy the music. As much as possible I do not like DSP. the thing is with processing it sometimes comes as 'unnatural sounding' which I cannot take.

[rattosecond]

No problem. I didn't read it like you were being negative at all, just like you want to find an explanation to what you were hearing. I just don't think it has anything to do with additional cpu processing. Maybe try using the DSP engine in JRiver, it is a very good one. After all it all about the music right 

Yeah I have influenced so many people around me on the merits of JRiver (most vinyl guys who were not even thought they will have their own digital system imagine that!)
I do not want to leave them on the cold that I found a better sounding app. They will not be happy with that interface and no remote control option.

I just want to send the message across to the dev team that maybe they can consider my suggestion. You guys can delete this thread if you need to.

[csimon]

have you tried the HQP?

No I haven't tried it.

If neither program is processing the audio in any way then your DAC is receiving exactly the same data from both programs.

See http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/520-fun-digital-audio-%96-bit-perfect-audibility-testing/

Quote: "Just for fun, I checked the digital output from other software music players such as Foobar and JPLAY (including JPLAY drivers for both JRiver and Foobar, plus JPLAY’s beach and river engines), all tested bit-perfect. Further, I compared FLAC versus WAV lossless file formats, also bit-perfect. Now that I have established a bit-perfect baseline, how far away from bit-perfect can I detect an audible difference? "

The author started adjusting things to make the audio not bit-perfect.  There was a point at which he was able to hear a difference.  The implication is that if you get bit-perfect from two different programs, you will not hear a difference.

Please try the audio-only option in JRiver, and turning Features off that you don't need.  Does it make a difference?

[JimH]

I'm going to close this thread now.