INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Just the Audio Player  (Read 4961 times)

BigGuy

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Just the Audio Player
« on: June 03, 2016, 01:20:07 pm »

I'm brand new to this forum (1st post) and relatively new to JRiver MC. I purchased it late last year and after using it for a day or two, just kind of forgot about it and went back to using my (at the time) audio player of choice --- Infinity Blade (Bughead). The sound quality of Infinity Blade is impressive, although the user interface is horrible and there doesn't appear to be ANY documentation (at least in one of the two languages I speak; English and BAD English) on its various settings, what they do to the sound quality or how they impact/affect various connected hardware. It also doesn't or can't do what JR River does.

At any rate, not long ago I watched a YouTube video posted by a guy who has the same DAC I have; the TEAC UD-503. A few messages later he started raving about the sound quality of JRiver MC and how simple it was to configure it for DSD playback, which in my limited experience with it I had no idea it could do. I mentioned that I owned it too, that I hadn't used it much and had been using Infinity Blade, at which point he started questioning my sanity.

My setup is a home recording studio (near field), which is/was my primary motivation in purchasing the UD-503; XLR connections and lots of inputs and outputs. Well, that and its sound quality, which for the money is tough to beat. My studio monitors are all JBL Pro series (active speakers); four mains and a subwoofer. I have a Focusrite 18 channel digital interface/mixer (with it's own built-in DAC) and another very clinical sounding DAC I've been using and still use occasionally as a headphone amp. I also have a Little Dot MK III with Russian NOS tubes that sounds amazing and that I use as my primary headphone amp. I have a pair of AKG K712 Pro cans that sound incredible through that amp. I won't list all the guitars, amps, keyboards, synths, mics, etc., as that would just be silly.

My studio computer is a custom-built, water-cooled rig that's dead silent, is VERY fast, VERY powerful and is running a HIGHLY optimized version of Windows Server 2012 R2. I'm also running Audiophile Optimizer (AO) and/or Fidelizer Pro, and obviously, JRiver MC. Suffice to say that what I have in my home, for both recording and playback, is very clean, clear, precise, presents a HUGE sound field, is uncolored and has a dead-silent noise floor (balanced XLR provides that). I also use a software parametric equalizer, in conjunction with a very flat frequency response mic, to tweak up and/or down the high/low spots in the audible frequency spectrum that need tweaking (nothing is perfect). Overall, I couldn't be happier with the sound quality and flexibility of this system and it is jaw-dropping to everyone who hears it.

One thing I did that made a noticeable difference in sound quality was having our electrician install a pair of isolated 20 amp circuits into my studio, along with a 'whole house' surge suppressor. I also installed a pair of UPS's (Uninterruptible Power Supplies). One UPS handles all the interfacing hardware; computer, monitor, DACs, Digital Interface/Mixer, tube preamps, external USB drives, etc., and the other UPS handles all the studio monitors; mains and subwoofer. All my audio gear runs on VERY clean and isolated (from the rest of the house) power, which is as good as it gets.

At any rate and back on topic, I purchased the upgrade to MC22 a couple of days ago and saw the link to "Plans For MC22", which is locked. So, I thought I'd open this thread for myself and/or anyone else who missed out on posting their thoughts on MC22 and might want to give their 2 cents worth on the subject. Based on my setup, usage and need for a 'player', here are my thoughts;

Personally, I'm a BIG fan of a minimalist approach to software design. As a retired software developer with decades of experience in aerospace (NASA/Ridley Mission Control, Hercules Aerospace, etc.) applications, lots of US and foreign military applications, many classified projects that I CAN'T talk about, along with working with 'human factors' engineers and user interface design experts, I came to the conclusion a LONG time ago that 'less is more' and that a simple, uncluttered user interface is always the RIGHT approach.

It doesn't really matter what the application is used for. It (the user interface) just needs to be intuitive, fast and easy to navigate, easy to find what you're looking for (functionally) and NOT infused with any loud, distracting or threatening colors (like RED). Subdued pastels (when/if needed) always work best, in my experience, and are much less distracting. Black text on a white background and a very limited color pallet is the key.

I've always been a big fan of breaking down an application into it's fundamental elements and/or sections of functionality, creating a user interface that presents those elements/functions in a cohesive manner and presents them on/in ONE screen/window at a time. What I'm getting at here is, for example, if a section of the code is used for ONLY PLAYING MUSIC FILES, then that section or group of functions should be the ONLY THING YOU SEE IN THE WINDOW. I always used 'Back' and 'Next' buttons or arrows to return a user to a previous screen/window, or to move forward to the next block of code (functionality) that does something more refined, along with a main menu to 'drill down' or into other applicable parts of the code. That also allows you to use smaller windows and leaves desktop space at a premium (for other applications).

My point here is that the LEAST amount of user interface elements presented to a user gives that user a level of confidence and security that makes them VERY comfortable, confident and secure in what they're using the software for. That approach also makes it much easier for someone to learn and memorize the flow of functionality through an application. Break it down into it's fundamental elements and present those element in a logical and well laid out manner and you'll have happy users.

I don't really see anything useful in comparing JRiver to any other 'player'. I don't use it for watching videos or movies or anything OTHER than for audio file playback, and at that it EXCELS! For my purposes, that's what I'd like to see; JUST the audio player, it's settings and nothing else. Basically, a standalone, stripped down JRiver Audio Player. Give me that and I'll have audio player 'Nirvana'. That'd be a good name for it too; 'Nirvana.'

Do I think that will ever happen? Probably not, but planting the right seed can sometimes grow fruit. So, we'll see.

Cheers!
P.S. if you made it this far and if you're one those who prefers a minimalist approach to writing, I sincerely apologize for taking up so much of your valuable time. I will try and keep future posts (if any) to a bare minimum.
Logged

CountryBumkin

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
Re: More 'Plans For MC22' Comments
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2016, 01:46:58 pm »

Welcome to the forum BigGuy.
It sounds like you have a lot of dollars and time tied up in your audio system. There are a lot of audio experts/professionals here so you can get some great advice on setting JRiver up. You may want to start in the "Audio Only Mode" (from View>Audio Only Mode) to get rid of some of the program clutter.
Good luck and enjoy!
Logged

BigGuy

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: More 'Plans For MC22' Comments
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2016, 02:02:10 pm »

Welcome to the forum BigGuy.
It sounds like you have a lot of dollars and time tied up in your audio system. There are a lot of audio experts/professionals here so you can get some great advice on setting JRiver up. You may want to start in the "Audio Only Mode" (from View>Audio Only Mode) to get rid of some of the program clutter.
Good luck and enjoy!

Thanks for the 'Audio Only Mode' tip, CB! I'll try that when I get back into my studio this afternoon. And yes, I'm sure ALL studios represent a lot of time, money and effort to get 'just right.' That said, and like most things in life, you get what you pay for. At least in my case, it was WELL worth everything I put into it. And then some.

Thanks again for the tip and for responding to my post. It is greatly appreciated!

Cheers!
Logged

JimH

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 72446
  • Where did I put my teeth?
Re: Just the Audio Player
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2016, 02:07:16 pm »

Welcome to the forum.  I changed your subject to reflect your suggestion.
Logged

BigGuy

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Just the Audio Player
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2016, 07:19:58 pm »

Welcome to the forum.  I changed your subject to reflect your suggestion.


Thank you! That certainly makes more sense than what I used. I wasn't sure what to put for the topic, other than to just offer a suggestion.

Cheers!
Logged

Roger_the_Shrubber

  • Regular Member
  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • 6 strings good, 4 strings better
Re: Just the Audio Player
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2016, 05:39:19 am »

Good post, BigGuy!

I also use MC exclusively for audio playback (since around 2002), mainly for live sound productions, and I couldn't be happier! Most certainly a cut above anything similar that I've seen both then and since.


Thanks for the tip, CountryBumkin! I hadn't noticed that option until now......
Logged

BigGuy

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Just the Audio Player
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2016, 10:57:36 am »

Roger --- thanks for responding to my post! Glad to hear that I'm NOT the only one who uses JRiver for JUST it's audio prowess. I have a (hopefully much shorter than my first post) story on the subject of software that tries to do too many things and/or be "all things to all people." I call it my 'UltraEdit Story'.

Back in the late 80's I started using a Windows-based programmer's text editor called UltraEdit. It was GREAT and it was THE BEST text editor available at the time. I showed/demo'd it to all my developer buddies and in short order, we were ALL using it.

A couple of years go by and they add in a couple of 'features' than NONE of us asked for OR needed. Fortunately, they didn't mess up the text editor, which is all we really cared about. Early versions of Windows were buggy enough back then and the LAST thing we needed was buggy software running on a buddy OS. At any rate, another year or so goes by and there's MORE CRAP added to it that DID negatively affect/impact the performance and functionality of the editor. Now we were pissed off and we ALL started calling their support line and complaining about what they'd done to our FAVORITE text editor.

Needless to say, ether nobody listened or nobody cared and the trend continued to the point where UltraEdit became a huge piece of useless crap that NOBODY wanted to use anymore. That's what happens when you try and make a product that's ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE. It just doesn't work and it makes software bloated, slow and prone to 'undocumented features' (also known as BUGS). A couple of years later, the company went belly up.

Interestingly, I heard from a developer buddy of mine back around 2005 or 2006 that someone had bought the original code from the UltraEdit developer, took out all the crap, put a new wrapper around it and started marketing it under the same name; 'UltraEdit'. I guess they bought the rights to the name too. No idea if it caught on or not, as I was developing code under UNIX at the time (using the 'Vi' text editor).

I guess the moral of the story is to NOT try and be all things to all people. There's nothing like a single purpose application to accomplish a goal; solve a problem, perform a task, etc. Single purpose software is typically VERY FAST, loads quickly, shuts down instantly and is NOT riddled with 'undocumented features.' It's the kind of thing I enjoyed developing more than any other application, primarily because it allowed for SIMPLICITY; simplified user interface and simplified code.

Sure ... current operating systems and today's hardware provide GREAT platforms for multitasking and running LOTS of software concurrently. Hell, we can even run two (or more) completely different operating systems concurrently, via VMWare. Still, there's nothing faster and/or more enjoyable to use than single purpose applications. I get that same level of satisfaction with high quality hand tools; wrenches, pliers, screwdrivers, etc. They perform ONE task extremely well, which is exactly what they were designed to do.

I'm not suggesting here that JRiver MC falls into that 'be all things to all people' philosophical approach to software development. It just does WAY more than I have a need for it to do.

Thanks again for responding to my post and have a great weekend!

Cheers!
Logged

DJLegba

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
Re: Just the Audio Player
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2016, 09:16:49 pm »

Well Big Guy as you are a man of few words I'm sure you are familiar with my favourite long-lost text editor, brief.
Logged

Roger_the_Shrubber

  • Regular Member
  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • 6 strings good, 4 strings better
Re: Just the Audio Player
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2016, 02:53:29 am »

Another very interesting post, BigGuy...... indeed, a Leatherman, Swiss Army Knife, et al remain, at best, emergency compromises.... nothing beats a comprehensive toolbox... far less frustrating and, in many cases, agonising...... as you say, with software, the super duper "value adds"/pretty frills often obscure and/or negatively impact on what should be the core features... I would guess that's why I remain very satisfied with Media Center.

Have yourself a good one too!
Logged

BigGuy

  • Recent member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Just the Audio Player
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2016, 09:50:34 am »

Well Big Guy as you are a man of few words I'm sure you are familiar with my favorite long-lost text editor, brief.

Definitely. I used 'Brief' back when I was writing assembler (developing drivers), but that was only briefly (pun intended). Actually, it's not lost and you can still download a free copy (briefeditor dot com). The 'Pro' version though is 120 bucks, which seems a bit steep to me. Vi is still my all-time-favorite text editor. I wrote REAMS of 'C' code using Vi. Good stuff.

Thanks for the brief reminder (another intended pun)!

Cheers!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up