# Best Computer Audio Player Software?



## treyking11

hello all! the last piece of my puzzle for my office setup is the media player. just purchased the grace m9xx and will be running my denon d2000's from my macbook pro. not worried about cost, but the sound needs to justify it... is there really an audible difference? free would be best, but at this point $100 to tie it all together is not the end of the world. i have really nice lame-encoded variable bit mp3's along with some FLAC that are being played though itunes. streaming "might" be a possibility, since i am not sure i want to get into a subscription scenario, but those thoughts are welcome as well. any input is appreciated! thanks in advance!


----------



## Defenz0r

Free: Media Player Classic HC
 Free&Customizable: Foobar2000
 Convenience: JRiver Media Center.
  
 For your Music best rip CD with Exact Audio Copy.


----------



## treyking11

ha! i use EAC with lame, funny you should bring that up. amazing sound quality without the crazy size that FLAC produces... thanks for the input!


----------



## sterling1

Your not playing FLAC files from iTunes. iTunes does not do FLAC. It will do AIFF, ALAC, AAC, WAV. and maybe MP3 but not FLAC.


----------



## treyking11

you are right, i listen to my FLAC files on my portable rig; sorry for the confusion. i would like to incorporate them into the mix, thats why i mention them.


----------



## HiFiGuy528

sound quality alone, my vote is on Amarra by Sonic Studio
  
 http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/products
  

  
 On a side note. I wish people would stop using FLAC. IMHO, FLAC is the Flash of audio.


----------



## Slogra

Your comparison of Flac with Flash makes no sense at all. Flac is by far the best lossless format.

I wish people would stop using Apple products with all their limitations.


----------



## manishex

Bughead Emperor, dunno if it's Mac compatiable


----------



## Richsvt

I have been using Clementine for the Mac and works great. Nice features as well as great sounding playback...
  
 https://www.clementine-player.org/about
  
 Great alternative to iTunes.


----------



## dockie7

Media monkey is a good choice for me and its free.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

> On a side note. I wish people would stop using FLAC. IMHO, FLAC is the Flash of audio.


 
  
 Could you explain this comparison, please?


----------



## treyking11

yes, i am curious about this as well.


----------



## LajostheHun

Hope you guys are not holding your breath on that one. ^^^^^

I use Music Bee it is also free and has a very good ripper as well.
Edit: it doesn't support Macs, oops!


----------



## Neccros

FLAC is like Flash???  Ummm SO what SHOULD I use??
  
 FLAC is basically a perfect representation of all my CDs not to mention it has different levels of compression and can be converted into any number of other formats w/o losing the original source quality...
  
 I never saw Flash do any of this, only crash my browser.


----------



## gmplus

JRiver


----------



## Ralf Hutter

hifiguy528 said:


> On a side note. I wish people would stop using FLAC. IMHO, FLAC is the Flash of audio.




_Please_ tell me what format to use then. 

I have almost 4TB of FLAC files that I'm going to have to re-rip and I'd like to get started sooner rather than later......


----------



## JoseM

For SQ, this has been more transparent than FB2k to me...smallplayer
  
_www.igorware.com › Software_
  
 But UI is the barest minimum


----------



## Roseval

If you are on a Mac and use iTunes, FLAC is a problem as Apple refuses to support this format.
 However, ALAC is a good alternative.
 If you want to play FLAC you do have to use another media player
 A couple of alternative can be found here:
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/OSX/Players.htm
  
 “Best” sound quality wise is hard to answer.
 I don’t know a reliable survey comparing media players SQ wise.
 Most of them probably are using Core audio anyway.
 There are players like Audirvana claiming to improve sound quality by bypassing the OSX mixer.
 Might work  but this are things you have to find out yourself.


----------



## fredeb

I still and always have and always will use Winamp . I don't use it with the library , only playlist window , it plays everything i want it to , including FLAC , or rather , especially FLAC . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
http://www.winamp.com/
  
 or
  
http://forums.winamp.com/showpost.php?p=2984799&postcount=2


----------



## Neccros

I use Winamp too... have since day 1... Also use Foobar.  I don't create playlists, I just grab the directories I have my music organized in, and drag them to the player.  Simple


----------



## fredeb

neccros said:


> I use Winamp too... have since day 1... Also use Foobar.  I don't create playlists, I just grab the directories I have my music organized in, and drag them to the player.  Simple


 
 Yeah - using it this way keeps one aware of the directory structure on the HDD . I right-click ( windows ) on folder and select " play in winamp " . I also don't create playlists ( or save them ) , The playlist window just shows what's cued up to play .


----------



## fredeb

roseval said:


> If you are on a Mac and use iTunes, FLAC is a problem as Apple refuses to support this format.
> However, ALAC is a good alternative.
> If you want to play FLAC you do have to use another media player
> A couple of alternative can be found here:
> ...


 
 This link seems quite intelligent and worth a look . I agree with Roseval re SQ of different players .


----------



## jrflanne

I like Audirvana.


----------



## Neccros

jrflanne said:


> I like Audirvana.


 
 That layers on top of iTunes??


----------



## Bobpaule

Foobar 2000 here. I kept deleting it then going back to it, tried all others. IMHO Foobar for the newb is intimidating, but once you remember where everything is it becomes perfect. Kudos to Piotr Pawlowski!
  
 Yep, Apple will do anything for an $, read this recent world news item, ALAC or 17 dongles, they would copyright the air if they could,
 just to keep you in their watertight cash drain compartment:
  
 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37880723


----------



## Roseval

In 2011 Apple made  ALAC open source.


----------



## Neccros

bobpaule said:


> FLAC is awesome.
> 
> Yep, Apple will do anything for an $, read this recent world news item, ALAC or 17 dongles, they would copyright the air if they could,
> just to keep you in their watertight cash drain compartment:
> ...


 
 Wish Apple would just wake up and realize, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..."  Oh wait... they want more $$$$ selling dongles....
  
 I'm just waiting for the flow chart that tells me which dongle I need based on what I am trying to do...HAHA


----------



## jrflanne

neccros said:


> That layers on top of iTunes??


 

 It can but I do not. I keep my library outside of itunes. Audirvana's library function works just fine and itunes library has been an endless pain. My music library has a mix of itunes purchases, ripped cd's and downloads from HDTracks.


----------



## Neccros

jrflanne said:


> It can but I do not. I keep my library outside of itunes. Audirvana's library function works just fine and itunes library has been an endless pain. My music library has a mix of itunes purchases, ripped cd's and downloads from HDTracks.


 
 What I meant by layers on top is Audirvana cannot play music on its own, it latches onto iTunes?  Not how it handles audio files.


----------



## JackDiesel

JRiver, can play any format, ton of SQ options, extensive tagging support, highly customizable, attractive and relatively easy to use.


----------



## vietngohong

I would go for Foobar2K, just simple


----------



## Kost

I second foobar2000. It's lightweight and highly customizable. You can get custom skins and plugin modules for it to suit your preference/needs.


----------



## Neccros

kost said:


> I second foobar2000. It's lightweight and highly customizable. You can get custom skins and plugin modules for it to suit your preference/needs.


 
 AND it plays FLAC! LOL


----------



## Digitalis

I use Winamp here, I have used it since the early versions.


----------



## stuck limo

hifiguy528 said:


> On a side note. I wish people would stop using FLAC. IMHO, FLAC is the Flash of audio.


 
  
 What should I be using instead?


----------



## phoenixdogfan

JRiver. Capable of rendering bit perfect audio files in any format to your DAC, plays every video format, does flawless on-the-fly bit and sample rate up (down) conversion, has servicable cd ripper, does tagging, DLNA, zones, cover art accommodates plug ins including eq's as well as DSP convolution files, has a 64 bit digital volume control, and extensive features for cataloging local audio and video libraries. 

Considering the complex things it does, the interface is fairly intuitive, and easy to understand.

To this day, I don't understand how anyone can believe that one digital player provides "superior" sound over another. As long as the base program is rendering bit perfect sound, it is, by definition, perfect. If I want some added level of sound processing (eq, convolution, dithering, upsampling, etc), I will add it. In no way do I want that kind of processing to be a non alterable,undefeatable feature of my digital player. And I certainly would never pay upwards of $500 for it.


----------



## Patu

phoenixdogfan said:


> To this day, I don't understand how anyone can believe that one digital player provides "superior" sound over another. As long as the base program is rendering bit perfect sound, it is, by definition, perfect. If I want some added level of sound processing (eq, convolution, dithering, upsampling, etc), I will add it. In no way do I want that kind of processing to be a non alterable,undefeatable feature of my digital player. And I certainly would never pay upwards of $500 for it.


 
  
 I just recently moved to JRiver. Before that I used foobar2000 for over ten years. The biggest reason for me was that JRiver sounds better than foobar2000. It's strange since they're both configured to output bitperfect, unmodified signal through WASAPI output but still there's a clear difference on sound quality. JRiver sounds more analog and slightly punchier, more refined I'd say. foobar2000 is slightly edgier and raw sounding. It really is weird that there can be a difference but I trust my ears.


----------



## TheAttorney

> To this day, I don't understand how anyone can believe that one digital player provides "superior" sound over another. As long as the base program is rendering bit perfect sound, it is, by definition, perfect.


 
  
 It's not a case of _believing - _all one has to do is to_ listen_.
  
 I've found HQ Player to sound better than JRiver irrespective of DSP settings, or bit perfectness, or conversion/upsampling. I'm currently using both with everything switched off, other than some dither on HQP. This on Windows in my case, as that's all I've got, but others have enthused about HQP on OSX.
  
 I haven't wasted my JRMC license though. I continue to use JRMC for ripping, tagging, library management and all those clever things it's good at - to organise things as i want them. And it's a single command to import the whole lot into HQP's library. Admittedly, HQP's rather basic UI is an acquired taste shall we say, And its library management is almost none existent. But, at substantial extra cost, you can link it with Roon to get the best of both worlds (some say - I've haven't tried Roon myself yet).
  
 The SQ differences between JRMC and HQP is not night and day IMO with direct USB connection. But insert a microRendu using HQP's NAA mode and it goes up another division. I think the insertion of mR is mostly to do with noise reduction, but I don't care what the reason is - I just go with what sounds best to me.


----------



## Music Alchemist

theattorney said:


> It's not a case of _believing - _all one has to do is to_ listen_.
> 
> I've found HQ Player to sound better than JRiver irrespective of DSP settings, or bit perfectness, or conversion/upsampling. I'm currently using both with everything switched off, other than some dither on HQP. This on Windows in my case, as that's all I've got, but others have enthused about HQP on OSX.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I use HQPlayer as well. It's the only player I've found that actually does sound better than others. (And I've tried quite a few.)
  
 As I understand it, the processing it does is sort of like emulating high-end DACs. Everyone I've shared it with agrees that it sounds better, except for one who owns a high-end DAC and did not hear a difference. Since you own the DAVE, I'd imagine it would sound better leaving the processing to the DAC. It would be interesting if you could report how things sound on your system with and without.
  
 Since it's so processor-intensive with all the hardcore settings activated, HQPlayer makes music stutter on my laptop sometimes, even though it has nice specs. I use virtual RAM drives to store certain programs and files in memory now, which eliminates the stuttering and makes my computer operate more smoothly. Because I do things this way, I don't even bother trying to use HQPlayer's atrocious interface more than I have to; I just delete the old playlist tracks from the library and load the latest ones by selecting the RAM drive. (It's easier for me to manually browse my music folders and create on-the-fly playlists.)
  
 There's also a way to integrate HQPlayer with foobar2000. (Anyone who's curious about that can Google it.)
  
 If you want to experiment with taking your microRendu to the next level, check out all the stuff this reviewer did:
 http://www.audiostream.com/content/sonore-simple-design-microrendu-audiophile-odyssey


----------



## TheAttorney

Quote:


music alchemist said:


> Since you own the DAVE, I'd imagine it would sound better leaving the processing to the DAC. It would be interesting if you could report how things sound on your system with and without.


 
 When I tried HQP with my portable iFi MicroDSD, I (and others) found HQP sounded best at the highest upsampling rates. Furthermore, I (and others) preferred the sound when converted to DSD. But on this point, some differed and preferred high sample rate PCM. In my case, all files were redbook FLAC.   However, DSD conversion put the biggest load on my i7 CPU, around 20%-40% depending on DSD64-512. I found DSD512 impossible to use, and even the lower DSD speeds caused occasional stuttering and the high CPU load caused my laptop's fan to come on - not nice.
  
 With DAVE, I prefer all DSP off, apart from experimenting with the subtle effect of dither. In this case, the filter and upsampling options generally give a slightly smoothing effect, which is not unpleasant, but not as transparent as letting DAVE do the work. And in this case, the CPU load is an insignificant 2% or so.
  
 So, those HQP DSP options may work better with some DACS than others, and can give flexibility, but my main point is that HQP sounds better than JRMC even with all DSP switched off. A clearer, more transparent sound. Going back to JRMC gives a smoother, mushier, woollier sound. Like I said, it's not night and day difference with direct USB connection, but those who want to get the best SQ out of their computer system should give it a try. Those that don't get on with HQP's clunky UI have the integration options with Roon or foobar etc.
  
 Allegedly, Bug Head Emperor can give better still sound, but that is too esoteric for me to even try. And it doesn't have the NAA feature of HQP which takes things to a another level


----------



## Music Alchemist

theattorney said:


> When I tried HQP with my portable iFi MicroDSD, I (and others) found HQP sounded best at the highest upsampling rates. Furthermore, I (and others) preferred the sound when converted to DSD. But on this point, some differed and preferred high sample rate PCM. In my case, all files were redbook FLAC.   However, DSD conversion put the biggest load on my i7 CPU, around 20%-40% depending on DSD64-512. I found DSD512 impossible to use, and even the lower DSD speeds caused occasional stuttering and the high CPU load caused my laptop's fan to come on - not nice.
> 
> With DAVE, I prefer all DSP off, apart from experimenting with the subtle effect of dither. In this case, the filter and upsampling options generally give a slightly smoothing effect, which is not unpleasant, but not as transparent as letting DAVE do the work. And in this case, the CPU load is an insignificant 2% or so.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I've heard about HQP working better with DACs in that range. (Something about it making $500 DACs sound like $5,000 ones. Heh.)
  
 I use some of the most extreme settings, which do stutter, but the RAM drives fix that.
  
 I tried Bug Head Emperor / Infinity Blade. Oddly, no matter which DSP settings I configured, it sounded the same. (And having to wait over a minute for a song to start with the most extreme settings wasn't fun.) Perhaps something necessary wasn't activated? I dunno.


----------



## Neccros

patu said:


> I just recently moved to JRiver. Before that I used foobar2000 for over ten years. The biggest reason for me was that JRiver sounds better than foobar2000. It's strange since they're both configured to output bitperfect, unmodified signal through WASAPI output but still there's a clear difference on sound quality. JRiver sounds more analog and slightly punchier, more refined I'd say. foobar2000 is slightly edgier and raw sounding. It really is weird that there can be a difference but I trust my ears.


 
 Are you using any sort of EQ or anything that would alter the sound in any way shape or form??? Or just how Foobar handles the digits vs Jriver?


----------



## Digitalis

music alchemist said:


> I use some of the most extreme settings, which do stutter, but the RAM drives fix that.


 

 What kind of hardware has your laptop got? I build my own pcs and it is difficult hard to find anything that can cause them to slow up. Running things from PCI-E M2 drives can speed processing up considerably.


----------



## tackytiger

music alchemist said:


> I use some of the most extreme settings, which do stutter, but the RAM drives fix that.


 
  
 Are you using an ASIO driver at very low latency?
  
 They were originally designed for musicians who needed the responsiveness.
  
 For audio playback, a larger buffer gives a much smoother experience with a lower overhead.


----------



## Music Alchemist

digitalis said:


> What kind of hardware has your laptop got? I build my own pcs and it is difficult hard to find anything that can cause them to slow up. Running things from PCI-E M2 drives can speed processing up considerably.


 
  
 Alienware M11x R2. Windows 10 Home 64-bit. Intel Core i7-640UM 1.2 GHz processor. 8 GB RAM. 451 GB HDD.
  
 I think all this has more to do with the fact that it's getting old and I haven't done any hardware maintenance. (Don't plan to either; I'll just build a custom desktop PC in the future.) But like I said, using RAM drives makes everything function flawlessly. (Though other programs can still operate slower when music is playing.)
  
 If you're not familiar with HQPlayer and the type of extreme processing it does, click here.
  


tackytiger said:


> Are you using an ASIO driver at very low latency?
> 
> They were originally designed for musicians who needed the responsiveness.
> 
> For audio playback, a larger buffer gives a much smoother experience with a lower overhead.


 
  
 I've tried everything. The RAM drives are the only solution that worked.


----------



## Patu

neccros said:


> Are you using any sort of EQ or anything that would alter the sound in any way shape or form??? Or just how Foobar handles the digits vs Jriver?


 
 No I'm not. JRiver shows that the output is bitperfect with nothing done to the signal. JRiver does its own bitperfect dithering though, but I tried to switch it off and couldn't hear a difference there. foobar2000 doesn't have the function to show if the output is bitperfect but there's no DSP active and I use WASAPI output with highest priority. I also have Fidelizer which should further optimize the PC for audiophile playback. 
  
 I also tried this rather new Japanese player called Hysolid. Many say it sounds even better than Bughead (which I haven't tried) and it sounded quite nice but is slightly laggy and glitchy still. I will give it another go when new versions are released. I also like to scrobble my plays to Last.fm, which is something that JRiver, Roon and foobar2000 can do. 
  
 http://www.hysolid.com/


----------



## Music Alchemist

patu said:


> I also tried this rather new Japanese player called Hysolid. Many say it sounds even better than Bughead (which I haven't tried) and it sounded quite nice but is slightly laggy and glitchy still. I will give it another go when new versions are released. I also like to scrobble my plays to Last.fm, which is something that JRiver, Roon and foobar2000 can do.


 
  
 I wanted to try that one awhile ago, but I don't have a smartphone so...


----------



## jrflanne

ralf hutter said:


> _Please_ tell me what format to use then.
> 
> I have almost 4TB of FLAC files that I'm going to have to re-rip and I'd like to get started sooner rather than later......




FLAC is fine. If you have 4tb worth, must be good for you.


----------



## jrflanne

neccros said:


> That layers on top of iTunes??




It can but I use the Audirvana library. If you like iTunes, you can certainly go that way.p but it is a full function player. I seem to enjoy the sound and lack of hassle over others I have tried. Rune. Jriver. Amarra. iTunes.


----------



## Digitalis

music alchemist said:


> Alienware M11x R2. Windows 10 Home 64-bit. Intel Core i7-640UM 1.2 GHz processor. 8 GB RAM. 451 GB HDD.
> 
> I think all this has more to do with the fact that it's getting old and I haven't done any hardware maintenance. (Don't plan to either; I'll just build a custom desktop PC in the future.) But like I said, using RAM drives makes everything function flawlessly. (Though other programs can still operate slower when music is playing.)
> 
> If you're not familiar with HQPlayer and the type of extreme processing it does, click here.


 
  
 No offense intended, that hardware needs an update. My current rig i'm in the process of re-building is a watercooled* I7*-*6900K based, high end Gigabyte Mobo, 64gb of ram, two 512gb SSDs + 10tb of WD black hard drives, also I have water cooled SLI Nvidia 1080s with a 1200W PSU.
  
 My current laptop is an HP i7-3520M based system with 12Gb ram, 2Tb SSD, I removed the DVD drive and crammed in another 240Gb SSD for the OS...I have little use for optical drives ATM. I have a Creative X7 connected through USB on this laptop - my PC is connected to the X7 through toslink optical.
  
 I don't think you will have to go to those kind of extremes [I work as a commercial photographer, I need some serious power to deal with processing hundreds of 200Mp 16 bit Images...and I also use it for gaming]
  
 I'll try HQplayer, I don't have anything on their list of recommended hardware, [the Schiit loki is no longer in production] though the Creative X7 DAC/AMP and the Klipsch RP160M I have should do a passable job hehe
  
 * water cooling is a bit of a necessity for a high end pc here in Australia. Ambient temperatures get very high, so high that using air is more likely to warm things up than cool them down.


----------



## Music Alchemist

digitalis said:


> No offense intended, that hardware needs an update.
> 
> I'll try HQplayer


 
  
 Oh, yeah, it's a 2010 model. My 2005 Sony VAIO is even more ancient. I won't worry about improving things until I can do it right and get a really nice custom desktop PC like you have.
  
 Experiment with the settings to see which you like the most. There's a lot of technical info out there on how it works. It reminds me of the way Chord DACs do unexpected things to attain higher accuracy.


----------



## Digitalis

music alchemist said:


> Oh, yeah, it's a 2010 model. My 2005 Sony VAIO is even more ancient. I won't worry about improving things until I can do it right and get a really nice custom desktop PC like you have.
> 
> Experiment with the settings to see which you like the most. There's a lot of technical info out there on how it works. It reminds me of the way Chord DACs do unexpected things to attain higher accuracy.


 
 I'll give you some advice: If you do get a custom built PC - build it yourself, it isn't hard to put a PC together like it was in the 90s, and you learn how to maintain and upgrade it. If you select the parts well, it may be possible to hold onto them for future upgrades which in the long run may save you quite a bit of money. The creative X-Fi I have survived 3 upgrades, has been modded and is still going strong. The 10 TB worth of WD Black drives were from an older system as well, though the SSD are all new.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

Needing to upgrade your computer because of an audio player is insane.

 I do not understand the problem of using a player with WASAPI or ASIO. This is enough to deliver the audio without any problem.

 Doing upsampling or something like that before reaching the DAC is just a way to degrade the sound unless your DAC is troublesome enough not to be able to do a simple thing like that in a transparent way.

 If a player is sounding different than a well-configured (that can be done in a few minutes) Foobar2000 or Jriver MC, it's probably adding some color to the sound, there's really no secret about it.


----------



## Neccros

extremegamerbr said:


> Needing to upgrade your computer because of an audio player is insane.


 
 I agree... my 8yo netbook can play music files perfectly...


----------



## saddleup

After years of using Windows Media player as a convenience and my high end CD player for critical listening I discovered J River and everything changed.  CD player is gone, PC is treated as a source component with a HT Omega sound card.
  
 I'm an old guy that has worked retail for a couple of decades selling products ranging from home audio and video equipment to bicycles through to motorcycles.  There is a direct relationship between how much someone spends and expectation of performance.  When I worked in a bike shop we had a Kenda tire that had a wholesale cost of $4.00.  We retailed this tire for $9.99 and couldn't sell them, they languished on the wall.  Now Kenda is well known in the bike industry but everyone knows a $10 tire is crap.  $50-$100 or more is not unusual for a bicycle tire.  We raised the price of that tire to $19.99 and could not keep it on the shelf, they sold like crazy.  Because everyone knows a $10 tire is crap, a $20 tire all though relatively inexpensive is okay.
  
 The audio industry is full of products that cost multiples more than another product yet don't sound different or better.  Inexpensive components re wrapped in a nicer chassis for example.  $500+ for a software player?  Oh my.


----------



## Music Alchemist

extremegamerbr said:


> Needing to upgrade your computer because of an audio player is insane.
> 
> I do not understand the problem of using a player with WASAPI or ASIO. This is enough to deliver the audio without any problem.
> 
> ...


 
  
 The processing is done to emulate high-end DACs and exceeds what affordable DACs are capable of. Just research HQPlayer and Chord DACs to get a grasp of what's actually going on. You can start by reading these links along with the manual that comes with the free trial of HQPlayer.
  
 http://web.archive.org/web/20160811140354/http://www.chordelectronics.co.uk/chord-dac-technology.asp
http://www.head-fi.org/t/766517/chord-electronics-dave/1395#post_12262339
http://www.head-fi.org/t/766517/chord-electronics-dave/4515#post_12839928
http://www.head-fi.org/t/800264/watts-up/120#post_12586725
  
 So basically, the goal of the processing is to get more accurate sound (such as better resolving of transients), because your other components are limited. It's the same concept as using a software equalizer to compensate for the limitations of your headphones: the fact that the digital signal is altered is beside the point.
  
 Also, with the RAM drives, I don't need to upgrade any hardware, and you can use ASIO, WASAPI, KS, etc. even with DSP.


----------



## saddleup

I just may be on the wrong website.  I can't help but call shenanigans. Perhaps it's best I move on and just listen to some music on my system.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

music alchemist said:


> The processing is done to emulate high-end DACs and exceeds what affordable DACs are capable of. Just research HQPlayer and Chord DACs to get a grasp of what's actually going on. You can start by reading these links along with the manual that comes with the free trial of HQPlayer.
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20160811140354/http://www.chordelectronics.co.uk/chord-dac-technology.asp
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/766517/chord-electronics-dave/1395#post_12262339
> ...


 
  
 Got it. So you give me a link from the manufacturer of the product, but you know that's not exactly a justification, right? It would be the same as asking Sennheiser what the best headphone in the world, probably they would not say it's an Audeze, for example, right?

 Interesting is that in the first text it says that it is known that sounds with higher rates of sample rate have a better sound ... I believe that this topic is far from having a conclusion.

 Either way, independent testing is always safer than what a manufacturer says. It might be interesting to show me some blind test that addresses this sample rate issue, I'd be happy to read it.

 I'm not trying to be annoying, I'm just suggesting that a more rational analysis would be better.
  
  And when comparing the sounds of the players, please make a blind test and with the volume matched, it's the only way to have a real conclusion.


----------



## Music Alchemist

extremegamerbr said:


> Got it. So you give me a link from the manufacturer of the product, but you know that's not exactly a justification, right? It would be the same as asking Sennheiser what the best headphone in the world, probably they would not say it's an Audeze, for example, right?
> 
> Interesting is that in the first text it says that it is known that sounds with higher rates of sample rate have a better sound ... I believe that this topic is far from having a conclusion.
> 
> ...


 
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/a/terms-of-service
  


> If what you want to post includes words/phrases like "placebo," "expectation bias," "ABX," "blind testing," etc., please post it in the Sound Science forum.


 
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/a/posting-guidelines
  


> please avoid trashing equipment you haven't used


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

music alchemist said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/a/terms-of-service


 
  Easier, right?

 Anyway, my criticism remains valid.

 At least anyone who joins this topic will have a second opinion to see before paying a hundred dollars in a player.


----------



## Music Alchemist

extremegamerbr said:


> At least anyone who joins this topic will have a second opinion to see before paying a hundred dollars in a player.


 
  
 There is a free trial that anyone can try. If you don't hear an improvement (after being sure to experiment with the settings) then you don't need to worry about it. But countless others (including myself) do hear a noticeable improvement.
  
 If you really cared about the technical stuff, the least you could do is read those posts I linked to and the HQPlayer manual.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

music alchemist said:


> There is a free trial that anyone can try. If you don't hear an improvement (after being sure to experiment with the settings) then you don't need to worry about it. But countless others (including myself) do hear a noticeable improvement.
> 
> If you really cared about the technical stuff, the least you could do is read those posts I linked to and the HQPlayer manual.


 
  I'm going to test it now. I have nothing against someone buying the player. Maybe it actually improves the sound, for whatever reason. As I said, I find it interesting that there is a second opinion. I believe this does not harm the forum at all. I just suggested other ways of testing it, avoiding any partiality.

 Anyway, if you're happy, that's what matters, right?

  
 Edit: And I'm reading them right now.


----------



## Music Alchemist

extremegamerbr said:


> I'm going to test it now. I have nothing against someone buying the player. Maybe it actually improves the sound, for whatever reason. As I said, I find it interesting that there is a second opinion. I believe this does not harm the forum at all. I just suggested other ways of testing it, avoiding any partiality.
> 
> Anyway, if you're happy, that's what matters, right?


 
  
 For the record, I think it would be cool if people did objective tests on all this stuff...but it's not easy to pull off, and conclusive results are practically impossible much of the time. (At the least, even in subjective listening, you have to test tons of music, not just a few songs, since it's easier to tell differences with some songs more than others.)
  
 But anyway, people shouldn't need to prove that they can hear a difference when DSP is activated, because the very purpose of DSP is to alter the sound. The real purpose for tests and measurements in this context would be to determine whether that difference is higher or lower fidelity...but there's already a lot of science behind it, if you care to research it, which is why I directed you to those posts as a starting point.
  
 I'm going to make the excerpt from the Chord DAC technology page (which is offline now) more visible since it's relevant to the type of processing HQPlayer does (noise shaping, oversampling, modulation, dithering, etc.), particularly when it comes to transients.
  


> 768 kHz recordings cannot sound better because of information above 200 kHz being important - simply because musical instruments, microphones, amplifiers and loudspeakers do not work at these frequencies nor can we hear them. So if it is not the extra bandwidth that is important, why do higher sampling rates sound better?
> 
> The answer is not being able to hear inaudible supersonic information, but the ability to hear the timing of transients more clearly. It has long been known that the human ear and brain can detect differences in the phase of sound between the ears to the order of microseconds This timing difference between the ears is used for localising high frequency sound. Since transients can be detected down to microseconds, the recording system needs to be able to resolve timing of one microsecond. A sampling rate of 1 MHz is needed to achieve this!
> 
> ...


 
  
 (The DAVE has 164,000 taps. It measures better than any other DAC in some ways, so that's one thing you can look up if you want proof relating to how these things are higher fidelity.)


----------



## phoenixdogfan

Of course it's adding some coloration.  The people touting it prefer the coloration over bit perfect sound, there's no mystery here.


----------



## Music Alchemist

phoenixdogfan said:


> Of course it's adding some coloration.  The people touting it prefer the coloration over bit perfect sound, there's no mystery here.


 
  
 That's misleading, though, because simply calling it coloration implies that it is less accurate sound, when in fact, it is more accurate sound, exceeding the limitations of your current DAC. (Assuming you are only using an affordable one.) When you use bitperfect output, you are stuck with what your DAC can do. When you use HQPlayer, you can do things that many (if not most) DACs can't. When I use an equalizer, the goal is to get more accurate sound, beyond what my gear (headphones in this case) does on its own. Same concept here, except applied to other aspects of the sound, such as transients.


----------



## TheAttorney

Quote:


music alchemist said:


> That's misleading, though,


 
  
 I admire your diplomacy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
 I'm afraid I no longer have the patience, so best to say no more - because it wouldn't end well


----------



## Music Alchemist

theattorney said:


> I admire your diplomacy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 ahaha 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I just hope the Computer Audio section doesn't become too much more like the Sound Science section, with seemingly everyone insisting that $100 DACs are as good as it gets and anyone who believes otherwise are imagining the improvements.


----------



## phoenixdogfan

music alchemist said:


> That's misleading, though, because simply calling it coloration implies that it is less accurate sound, when in fact, it is more accurate sound, exceeding the limitations of your current DAC. (Assuming you are only using an affordable one.) When you use bitperfect output, you are stuck with what your DAC can do. When you use HQPlayer, you can do things that many (if not most) DACs can't. When I use an equalizer, the goal is to get more accurate sound, beyond what my gear (headphones in this case) does on its own. Same concept here, except applied to other aspects of the sound, such as transients.




So let me get this straight. You are going to improve the 1's and a 0's being delivered exactly as they were recorded on your digital music file and this will somehow improve the transients? Really?


If the transients were not there in the original recording somehow your player is going to put them in? Wondor what anyone versed in even the rudiments of information science would say about that?

Take a wild guess.

And, btw, what exactly does that $5000 Dac do that a well designed $100 Dac doesn't? I' d love to see any of these people who say they hear things on this uber expensive Schiit point to the measurables which makes this "audible" difference possible along with the psycho accoustic research confirming it is audible and makes a difference.

Or how about another challenge? Why don't one these "of course different Dacs are clearly audible" crowd use Liberty Instruments AudioDiffMaker to create two files of the same music, one played with a decent, competent $100 Dac, and then replayed on the "clearly superior" uber expensive Dac of their choice. Then use the DiffMaker to create a difference file between the two files, and post the difference file on this site as proof of those "audible differences."

 Can tell you right now there will be no more differences between the two files rendered by those respective Dacs than there would between the correct time given by a $35 Casio wristwatch and a $50000 Patek Phillipe.


----------



## Music Alchemist

phoenixdogfan said:


> So let me get this straight. You are going to improve the 1's and a 0's being delivered exactly as they were recorded on your digital music file and this will somehow improve the transients? Really?
> 
> If the transients were not there in the original recording somehow your player is going to put them in? Wondor what anyone versed in even the rudiments of information science would say about that?
> 
> ...


 
  
 I already provided links to start anyone on that journey. (And I even pasted a quote relating to the transients.) Simply read them (in my prior post) and then do more research if you really want to know the truth. It's a well-known fact that many DACs measure differently, and the DAVE measures much better than anything else in some ways. Just look it up. Many things have to be done to accurately convert the data in those files to analog, and frequency response and distortion are only the beginning. It's digital to _analog_ conversion, not digital to digital. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (It's just that doing some of the processing in the digital domain makes things easier and more accurate in the end.)
  
 The only people who believe all DACs sound the same are those who have not heard them. If you are unable to listen with your own ears, at least read some reviews:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-kinda-sucks-just-to-get-you-to-think-about-stuff
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/804153/life-after-yggdrasil
 https://www.google.com/#&q=dac+reviews


----------



## phoenixdogfan

Dude, your "proof" that different Dacs sound audibly different is a subjective ranking (sez so in the first ten words, dude) from a SBAF who' taken his handle from the sound his cat makes when he scratched behind the ears? And this is your citation of psychoaccoustic research which maps into the objective measurements, confirming the specific audio qualities he claims to hear? And where the h### is that differrnce file?

And your audio player know just which ones and zeros to add to counteract the limitations of each specific "different sounding" dac. Just how does that work? Any specific technical theory?


----------



## Music Alchemist

phoenixdogfan said:


> Dude, your "proof" that different Dacs sound audibly different is a subjective ranking (sez so in the first ten words, dude) from a SBAF who' taken his handle from the sound his cat makes when he scratched behind the ears? And this is your citation of psychoaccoustic research which maps into the objective measurements, confirming the specific audio qualities he claims to hear? And where the h### is that differrnce file?
> 
> And your audio player know just which ones and zeros to add to counteract the limitations of ears specific "different sounding" dac. Just how does that work? Any specific technical theory?


 
  
 I never said it was proof. This is Head-Fi, not Hydrogenaudio. No one is under any obligation to prove their claims. The links to impressions were merely examples of countless people hearing obvious differences between DACs. If you want to call them deaf delusional liars, without even hearing the things you're criticizing, that's your problem.
  
 Since you blatantly ignored the technical info I provided, I will link to it again. Read through these.
  
http://web.archive.org/web/20160811140354/http://www.chordelectronics.co.uk/chord-dac-technology.asp
http://www.head-fi.org/t/766517/chord-electronics-dave/1395#post_12262339
http://www.head-fi.org/t/766517/chord-electronics-dave/4515#post_12839928
http://www.head-fi.org/t/800264/watts-up/120#post_12586725
  
 That info is merely a starting point. Do your own research if you want to learn more. You can also read the manual that comes with the free trial of HQPlayer. It explains some of the techical aspects. It's not adding information that never existed; it's processing the information in a certain way for a more accurate digital to analog conversion.
  
 Also, read this post. Read it carefully.
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/812521/best-computer-audio-player-software/45#post_13029200


----------



## phoenixdogfan

Propaganda posts from a guy making $10k dacs 7s not scientific research. Every audio designer, espececially the guys making uber expensive wires and electronics promulgate "theories" which have no grounding in peer reviewed scientific literature ( kinda like the "scientific" proof for quackery like "intelligent design", really). And of course those theories are then "confirmed" by the extended listening sessions of the true believers. Didn't Purrin' call them 'Dac offs'? If that doesn't sound like mutual mental masturbation, I don't know what does.


----------



## Music Alchemist

This is why I avoid Sound "Science" and Computer Audio. Just a bunch o' trolling. I'm out...


----------



## Digitalis

What makes me skeptical are claims a piece of software can restore transients going all the way up to 100khz when most microphones including  Large/small Diaphragm Condenser and ribbon mics are at their frequency response limits at 20Khz and sometimes lower. Most speakers top out at 18~20Khz...any claim that a tweeter can play higher than 20Khz that is largely of interest to those who want to attract bats.


----------



## Music Alchemist

I've gone back to using foobar2000 with no DSP. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Turns out I was missing out on a ton of detail and precision when using HQPlayer, though it did make things sound subjectively more natural sometimes.


----------



## audiobill

music alchemist said:


> I've gone back to using foobar2000 with no DSP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Wow, I believe this is the first post I've ever seen that points out a possible downside of HQPlayer. I always wondered how it could be so widely praised with no trade-offs.


----------



## Golfnutz

music alchemist said:


> I've gone back to using foobar2000 with no DSP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 And you're a registered user of HQPlayer (you've paid for this software)?


----------



## TheAttorney

audiobill said:


> Wow, I believe this is the first post I've ever seen that points out a possible downside of HQPlayer. I always wondered how it could be so widely praised with no trade-offs.


 
 The term YMMV applies here as everywhere else. The key thing is not to pander to Confirmation Bias by cherry picking only the answers you like and ignoring the ones you don't. Everyone is at a different stage in their hifi journey and are expecting different things out of their systems - and the same person can get a different reaction to the same component when they are at a different point in their journey. 
  
 Other people's opinions can only go so far in telling you what is right for you. It's frustrating that subjective opinions vary so much, but they just do, so we continue on with hopefully an open mind until we can try it out for ourselves.
  
 Having said that, it's also the first time I've read anyone say that HQP _sounded _significantly worse than a "mainstream" player. The usual trade-off with a specialist player like HQP, that almost everybody agrees upon, is its clunky UI.


----------



## Golfnutz

theattorney said:


> The term YMMV applies here as everywhere else. The key thing is not to pander to Confirmation Bias by cherry picking only the answers you like and ignoring the ones you don't. Everyone is at a different stage in their hifi journey and are expecting different things out of their systems - and the same person can get a different reaction to the same component when they are at a different point in their journey.
> 
> Other people's opinions can only go so far in telling you what is right for you. It's frustrating that subjective opinions vary so much, but they just do, so we continue on with hopefully an open mind until we can try it out for ourselves.
> 
> Having said that, it's also the first time I've read anyone say that HQP _sounded _significantly worse than a "mainstream" player. The usual trade-off with a specialist player like HQP, that almost everybody agrees upon, is its clunky UI.


 
  
 I doubt the person making the comment has a paid copy and was using the trial version, which would explain why using Foobar was the preferred choice (not wanting to spend the money on HQPlayer).
  
 I have Foobar and HQPlayer. I would like an example where there's "a ton of more detail and precision" so I can evaluate for myself. Won't hold my breath waiting for a reply....
  
 Back to watching the UK Championship "C'mon John".


----------



## Music Alchemist

audiobill said:


> Wow, I believe this is the first post I've ever seen that points out a possible downside of HQPlayer. I always wondered how it could be so widely praised with no trade-offs.


 


theattorney said:


> The term YMMV applies here as everywhere else. The key thing is not to pander to Confirmation Bias by cherry picking only the answers you like and ignoring the ones you don't. Everyone is at a different stage in their hifi journey and are expecting different things out of their systems - and the same person can get a different reaction to the same component when they are at a different point in their journey.
> 
> Other people's opinions can only go so far in telling you what is right for you. It's frustrating that subjective opinions vary so much, but they just do, so we continue on with hopefully an open mind until we can try it out for ourselves.
> 
> Having said that, it's also the first time I've read anyone say that HQP _sounded _significantly worse than a "mainstream" player. The usual trade-off with a specialist player like HQP, that almost everybody agrees upon, is its clunky UI.


 
  
 Yeah, everyone just needs to listen with their own ears on their own system and make a decision based on that.
  
 For reference, I am only using the onboard DAC of my Alienware M11x R2 laptop, which sounds the same to me as the Schiit Modi 2 and slightly better to me than the DAC in the Creative Sound Blaster E1 DAC/amp. If I was using a different DAC, it's possible that the difference between HQPlayer and foobar2000 would be different than it is now.
  
 On my system, both of them have advantages. In a nutshell, HQPlayer sounds more natural in some ways with some songs, but misses quite a bit of detail that is clearly obvious when switching back to foobar2000. (Sometimes entire instruments deep in the mix!) foobar2000 sounds more mechanical overall and which one I prefer is a toss-up, depending on the recording. I never said it sounded significantly worse; sometimes it sounds better to me; but the differences aren't nearly as significant as headphones.
  


golfnutz said:


> I doubt the person making the comment has a paid copy and was using the trial version, which would explain why using Foobar was the preferred choice (not wanting to spend the money on HQPlayer).
> 
> I have Foobar and HQPlayer. I would like an example where there's "a ton of more detail and precision" so I can evaluate for myself. Won't hold my breath waiting for a reply....
> 
> Back to watching the UK Championship "C'mon John".


 
  
 I have a registered copy and can use it whenever I want. I have compared them for hundreds of hours.


----------



## vcoheda

i have tons of music in digital format and use foobar. plays every format i own/use (flac, ape, wav, 24bit, dsd). have never felt the need or had the desire to search for something else.


----------



## LajostheHun

music alchemist said:


> ahaha
> 
> I just hope the Computer Audio section doesn't become too much more like the Sound Science section, with seemingly everyone insisting that $100 DACs are as good as it gets and anyone who believes otherwise are imagining the improvements. :angry_face:



LOL Don't be angry, but the quantifiable differences among DACs regardless of price vs. among those who auditions them [humans] is vanishingly low. Human hearing is among the worst in the animal kingdom, but the human brain is where all the "magic" happens, and boy does it ever. 
Carry on!


----------



## Music Alchemist

By the way...on my computer, foobar2000 stutters even more than HQPlayer. Go figure. So I always load tracks into memory.
  


lajosthehun said:


> LOL Don't be angry, but the quantifiable differences among DACs regardless of price vs. among those who auditions them [humans] is vanishingly low. Human hearing is among the worst in the animal kingdom, but the human brain is where all the "magic" happens, and boy does it ever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Anyone who has experience with high-end DACs can tell you that's a lie. Some have experienced even more obvious improvements from DACs than headphones!
  
 Also, it's against the rules to trash equipment you have not heard. (Though apparently this is not enforced much.)
  
http://www.head-fi.org/a/posting-guidelines
  


> please avoid trashing equipment you haven't used


----------



## bass thump

i still like good old *winamp*.
  

  
 it hasn't changed in probably 20 years by now, is very simple to use where you can either import tracks OR just drag them wherever you want in the playlist which is REALLY good for editing when you drag it the full height of your monitor, (older versions of windows media player used to drive me nuts trying to figure out how to get files on my folders into it, which i never did because of the devious way they hid the feature), has a decent enough EQ and host most visualization software like milkdrop. i love the way you can just grab tracks in a playlist and slide them wherever you want for creating more coherent mixes and then create "standard" playlists that you can import into CD burning or other programs. i hated BOTH of the "media players" in windows 10 between cutting the beginning of tracks off, or infuriatingly losing their effing mind when you try to re-order a playlist and the program would glitch and rename the track just before or after what you edited so you'd have to grab IT just to see what the eff the track ACTUALLY is. seriously... did anyone actually TEST that garbage?!
  
 one ANNOYING thing though is you have to jump through hacker hoops, just like with potplayer, to make winamp your default audio player. windows 10 really seems to have it in for this classic program that used to be THE standard back in the day, and still works just as good and is like a comfortable pair of old shoes. it refuses to recognize it as a media player and let you chose it as your default. it's plenty easy to just open a folder to the left of winamp and drag tracks into the playlist and use the folder navigation "up" button to go to other folders though.
  
 i don't know if winamp works with flac and high res tracks, of which i have none, but for CD tracks, WAVs & mp3s, it's simple, intuitive, has the features that are essential to me, looks fine with the classic interface at 2x size or as it always says the very first time you power it up after downloading it...
  
 
  
 you can KEEP your freakin' synching crap players you need to waste hours finding artwork for etc.
  
 i make WAVs, winamp plays 'em.


----------



## LajostheHun

music alchemist said:


> By the way...on my computer, foobar2000 stutters even more than HQPlayer. Go figure. So I always load tracks into memory.
> 
> 
> Anyone who has experience with high-end DACs can tell you that's a lie. Some have experienced even more obvious improvements from DACs than headphones!
> ...



I'm sure you can point out which equipment I was thrashing so I could stop immediately. As for your "argument"............... well it's hardly anything worth lament upon any further ...

Like I've said you should just carry on[with the OT], I will I promise.


----------



## kevin gilmore

music alchemist said:


> By the way...on my computer, foobar2000 stutters even more than HQPlayer. Go figure. So I always load tracks into memory.


 
  
 6+ year old laptop wifi to nas storage box playing dsd native over usb with foobar, never a stutter yet.
 (uncompressed dsf)


----------



## phoenixdogfan

I think there is a huge difference between "trashing" equipment (like a multi kilobuck dac), and pointing out the obvious--both it (the multi kilobuck flavor) and the $100 dac sound the same (as good as it gets). 

Anyone who wants to buy a $100k dac which is gold plated and jewel encrusted will probably be getting state of the art sound as will the struggling audiophile who buys a well engineered $100 dac. 

Ain't that great news. ☺


----------



## Sybil

Eep. No love for XMPlay?

I like it a lot because it's super compact and down-to-earth. Reminds me a lot of the old WinAmp v2.81 before it got super bloated.

My XMPlay directory is only 580KB big... and this includes an optional custom skin I am using and also the optional MIDI & WASAPI plugin.

The executable (xmplay.exe) is only 306KB.

And with the WASAPI plugin I can make use of "Exclusive Mode" so when I'm listening to music I don't have stupid auto-play crap on my web browser interrupting my music.

I admit the default XMPlay skin is crap... but I love the one I use, really simple:






I *hate* music players that have stupid complex libraries like iTunes.

I prefer to manage my music on my own in folders on my computer so I just drop-and-drag music into XMPlay or right-click and "Add To XMPlay List."


----------



## atarione

I still prefer Winamp... been using it for so long now...  I use it with the Maiko WASAPI plug in... quite well pleased with the results.


----------



## Neccros

atarione said:


> I still prefer Winamp... been using it for so long now...  I use it with the Maiko WASAPI plug in... quite well pleased with the results.


 
 I like Winamp but the skins could be WAY better... I know this is an option but when I looked for modern minimal designed skins, all I found was someones Anime fantasy and other skins that look like they were made with Crayons in 1992.


----------



## atarione

neccros said:


> I like Winamp but the skins could be WAY better... I know this is an option but when I looked for modern minimal designed skins, all I found was someones Anime fantasy and other skins that look like they were made with Crayons in 1992.


 

 lol... yeah.. they skins are pretty bad... winamp has been in a pretty stagnant state since 2014 when AOL was going to shut it down totally and then bought at literally the last second by Radionomy ..   I just use the bento skin.. which I'm use to and doesn't bother me...


----------



## potterma

sybil said:


> Spoiler: XMPlay love
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm with you there.  That's what I love about F2k.  Essentially, tell it "here, watch this folder and that folder" and blam... seamless updates to my "library".
 Tried JRiver for a while, but couldn't get it to run reliably enough to figure out if I liked it or not.  Kept crashing and crashing my machine (Win 7 64 bit).  Their customer support consisted of "no, its not unstable.  Get over it."  So I did...   F2k FTW!
  
 Haven't tried XMPlay.  Looks very simple and to the point.  Both admirable qualities in a player, IMHO.
 Haven't tried HQP, either, so I have no input there.  Looks interesting, though.


----------



## vcoheda

listening to this now. sounds good.


----------



## bass thump

neccros said:


> I like Winamp but the skins could be WAY better...


 
 *BLECH!!!* i hate ANY skins on winamp! it looks just fine with its original skin. it looks like a stereo component... pure business. to my eyes, fancy skins DETRACT from the useability of any program by overloading the retinas instead of just presenting a SIMPLE interface without crazy colors and toyish looking graphics (you hear me XP? W98/classic was just fine!) that i can STILL use the same old same old "boring" winamp is exactly why i like it. its basic grey scheme is easy on the eyes and easy to navigate. i prefer minimalist charcoal grey schemes. once upon a time, i actually imported such a theme into W98 because it was so clean & basic. i was never able to find it again though after my C drive bit the dust.
  
 oh well.


----------



## fredeb

bass thump said:


> *BLECH!!!* i hate ANY skins on winamp! it looks just fine with its original skin. it looks like a stereo component... pure business. to my eyes, fancy skins DETRACT from the useability of any program by overloading the retinas instead of just presenting a SIMPLE interface without crazy colors and toyish looking graphics (you hear me XP? W98/classic was just fine!) that i can STILL use the same old same old "boring" winamp is exactly why i like it. its basic grey scheme is easy on the eyes and easy to navigate. i prefer minimalist charcoal grey schemes. once upon a time, i actually imported such a theme into W98 because it was so clean & basic. i was never able to find it again though after my C drive bit the dust.
> 
> oh well.


 
 +1 
  
 I reckon Winamp will enjoy a resurgence . It's a pity it can't just go open source - and downloadable from source forge .
  
 Here's a link to some players available from Sourceforge : https://sourceforge.net/directory/audio-video/sound/players/os:windows/
  
 Anyone tried SMPlayer ? Looks interesting , updated 26/11/2016 . http://smplayer.sourceforge.net/


----------



## Neccros

atarione said:


> lol... yeah.. they skins are pretty bad... winamp has been in a pretty stagnant state since 2014 when AOL was going to shut it down totally and then bought at literally the last second by Radionomy ..   I just use the bento skin.. which I'm use to and doesn't bother me...


 
 I just wish people that made skins no matter what year, made cleaner skins in general... The ONLY non-clean/minimalist skin I used/liked was MMD3.  Unfortunately it never got updated but even as it sits today it still works pretty well....


----------



## pouskidis

I use:
 Winamp with the following plugins:
 asio4all (output)
 or direct sound ssrc -upscale to 48 24bit
 mad (input) 32bit with dithering and replaygain (no clicking for good quality, otherwise the sound comes out kinda harsh) 
  
 This gives the best sound for my mp3s. I also get great functionality as well by using the ultimate ml plugin (browser through my folders)
  
 Also:
  
 There is a player named pureplayer. If you want to really get the best out of an mp3, this is it. But it is not properly developed, seems like the author abandoned it.
  
 Very impresive though, it converts on-the-fly your mp3 to wav and plays it. The sound comes out cleaner than any other mp3 player I have tested.
 Worth to take a look: http://pure.truefreehost.com/pureplayer.zip


----------



## pouskidis

This may be needed for pure player to function

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=9cfb2d51-5ff4-4491-b0e5-b386f32c0992&displaylang=en


----------



## Svperstar

phoenixdogfan said:


> Or how about another challenge? Why don't one these "of course different Dacs are clearly audible" crowd use Liberty Instruments AudioDiffMaker to create two files of the same music, one played with a decent, competent $100 Dac, and then replayed on the "clearly superior" uber expensive Dac of their choice. Then use the DiffMaker to create a difference file between the two files, and post the difference file on this site as proof of those "audible differences."
> 
> Can tell you right now there will be no more differences between the two files rendered by those respective Dacs than there would between the correct time given by a $35 Casio wristwatch and a $50000 Patek Phillipe.


 
  
 I had been using a Dragonfly 1.2 as my main DAC since I went laptop only. People LOVE to crap all over the Dragonfly even tho the SABRE DAC in it is plenty modern and all. 
  
 Had been wondering about Schiit Multibit so I took the plunge and bought the Magni 2 Multibit. Listening right now.
  
 IMO it does sound a bit better but it is nothing to get worked up over. The only time I have heard a DAC make a big difference is when I tried a NOS tube DAC 10 years ago and the only difference it made is to degrade the sound terribly.


----------



## Svperstar

pouskidis said:


> I use:
> Winamp with the following plugins:
> asio4all (output)
> or direct sound ssrc -upscale to 48 24bit
> mad (input) 32bit with dithering and replaygain (no clicking for good quality, otherwise the sound comes out kinda harsh)


 
  
 Wow this takes me back. I used to mess with that stuff. These days I just use MusicBee with WASAPI. I am not sure if DirectSound is still "bad" but just to be safe I leave WASAPI on.


----------



## Music Alchemist

Now I'm using Linn Kinsky with JPLAYStreamer and MinimServer.


----------



## gaiastar

hi
 i'm a foobar2000 user ,but now i really like aimp4! amazing
  
 an alternative is media monkey , for sync and can look very close to itunes but it's not boatware
  
 for rip i use eac+flac
  
 thanks


----------



## gaiastar

hifiguy528 said:


> sound quality alone, my vote is on Amarra by Sonic Studio
> 
> http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/products
> 
> ...


 
 hi
 does it really sound so better?
 and may i ask a question about flac ,why for you is the flash of audio?
 thanks


----------



## Blotto80

Huge fan of Jriver Media Center. Biggest reason in the WDM driver allows me to route any app's sound through Jriver's DSP section so things like Sonarworks and Crossfeed can be applied to Spotify and other streaming services.


----------



## Music Alchemist

gaiastar said:


> and may i ask a question about flac ,why for you is the flash of audio?


 
  
 Since he didn't reply when asked about it before, I'll speculate.
  
 I think he probably just meant it is compatible with less devices and programs. Since FLAC is lossless, it certainly isn't lower quality.


----------



## gaiastar

music alchemist said:


> Now I'm using Linn Kinsky with JPLAYStreamer and MinimServer.


 
 hi
 nice i will try Linn Kinsky , the first time i have heard about it ,JPLAY is to exansive 99€ !!!!


----------



## Music Alchemist

gaiastar said:


> hi
> nice i will try Linn Kinsky , the first time i have heard about it ,JPLAY is to exansive 99€ !!!!


 
  
 You have to configure a "Media Server" and "Room" in Kinsky, which is why I mentioned the other two programs. (It's normally meant for more complex music streaming systems.)
  
 Follow the steps in this manual. (You can also use Kazoo instead of Kinsky, but only the old version provided there.)
  
 I wouldn't recommend spending money on JPLAY. The free trial doesn't expire and the only limitation is that it inserts a few seconds of silence every few minutes.
  
 Comparing to foobar2000 last night, there was little to no difference in sound on my system. (Unlike HQPlayer, which can apply DSP and is fairly easy to tell apart.) But the interface is pretty cool.


----------



## Stratos24

There's a new FREE audio player that I'm currently using called GOM audio player from GRETECH Corp.  So far, I'm fairly impressed especially with its natural sounding EQ and a varied set of interesting Effects that can be switched on/off (Reverb settings, Backwards music, Room emulations, Bass boost etc).  The GOM video player also works very well as my preferred video player.  They regularly update (sometimes annoyingly too often) the software with bug fixes and additions but the price is right.


----------



## gaiastar

stratos24 said:


> There's a new FREE audio player that I'm currently using called GOM audio player from GRETECH Corp.  So far, I'm fairly impressed especially with its natural sounding EQ and a varied set of interesting Effects that can be switched on/off (Reverb settings, Backwards music, Room emulations, Bass boost etc).  The GOM video player also works very well as my preferred video player.  They regularly update (sometimes annoyingly too often) the software with bug fixes and additions but the price is right.


 

 hi
 and you use as audio player?


----------



## MothAudio

lajosthehun said:


> Hope you guys are not holding your breath on that one. ^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I use* Music Bee *also. Curious how it compares to *Exact Audio Copy*.


----------



## Music Alchemist

mothaudio said:


> I use* Music Bee *also. Curious how it compares to *Exact Audio Copy*.


 
  
 I've never even heard of anyone using EAC as a music player. But pretty much any CD ripper program can make a perfect rip of CDs that aren't damaged.


----------



## Stratos24

gaiastar said:


> hi
> and you use as audio player?


 

 As of late, I've been using the GOM audio player and it works well with some great features.  I've got several backup players such as Winamp, Foobar, AIMP2, etc., but for the most part it's GOM as a daily driver.


----------



## grokit

I'm usually on a Mac laptop with Amarra Hifi to play from my iTunes library, I used to use Pure Music years ago and still do on an older Mac. When I boot my desktop Mac Mini into Windows 7 I have used a variety of solutions, none completely satisfying. I also have an Android tablet and an iPhone. I have also bought a fair amount of CD's through Amazon over the years, and they have created a digital streaming library for me of my CD purchases accessible from their Amazon Music app. I have also signed up for Prime membership lately, which includes quite a few more free titles I don't already own to browse from.
  
 Anyways this is a great player for my devices and even my Mac/PCs, the desktop version even lets you select various quality levels and setting it to high on my Mac I find no need to boot up my Amarra sQ streaming sound enhancing software. When I searched for Amazon Music on this site nothing came up, so I'm posting it here. It sounds great to me with various DACs and it's simple to use, and if you've bought CDs or are a Prime member it's really worth checking out. Unlike their video player, you can put the Amazon Music on a device independently from their shopping software which is also a plus.
  
 I have been listening to Greg Lake's Songs of a Lifetime and Kieth Emerson's Live From Manticore Hall in the wake of their demise this year, courtesy of Amazon Prime and they are great live recordings. I highly recommend them as well as the players.


----------



## stuck limo

Now that I have MusicBee set up properly, I use that almost exclusively.


----------



## gaiastar

hi
 nobody has mentioned Aimp , great audio player engine!


----------



## r11bordo

Hi,
 Same for LMS. I'm using this soft on ARM platforms. Very good sound quality and lot of functionalities.


----------



## bass thump

> I use *Music Bee* also. Curious how it compares to *Exact Audio Copy*.


 
 i am NOT a fan of exact audio copy at all! i went out and bought one of the "authorized CDs" that are supposed to be used for calibrating the system, but was never able to get it to work whereas audiograbber has always done the job on readable discs without fuss if not bit accurately.


----------



## gaiastar

bass thump said:


> i am NOT a fan of exact audio copy at all! i went out and bought one of the "authorized CDs" that are supposed to be used for calibrating the system, but was never able to get it to work whereas audiograbber has always done the job on readable discs without fuss if not bit accurately.


 
 hi but exact audio copy is a ripper , maybe the best with all the settings


----------



## Neccros

bass thump said:


> i am NOT a fan of exact audio copy at all! i went out and bought one of the "authorized CDs" that are supposed to be used for calibrating the system, but was never able to get it to work whereas audiograbber has always done the job on readable discs without fuss if not bit accurately.


 
 I just ripped 150 of my CDs this weekend only using EAC and it worked like a champ... I used to use Audiograbber but switched to EAC years ago and never looked back
  
 What issues are you having?


----------



## potterma

I, too, had problems with EAC.  Some tracks just would not rip.  Switched to dBPowerAmp, which solved all the problems I was having.


----------



## gaiastar

potterma said:


> I, too, had problems with EAC.  Some tracks just would not rip.  Switched to dBPowerAmp, which solved all the problems I was having.


 

 hi
 maybe the cd is copy protected ,the new version of eac doesn't rip these tracks , you should use an older version
 why tracks doesn't rip ,just for curiosity
 thanks


----------



## Neccros

gaiastar said:


> hi
> maybe the cd is copy protected ,the new version of eac doesn't rip these tracks , you should use an older version
> why tracks doesn't rip ,just for curiosity
> thanks


 
 I ripped a couple of protected CDs with the newest version of EAC with zero issues


----------



## potterma

This was a couple of years ago with a few older discs. Not damaged that I could see and not protected.


----------



## AppleheadMay

Reposting my question from another mostly Mac based thread as I'm moving to Windows from OSX.
  
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
 Can someone get me on track?
  
 I've been stuck with Apple way too long and am moving some stuff back to Windows. I don't know how a few things would work in Windows these days though, it's been 15 years.
  
 I'll be using Roon to play back music on a Windows machine as I love the way I discover music with it in my library and combined with Tidal.
 But I think it's not the best library manager and I also need to connect an MP3 player and get music on that as well.
 The MP3 player's sole purpose would be to connect it via USB in my car.
 What I use now is an iPod classic 160GB (already too small), iTunes for managing the library and Roon for playback.
  
 So my questions are:
 - what HUGE capacity MP3 player with USB would you recommend? Not concerned about HQ sound, it's just for in the car.
 - how do I get music onto it? Via USB, sure but do I need an application for that? Or can I do it straight from Windows?
 - what application would be a good library manager to organise and edit metadata like iTunes when used in the classic view mode? Could that application also transfer music to an MP3 player?
 - is it possible to do all this via Roon? I mean managing a library (in an easy way, not album by album) and transfering to an MP3 player?
  
 Any Windows tips on media management and media applications in general would be very welcome. I'm also looking to play back my movie library mkv files via network on the TV. Needs to be able to playback 4k and Atmos as well though.


----------



## TheAttorney

I can answer some of your questions AppleheadMay.
  
 On my Windows laptop, I use JRiver Media Centre to rip my CDs and do all my tagging and library management. It is a very flexible tool for library management - It can do almost anything you want in this regard, although not necessarily that intuitively. You may need to do some googling to work out the best way of doing some more complex library management.
  
 I used to use JRMC for playback as well, but moved to HQ Player because it sounded better. But HQP has non-existant library management etc, so I just import the whole music folder created by JRMC into HQP's own library. A simple one click action. I keep maintaining the original library with JRMC and occasionally import the changes into HQP - very simple one click.
  
 I've recently replaced HQP with Roon 1.2 because latter is even better SQ and a vastly better UI. Roon simply finds JRMC's music folder and there's an option for the original folder to be left untouched. When Roon 1.3 comes out shortly, I'll need to check how good its new tagging/library management is. Then decide whether to ditch JRMC altogether, or still keep it to maintain my master library.
  
 JRMC has an export to various-file-lypes feature. Such as export FLAC to mp3 or wma etc with various quality options. You can export in bulk to say an mp3 folder. Then import that to a portable player or usb drive. I've done this to convert my main FLAC files to my old iPod Touch via iPod's own USB cable, and to a usb stick that plugs into my car's player. With the ipod, there was some faffing around to get the files into iTunes, but it can be done.
  
 Edit: My comments re sound quality particularly relate to HQP's and Roon's support of server endpoint kind of magic boxes like microRendu and SOtM-SMS-200, which are appropriate for high end systems. If you're simply connecting your laptop etc direct to a typical decent DAC, then the SQ differences between these music apps are much more subtle.


----------



## Roseval

appleheadmay said:


> - how do I get music onto it? Via USB, sure but do I need an application for that? Or can I do it straight from Windows?
> - what application would be a good library manager to organise and edit metadata like iTunes when used in the classic view mode? Could that application also transfer music to an MP3 player?


 
 Most media players do have an option to synchronise/convert to a portable.
 You make a playlist as the capacity of your portable is in general to small to hold the entire library and tell what format you want e.g. high bit rate MP3.
 I use MusicBee, an nice piece of freeware with a excellent interface.
 An example can be found on my website: http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Players/MusicBee/MusicBee_Sync.htm


----------



## Neccros

appleheadmay said:


> Reposting my question from another mostly Mac based thread as I'm moving to Windows from OSX.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


 
 You could mod an iPod with a SD/mSD/CF card... its possible to go 256, 512, or 1tb... Or get a Fiio X1 and max out the storage


----------



## 000zero

Does it really make a difference what player you use? Honest question here, just getting into listening at my desk. I normally use VLC for my FLAC's


----------



## AppleheadMay

theattorney said:


> I can answer some of your questions AppleheadMay.
> 
> On my Windows laptop, I use JRiver Media Centre to rip my CDs and do all my tagging and library management. It is a very flexible tool for library management - It can do almost anything you want in this regard, although not necessarily that intuitively. You may need to do some googling to work out the best way of doing some more complex library management.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks very much for your tips and recommendations!
 Roon will be my player, I purchased the expensive lifetime license. 
 I was more or less thinking of Jriver as well for management and because it has other media capabilities as well. Just looks complicated after 15 years of Mac but I'm sure I'm going to find my way after over 30 yeasr of computer experience, some of that time professionally as well.
 Thanks for helping me on my way with media in my Windows adventure!
 Awaiting delivery of my Asus Rog 17" i7 7700 laptop I found at a nice price that I will use for experimenting and trying out stuff as well as portable use of course.
 And gathering parts for a high-end desktop I'll assemble and configure myself like I used to do the first 15 or 17 years of my computer life. 
  


roseval said:


> Most media players do have an option to synchronise/convert to a portable.
> You make a playlist as the capacity of your portable is in general to small to hold the entire library and tell what format you want e.g. high bit rate MP3.
> I use MusicBee, an nice piece of freeware with a excellent interface.
> An example can be found on my website: http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Players/MusicBee/MusicBee_Sync.htm


 
  
 Though I'm already a bit biased towards the functionality of Jriver I'll sury download a trial of MusicBee as well.
 You're the second person recommending it to me, thank you for the info!
  


neccros said:


> You could mod an iPod with a SD/mSD/CF card... its possible to go 256, 512, or 1tb... Or get a Fiio X1 and max out the storage


 
  
 Nope, if I'm going Windows I'll leave the iPods alone. I'm sure there are other nice MP3 players like the Fiio you mention.
 How do you mean max out the storage of the X1? With SD cards? Does the X5 v3 not have the largest total capacity of all the Fiio's?
 Don't any of them have internal built-in memory? 
  


000zero said:


> Does it really make a difference what player you use? Honest question here, just getting into listening at my desk. I normally use VLC for my FLAC's


 
  
 Sure does. For audio quality the difference between players is minimal at best to my ears but concerning functionality there is a lot of difference so I think one could best get the software that has most of the features and functionality desired. For me I have some high demands in functionality of the player I will use for library management and I enjoy using Roon as a player.


----------



## TheAttorney

JRiver's tagging and library management system is complicated partly because it's so powerful. And partly because it's just not that intuitive IMO.
 For example, you can completely change the whole underlying folder structure and the filenames of your music files into any which way you choose. But you have to really plan out how to do that most efficiently.  
  
 But if you're not expecting to do advanced manipulation, you may find that a free/lower cost/simpler app will do enough. As might Roon 1.3
  
 Although, JRMC costs MUCH less that Roon to start off with, JR regularly (at least once a year) produces a chargeable upgrade, so the costs do mount up.
 However, as I don't use it as my main music app, I'm not particularly tempted by the upgrades, so I'm now at least 4 generations behind, but everything I need still works fine. 
  
 PS. I also recently went for Lifetime Roon license. From what I've seen so far, these are real professional guys who are out to win the long game.
  
 Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AppleheadMay* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I was more or less thinking of Jriver as well for management and because it has other media capabilities as well. Just looks complicated


----------



## AppleheadMay

theattorney said:


>


 
  
 Thank you for your reply!
  
 What lower cost amps are you thinking of?
 What will be the management features of Roon 1.3? haven't heard much about that yet.


----------



## TheAttorney

There have been all sorts of apps mentioned in this thread. so I'm assuming that some will be lower cost than JRMC.
 But I started my PC audio journey with JRMC, so have not personally tried any of the others.
  
 The exact details of Roon 1.3 tagging/library management  have not been disclosed to my knowledge, other than there will be some. Compared to 1.2 where such management is very limited.
 1.3 will also have lots of DSP, including upsampling and parametric EQ. So all in all a very substantial release, that has been "a few weeks away" for some weeks now whilst they're ensuring it's exactly right.  See the Roon community forums (on the Roon website)


----------



## Neccros

> Nope, if I'm going Windows I'll leave the iPods alone. I'm sure there are other nice MP3 players like the Fiio you mention.
> How do you mean max out the storage of the X1? With SD cards? Does the X5 v3 not have the largest total capacity of all the Fiio's?
> Don't any of them have internal built-in memory?
> 
> ...


 
  
 You can use iPods flashed with Rockbox and play FLAC and MP3 and other formats.... its just like a external drive you copy files to through Windows.... Its a cheap method 
  
 I said X1 because I wasnt sure how much you wanted to spend... yes X3 and X5s I believe have more capacity.... basically you can stuff mSD cards into them and swap them out if you need more music...


----------



## AppleheadMay

theattorney said:


> There have been all sorts of apps mentioned in this thread. so I'm assuming that some will be lower cost than JRMC.
> But I started my PC audio journey with JRMC, so have not personally tried any of the others.
> 
> The exact details of Roon 1.3 tagging/library management  have not been disclosed to my knowledge, other than there will be some. Compared to 1.2 where such management is very limited.
> 1.3 will also have lots of DSP, including upsampling and parametric EQ. So all in all a very substantial release, that has been "a few weeks away" for some weeks now whilst they're ensuring it's exactly right.  See the Roon community forums (on the Roon website)


 
  
 I read up a bit and indeed Jriver seems like a very good option, lots of functionality and deep library management.
 Just going to check out the video part still. I'd need mkv compatibility which I'm sure it has but with full surround poaasthrough for the latest standards. I know Plex OSX has a problem with that, not sure if it's like that on Windows as well though.
 Found some info on Roon 1.3 but not sure how official it is. Nothing about the library mangement though, except for some will be included.
 Thanks for the advice!
  


neccros said:


> You can use iPods flashed with Rockbox and play FLAC and MP3 and other formats.... its just like a external drive you copy files to through Windows.... Its a cheap method
> 
> I said X1 because I wasnt sure how much you wanted to spend... yes X3 and X5s I believe have more capacity.... basically you can stuff mSD cards into them and swap them out if you need more music...


 
  
 I'm going to leave iPods and modding for what they are but those Fiio's look nice.
 I think the biggest one accepted 2 X 256GB cards while the other only up to 2 X 128GB? 
 Is there really no internal storage on these?


----------



## fredeb

For anyone interested , here is a link for DSD plugin for winamp : http://forums.winamp.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=52126&d=1449776785


----------



## starence

000zero said:


> Does it really make a difference what player you use? Honest question here, just getting into listening at my desk. I normally use VLC for my FLAC's


 
 To me, there is an obvious difference between various players, I know many people believe they're pretty much all the same though.


----------



## castleofargh

not all players do the same things, they might not all output the signal the same way. with volume level adjustment some will go 32 or 64bit and then output back to whatever resolution the signal was or whatever you have set(and it could change again if windows is set to something else and not bypassed). some may go through windows mixer, be impacted by whatever crap hides in the soundcard drivers(THX, DR dre, gremlins of all kinds). this may also impact the sample rate if some DSP is applied, or if you output using asio instead wasapi... some resamplers are effectively better than others(like sox is usually prefered to windows own resampler) so that could slightly change the signal.
 of course if different players don't reach the DAC with the same sample rate, it's also possible that you're getting audible differences from the DAC itself and some non transparent filter at 16/44.
 also some players will have some effect set ON by default after the install. it's rare for windows players, but it happened a few times with some android players I've tried.
  
 all that can in some cases lead to a very audible difference, there is no point pretending that it will never happen. the default sound card on my laptop is absolutely not transparent. but we can almost always deal with those differences, looking for bit perfect methods(asio, wasapi, KS), checking all the settings in the player and in windows if we're unsure ofwhat matters, and end up with a virtually identical signal down to almost the LSB.
  of course if an altered sound feels nicer we can just as well pick that as our default player, but then one needs to be careful before bragging about "superior" sound. nicer to the ear doesn't mean superior objective fidelity.
  
 RMAA has a free version and with any ok soundcard input and a proper interconnect cable, everybody can hope to loop his system and check objectively if something important is going on. it might only help to show very obvious differences with a not so good soundcard input, but it's already enough to notice an EQ or a DSP applied without you knowing. so IMO it's a relevant test to do.
  
  
 personally I pick my players for what they can do, not for what sound they have. cool UI, easy integration of VSTs, replay gain, gapless, keyboard shortcuts, etc.


----------



## bilboda

Bughead Emperor, hands down. No bells and whistles for music management but it has bells and whistles for music playback that you have never heard before. The developer is a gifted obsessed Japanese coder who has very little English but getting it going is worth the effort. Threads on the jplay and computer audiophile forums are where you will find the info. Sort thru it all. I've used Jriver and Foobar and have hear good things about Roon and HQP but this one is free (donationware). Since it is free, you owe it to yourself to give it a try.


----------



## Buellerich

Contrarily to the theoretically acclaimed equality of bit perfect players I had to learn that there are indeed sound differences among players. 
A few posts before someone wrote about the journey through Computer audio and it was justly stated that each traveller might be on a different location on that trip, how right. This position depends on PC hardware and of course on the DAC in use, just to name two important components. It is unlikely that different combinations react to software(tweaking) in the same way, that is the problem,which prevents general statements.
That is why it is inevitable to talk in terms of "...my setup..."
Coming back to recommendations I can only encourage to try JPLAY. Play with the settings, in my case KS, Ultrastream with 1 hz is second to no other constellation. Although the JPLAY streamer setup is primarily designed for a dual PC setup, it also works on asingle PC with Minimserver as UPNP server.In my case the choice of the control point is also crucial.Try UPPLAY, which gives great ,balanced results. If you chase details try Foobar with it's Unpn component. For me sound quality is of primary importance, the rest comes much later


----------



## TheAttorney

I think both JPlay and Bug head Emperor are suitable for those that like to tinker around with their hifi in pursuit of the highest possible SQ.
  
 But they are not suitable for those that prefer an all round music player that has good SQ, but also good UI and library management.
  
 I have tried JPlay about a year ago, but it's UI was unbelievably crude as a standalone music player. Along the lines of: Open up a DOS-like window, go to your music folder and select some files and copy&paste them into the DOS-like window. Apologies if they've moved on since then, but JPlay makes much more sense if used as a plug-in to another music app. I gave up when JRiver deliberately prevented JPlay from being allowed as a plug-in.
  
 I never tried BHE because I was not prepared to spend 3 years contemplating the meaning of life in an isolated monastery in the Himalayas - just to be able understand what the BHE's creator was on about


----------



## Buellerich

Good afternoon 

Yes I completely agree regarding Bughead. In spite of being highly curious I refrained from testing it, because the way it is supported is below minimum.
As far as JPLAY mini is concerned you are right, it is ultra minimalism. But via JPLAY streamer it is easy to combine it with a more attractive front end.
Additionally I do not require a huge bundle of DSP since upsampling plus filtering is done y the dac.
At the moment I am still on the search also and have not come to a final result yet.
Still want to test xxxHighend and Resonic. Additionally there is a new version of Wtfplay, which might be worth trying.


----------



## Music Alchemist

theattorney said:


> I think both JPlay and Bug head Emperor are suitable for those that like to tinker around with their hifi in pursuit of the highest possible SQ.
> 
> But they are not suitable for those that prefer an all round music player that has good SQ, but also good UI and library management.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Oddly, no matter which DSP settings I activated in Bug Head Emperor / Infinity Blade, I could not get it to sound different.
  
 JPLAY has been available as both a standalone player (JPLAYmini) and plugin for a long time. You can activate the plugin in most players, using their interface. Now there's another way to use it, via JPLAYStreamer. (This requires using two other software programs as a "Media Server" and "Room".)
  
 HQPlayer is still the only player I've used that sounded different to me. (Thanks to its DSP.)
  
 Now that I have a Chord Mojo, the sound is on a completely different level than any experiments I tried with music players and cheap DACs. I can't imagine how good your DAVE sounds!


----------



## Buellerich

Chord gear is notorious for it's own internal DSP like Meridian. In my opinion the HQ player makes only sense when you apply upsampling. Why do you do that if you have a Chord instead of playing bitperfect and let your DAC do the job?


----------



## Music Alchemist

buellerich said:


> Chord gear is notorious for it's own internal DSP like Meridian. In my opinion the HQ player makes only sense when you apply upsampling. Why do you do that if you have a Chord instead of playing bitperfect and let your DAC do the job?


 
  
 I _do_ use bitperfect output, with foobar2000.
  
 In fact, I posted previously in this thread about how I ended up preferring foobar2000 over HQPlayer even with a cheap DAC.


----------



## Buellerich

Ok, Foobar does what it is supposed to be doing but could not finally convince me as a standalone player. As control point with JPLAY streamer however it sounds great. So everyone has his own flavour....


----------



## Music Alchemist

buellerich said:


> Ok, Foobar does what it is supposed to be doing but could not finally convince me as a standalone player. As control point with JPLAY streamer however it sounds great. So everyone has his own flavour....


 
  
 foobar2000 and JPLAYStreamer (and JPLAYmini, etc.) sound the same to me. But I am only using a single PC as source; nothing fancy just yet.


----------



## Buellerich

Try JPLAY streamer with 1hz Dac link setting,alternatively try the highest value your dac may accept (extreme settings). Choose KS and Ultrastream. Take minimserver and a control point like Upplay or Foobar with the respective component. It would be very strange if you did not hear a difference to a normal foobar standalone setup.


----------



## Music Alchemist

buellerich said:


> Try JPLAY streamer with 1hz Dac link setting,alternatively try the highest value your dac may accept (extreme settings). Choose KS and Ultrastream. Take minimserver and a control point like Upplay or Foobar with the respective component. It would be very strange if you did not hear a difference to a normal foobar standalone setup.


 
  
 I already did all that. Tried all sorts of settings. Used Linn Kinsky and MinimServer with JPLAYStreamer and compared to foobar2000 for hours. Also compared to JPLAYmini for countless hours before that. Not even the slightest bit of difference. Like I said, the only time I heard a difference with a music player is when it applied DSP.


----------



## Buellerich

Hihi, to a certain extent I admire you sincerely for that,since you have your peace of mind that way. Maybe it is due to the DAC, which is invariant, that might be an advantage. But eventually try to replace Kinsky by Upplay...and tell about your finding.


----------



## sterling1

music alchemist said:


> I already did all that. Tried all sorts of settings. Used Linn Kinsky and MinimServer with JPLAYStreamer and compared to foobar2000 for hours. Also compared to JPLAYmini for countless hours before that. Not even the slightest bit of difference. Like I said, the only time I heard a difference with a music player is when it applied DSP.


 

 ​I too have only heard a difference in sound between players when DSP is applied. I am like totally satisfied with iTunes. Coupled with Airport Express for wireless connection from my laptop to Home Theatre Pre/pro iTunes is sooooo convenient; plus, with ripping, burning, playlist creation, genius mix, and just about every conceivable process available for enjoying music both in and outside of the library it's no wonder why iTunes is the number one player out there.


----------



## starfirepro

I myself have always used Foobar, ever since Winamp was discontinued. By the time I was using Winamp I didn't really care about sound fidelity and bit-perfect sound, though - never heard of Bughead Emperor before.
  
 Can anyone outline the main differences and advantages of BHE over Foobar ( if any )? I assume there are some, since a lot of people are discussing it around here.


----------



## gaiastar

starfirepro said:


> I myself have always used Foobar, ever since Winamp was discontinued. By the time I was using Winamp I didn't really care about sound fidelity and bit-perfect sound, though - never heard of Bughead Emperor before.
> 
> Can anyone outline the main differences and advantages of BHE over Foobar ( if any )? I assume there are some, since a lot of people are discussing it around here.


 
 hi
 sorry i'm new
 where can i get BHE ?
 is it for windows too?
 thanks


----------



## starfirepro

I checked it out online - the website of the dev is very weird, English mixed with Japanese and all that.
  
 [Removed by Mod]
  
 This is the website of the player: http://oryaaaaa.world.coocan.jp/bughead/
  
 For some weird reason, the application requires that you have a CPU that supports AVX 2.0 instructions, which I don't have ( running a Core i5-2500K here, never had issues with anything so far ). 
  
 Anyone have a clue what the latest version that does not require AVX 2 is? A download for it would be greatly appreciated, since I'd like to try this out myself.


----------



## jcn3

gaiastar said:


> hi
> sorry i'm new
> where can i get BHE ?
> is it for windows too?
> thanks


 
  
 download here: http://oryaaaaa.world.coocan.jp/bughead/ my understanding is that it's for windows and requires a pretty powerful pc -- a good i7 processor.


----------



## gaiastar

hi
 hope to download the right files ,seeing it's all in japanese
 ty!


----------



## jcn3

gaiastar said:


> hi
> hope to download the right files ,seeing it's all in japanese
> ty!


 
  
 have google translate into english (only parts are translated and its still not easy) -- the download links are in the section below the pic that has "8 msec" and "4096 samples", right after the paragraphs starting with "support audio files" and "BASS audio library"


----------



## Redcarmoose

http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarra.php
Amerra 3.0 or above is pretty unbeatable in the Mac, with Foobar2000 being great on the PC. 

Bit perfect or Wasapi is needed to get Foobar2000 complete. I remember having weird timing issues till I added Wasapi to Foobar2000. 

Also every computer seems to sound different with some sounding a little better, who knows maybe placebo. I still think CDs with a transport sound best.


----------



## Antilochos

Tried a bunch but Foobar2000 is the best for me. Not sure if played on default it's much different than the others, but with a lot of custumization options (wich made my own) et cetera, it's just a very good player.
 But it will be a large matter of taste I think.


----------



## Music Alchemist

redcarmoose said:


> Bit perfect or Wasapi is needed to get Foobar2000 complete. I remember having weird timing issues till I added Wasapi to Foobar2000.


 
  
 ASIO, WASAPI, and KS are all bit-perfect output modes.
  
 https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Bit-perfect_Audio
 https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Audio_Output_Modes
  
 DSP (such as EQ) can still usually be applied even with bit-perfect output modes.
  
 Which timing issues did you encounter?


----------



## bilboda

A google for Bughead Emperor is recommended. It will lead to several threads on different forums where it is discussed. Be prepared to read quite a bit.
 There are many releases and different versions may suit you better 
 I am limited to 7.27. My Pentium g4400 @ 3.3 ghzdoes not have AVX instructions which are required in the later releases. I started with 8 gb ddr4. I am using WIN10
 What does it do? heh heh, I confess, I'm not sure. The developer has stated that the rewrite function reduces EMI of the bits, which I suppose could be a natural result of his rewrite function and the subsequent processing by the cpu/ram/drive.
 How does it sound? Crisp, clear and fluid, non fatiguing. For instance, bass is clearly heard wherever it appears in the soundstage, left speaker, right speaker, centered, etc. It is much more distinct and crisp
 Percussion benefits similiarly. Vocals are centered better. More detail across the board with less harshness. I upgraded to 16 gb ram which gives me countless more settings, something for an idle afternoon on the weekend.
  
 Worth the try out imho. It's free, donationware thru an Amazon.jp gift card. Read the threads enough to get it running. You don't have to tweak it, once you have it running, to hear the results


----------



## Music Alchemist

Do you have any ideas on why I wasn't able to get Bug Head Emperor / Infinity Blade to sound different no matter which DSP settings I activated? Perhaps I need to experiment with output modes? (DSP works fine in foobar2000 with ASIO.)


----------



## bilboda

music alchemist said:


> Do you have any ideas on why I wasn't able to get Bug Head Emperor / Infinity Blade to sound different no matter which DSP settings I activated? Perhaps I need to experiment with output modes? (DSP works fine in foobar2000 with ASIO.)


 
 Don't know how you set it up or what you were listening to. I use the default settings as it opens up, no upsampling usually. ASIO driver in play. 16/44.1 flac,ape or wav. I am not sure what the different DSP modes are or if they are comparable to what you would see in Foobar. Sift thru the jplay forum. There are so many settings I have just not tried.


----------



## Redcarmoose

music alchemist said:


> ASIO, WASAPI, and KS are all bit-perfect output modes.
> 
> https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Bit-perfect_Audio
> https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Audio_Output_Modes
> ...




You have to remember this was in 2010 and I was slowly moving over to computer audio from a stand alone player. 

I can't explain the sound but no change in buffer fixed it. Again all this stuff is at times at the fringe of our perception and could have had been an issue with the single DAC I was using. I was using a Nuforce Icon. 

I noticed a funny lag with both my Mac and PC at the time, though getting more into computer audio I finally went to WASAPI and it was instantly noticeable that things were cleared up. I have since moved on to another DAC, but still am very sure different computers sound different. 

Pretty happy right now listening to FLAC files. Listening to the OST of The Force a Awakens (Star Wars). Everything sounds pretty natural and I love it when I can hear low bass artifacts from the orchestra. In live recording at times it even sounds like a truck may be driving by outside, haha. 

Our issues about jitter, while maybe proved are not existing, still seem to color my perception as CDs with a transport still sound slightly smoother. But it's really hard to just listen to CDs all the time. I have come down to believe it's a lot to do with the mastering too. Much of the time the HD tracks are just louder, but when you equal the volume they sound exactly the same as the 16-44.1 editions, other times I seem to hear more "air" which is not on my original CD.

It may have been already done, but? A fun test would be to have folks at a meet listen to measurable jitter, or "lag" and see how they would describe the feeling. Just set up three listening stations with exactly the same gear but slightly different sources. Have one great and the other two perpetually "messed-up" and see how people describe it.


We have talked before how with Foobar2000 all the add-one we use end up bit perfect. Still it's interesting how maybe some folks would not go the extra step to learn about AISO changes or Wasapi? Crazy too how bad stuff like Winamp now sounds?


----------



## Music Alchemist

When you said lag, did you mean stuttering? Like the music frequently stops and starts again instead of playing continuously?
  
 This is something many have experienced under certain conditions. I posted before about having stuttering with various players. In my case, programming foobar2000 to load tracks into memory before starting playback fixed it, for the most part. When that doesn't work, I can load tracks into virtual RAM drives. This is necessary on my computer with DSD256 files. Even with the DSD files stored in virtual RAM drives, it still stutters if I do other things on the computer. I have to sit there and only listen to music with those, whereas with PCM files, I can do anything else I want nearly all the time.


----------



## bilboda

Seems like both of you can benefit from Fidelizer. I use that on my music only PC and liked it so much I paid for it and use the purist version. For a PC that will be used for different purposes, there are several levels of enhancements that you could choose from to keep needed functionality. The free version resets to no changes on reboot. The paid version can be reset among the different levels, or have all changes removed upon uninstallation.
  
  Another alternative is a raspberry pi with either a digi+pro hat or wait for wait for a similiar but possibly better hat from PI 2 Design. These would stream from a network, wifi or ethernet. At around 100 bucks, a little more if you upgrade power supplies, you may be impressed..I am waiting for the new hat from PI 2 Design and I will compare against my Bughead, Win10 and the chain in my sig.


----------



## Music Alchemist

bilboda said:


> Seems like both of you can benefit from Fidelizer. I use that on my music only PC and liked it so much I paid for it and use the purist version. For a PC that will be used for different purposes, there are several levels of enhancements that you could choose from to keep needed functionality. The free version resets to no changes on reboot. The paid version can be reset among the different levels, or have all changes removed upon uninstallation.
> 
> Another alternative is a raspberry pi with either a digi+pro hat or wait for wait for a similiar but possibly better hat from PI 2 Design. These would stream from a network, wifi or ethernet. At around 100 bucks, a little more if you upgrade power supplies, you may be impressed..I am waiting for the new hat from PI 2 Design and I will compare against my Bughead, Win10 and the chain in my sig.


 
  
 I have a lot of experience with the free version of Fidelizer. It did not make an audible improvement on my computer. (Nor did Bug Head Emperor / Infinity Blade, JPLAY, etc.)
  
 http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/08/measurements-audiophile-sound-and.html
  
 Also, Fidelizer does not improve stuttering on my computer. If anything, it makes it worse. (It can even make music stutter when the files are loaded into RAM!)
  
 I would like to experiment with network players and music servers, but only after I have headphones that cost $4,000 and up. The ones I have my eye on are:
  
 http://www.sotm-audio.com/sotmwp/english/shop/sms-200/
 https://www.smallgreencomputer.com/collections/audio-server/products/sonictransporter-i5
  
 (The first one is because it beat the Sonore microRendu and even stuff that costs five figures in various comparisons.)


----------



## jcn3

i use fidelizer pro on my dedicated intel nuc -- it's a great piece of software and a no-brainer especially given its price.  backgrounds are blacker and textures are much richer.  i've never had any problems with stutter.  highly recommended!


----------



## TopQuark

SOtM sMS-200 + Roon 1.3 is a match made in heaven.  This is where my vote go.


----------



## jcn3

topquark said:


> SOtM sMS-200 + Roon 1.3 is a match made in heaven.  This is where my vote go.


 
  
 do you have roon 1.3 working?  it was only released several hours ago.


----------



## Redcarmoose

music alchemist said:


> When you said lag, did you mean stuttering? Like the music frequently stops and starts again instead of playing continuously?
> 
> This is something many have experienced under certain conditions. I posted before about having stuttering with various players. In my case, programming foobar2000 to load tracks into memory before starting playback fixed it, for the most part. When that doesn't work, I can load tracks into virtual RAM drives. This is necessary on my computer with DSD256 files. Even with the DSD files stored in virtual RAM drives, it still stutters if I do other things on the computer. I have to sit there and only listen to music with those, whereas with PCM files, I can do anything else I want nearly all the time.







bilboda said:


> Seems like both of you can benefit from Fidelizer. I use that on my music only PC and liked it so much I paid for it and use the purist version. For a PC that will be used for different purposes, there are several levels of enhancements that you could choose from to keep needed functionality. The free version resets to no changes on reboot. The paid version can be reset among the different levels, or have all changes removed upon uninstallation.
> 
> Another alternative is a raspberry pi with either a digi+pro hat or wait for wait for a similiar but possibly better hat from PI 2 Design. These would stream from a network, wifi or ethernet. At around 100 bucks, a little more if you upgrade power supplies, you may be impressed..I am waiting for the new hat from PI 2 Design and I will compare against my Bughead, Win10 and the chain in my sig.







Short‑term timing variations between one clock period and the next can result in a distorted waveform.

My issues I used to call lag were in hindsight maybe a form of jitter like shown above?






Wasapi really did fix it. I like my set-ups now. 

Hard to describe what I mean by jitter/lag. No I'm not talking about skips, like buffer under-runs. The lag sound was like the music was not exactly in time. Like the parts of the song were not in time with the rest of the notes. Like almost lagging behind. It's a sound I have never heard before or since with any of my equipment. It was totally there and noticeable, not like a placebo thing from going from a CD player to computer. It was when I used Apple or PC? 

Nowadays too, we are light years from all the issues around in 2010. Funny too as IT WAS 7 years ago.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/493152/low-jitter-usb-dan-lavry-michael-goodman-adaptive-asynchronous
http://www.head-fi.org/t/622112/problems-with-asynchronous-usb-dac
http://www.head-fi.org/t/542410/the-difference-of-synchronous-and-asynchronous-dacs-slightly-technical

Literally people didn't know if asynchronous or synchronous DACs were better in 2012. Head-Fi was developing. Even now I'm sure there are people using synchronous USB DAC but like how stuff is implemented. It's just now most everything is asynchronous and easy to use.

Also people had issues with their hardware. In 2012 if people had trouble getting stuff to sound correct, many times it affected the popularity of a brand. Reading back there was issues with USB 1 only allowing so many bit rates and so on. 

A perfect example was the early users who didn't get their setting correct for the Cambridge Audio DACMagic. While everyone thought they had everything set up correct, whole reviews were written and equipment judged by setting less than optimal. 

It seems today things are just so much better and less confusing all across the board?


----------



## TopQuark

jcn3 said:


> do you have roon 1.3 working?  it was only released several hours ago.


 

 Yes, I got it installed and working flawlessly.  It is one of the best investment I made in my system.


----------



## TheAttorney

topquark said:


> SOtM sMS-200 + Roon 1.3 is a match made in heaven.  This is where my vote go.


 

 Did you notice an differences in SQ between Roon 1.2 and 1.3 when used with your SotM? This before switching on any of the new DSP features in 1.3.
 I won't be able to try myself (with my microRendu) until the weekend.


----------



## Buellerich

I know the blog about measurements regarding player software. The question is if every sound difference we perceive must be measurable. 
As far as I am concerned I perceive differences among not all, but some players. I could not hear differences between AIMP and Foobar, but JPLAY 6.2 definitely sounds different on my setup.
Will try the Russion Album player and Resonic next.


----------



## TopQuark

theattorney said:


> Did you notice an differences in SQ between Roon 1.2 and 1.3 when used with your SotM? This before switching on any of the new DSP features in 1.3.
> I won't be able to try myself (with my microRendu) until the weekend.


 
 I didn't hear any difference between 1.2 and 1.3 using the same set-up. Slight difference in 1.3 having speedier delivery. Big change is in the DSP of 1.3.


----------



## a1uc

Anyone know why DSP don't show up on iPhone app
but it does on iPad ?


----------



## conflict0102

Anyone else use foobar2000 as their main player for windows?


----------



## Music Alchemist

conflict0102 said:


> Anyone else use foobar2000 as their main player for windows?


 
  
 I think most members here do.
  
 It's nice that there are custom skins available, but I just use the default one. haha


----------



## Redcarmoose

music alchemist said:


> I think most members here do.
> 
> It's nice that there are custom skins available, but I just use the default one. haha




Haha, I know the plain Jayne original default is easy to read. After all these years it's nice. Most of us don't use 99% of what Foobar2000 can do. 

But for me it does everything with ease. Feed it 8Gb of mp3s and it puts them up and plays them. 

The Foobar2000 Resolute sounds great in my Android and iOS players, though has some small hicups. Seems to look good in black on small screens.


----------



## N0sferatu

Currently I use AIMP3.
  
 Used to be a WinAMP die hard since the late 90s.  Then I moved to foobar2k for a bit.  I missed the music app being a small portion of the desktop (whereas most applications today take up the entire screen).  AIMP3 has WASAPI output, sounds great to me, and looks as close to what WinAMP looked like.


----------



## Music Alchemist

n0sferatu said:


> I missed the music app being a small portion of the desktop (whereas most applications today take up the entire screen).


 
  
 You can resize them to anything you want.


----------



## N0sferatu

music alchemist said:


> You can resize them to anything you want.


 
  
 Foobar2k is still a clunky interface and doesn't scale down as well.  Unless things have changed in the past two years since I last touched it (I doubt it) the program was clunky.  Good audio quality but clunky interface.


----------



## Music Alchemist

n0sferatu said:


> Foobar2k is still a clunky interface and doesn't scale down as well.  Unless things have changed in the past two years since I last touched it (I doubt it) the program was clunky.  Good audio quality but clunky interface.


 
  
 Clunky? How so?
  
 You can customize the interface any way you want to. There are countless custom skins out there.


----------



## Neccros

music alchemist said:


> Clunky? How so?
> 
> You can customize the interface any way you want to. There are countless custom skins out there.


 
 Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing.... I never could get into Foobar until a year or so ago and I never looked back


----------



## stuck limo

music alchemist said:


> Clunky? How so?
> 
> You can customize the interface any way you want to. There are countless custom skins out there.


 

 Clunky as in, it's extremely hard to set up. It's not intuitive. Some people may like this; some of us don't.


----------



## N0sferatu

stuck limo said:


> Clunky as in, it's extremely hard to set up. It's not intuitive. Some people may like this; some of us don't.


 
  
 What he said.  I spent time setting up my media system throughout the house but to play music I just want a simple set it up and go and that's what AIMP3 offers.  It uses WASAPI and looks great.


----------



## castleofargh

there is nothing wrong with basic simple intuitive UI. but as a direct result, the actual potential for customization could be low and if I don't like it, well that's it. in foobar just a small visit to deviantart should make it clear what the potential for UI customization really is.
 but of course for any single of those stuff, if I want to get my own UI, I have to google and learn and try until I get it right. soon enough it's just me weighting if the result will be worth the effort to get there, and often enough I will decide that I have better things to do. that is perfectly understandable and we make such decisions all day long about everything.
 but criticizing the player's UI from ignorance or because you refuse to spend some time learning how to get what you want, it does feel undeserved.


----------



## sterling1

Folks tweaking computer audio players today reminds me of folks tweaking their turntable/cartridge outfits. I guess it gives them involvement with their passion for perfection. For me, involvement with a computer is not an experience which inspires. I see it as squandering my precious leisure time. It's why I prefer iTunes over all.


----------



## Music Alchemist

castleofargh said:


> there is nothing wrong with basic simple intuitive UI. but as a direct result, the actual potential for customization could be low and if I don't like it, well that's it. in foobar just a small visit to deviantart should make it clear what the potential for UI customization really is.
> but of course for any single of those stuff, if I want to get my own UI, I have to google and learn and try until I get it right. soon enough it's just me weighting if the result will be worth the effort to get there, and often enough I will decide that I have better things to do. that is perfectly understandable and we make such decisions all day long about everything.
> but criticizing the player's UI from ignorance or because you refuse to spend some time learning how to get what you want, it does feel undeserved.


 
  
 Indeed. I haven't seen a player that offers as much customization as foobar2000.
  
 You just have to put in a bit of effort to make it the way you want, which generally involves finding a skin and configuring a few settings. Since it's actually easier for me to manually browse file folders (outside of the player, since I organize them a certain way) and drag and drop on-the-fly playlists, I only use the default interface.
  
 And of course, it has more DSP options available via plugins than most players too.
  


sterling1 said:


> Folks tweaking computer audio players today reminds me of folks tweaking their turntable/cartridge outfits. I guess it gives them involvement with their passion for perfection. For me, involvement with a computer is not an experience which inspires. I see it as squandering my precious leisure time. It's why I prefer iTunes over all.


 
  
 I was going to mention iTunes, because one benefit it has is that the interface is taken care of for you, and it's pretty good...but just doesn't offer room for customization as far as I know.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Slightly off topic as this regards loading songs into a mobile device with iTunes. 


Just discovered a strange option where the old vertion of Foobar takes and plays all the files off iTunes on an iPhone 4.

Basicly if you want to use Foobar Resolute on a iOS device you load the songs in with iTunes. With the current vertion of iTunes and the new Foobar mobile software Resolute, the files remain seperate in the newer edition phone or iOS device. The hassle is Foobar with and IOS device will never except folders. That said each time you want to put a folder of music in Foobar you must open the folder and highlight each individual file. 

That process seems like nothing but once you have folders with 100s of subfolders and a thousand songs you can quickly see how it takes large amounts of time. 

With an old iPhone 4 and an older edition of Foobar ( as Resolute only works with newer IOS updates) you just add even one giant folder into iTunes and put the songs into your phone just like you normally would with iTunes. 

Upon completion you get total access with Foobar. Also any files which you did add to Foobar remain seperate.


iTunes non-update 12.0.1.26


----------



## music_man

for full featured suites i was wondering how jriver and foobar stack up for sound quality set properly and with fildelizer? are there any other full featured suites that have better sound quality?


----------



## castleofargh

music_man said:


> for full featured suites i was wondering how jriver and foobar stack up for sound quality set properly and with fildelizer? are there any other full featured suites that have better sound quality?


 
 what features are supposed to get you better sound quality?

 for objective fidelity, many will allow to use wasapi/KS/asio for "bit perfect" solutions, even fairly basic players. and that's it. it is the one direct method to send the data to the DAC without risking much, if any change. volume level, resampling, etc will only be involved if set to change.
  
 for subjective preferences, no suite will ever scratch the surface of all the plug-ins and VSTs one could use to get his own sound.


----------



## music_man

well of course from sound science. i meant which ones do people "feel" sound superior. not like in reality lol. in fact i am really surprised you answered that


----------



## Technicolorrayn

MPD/Ncmpcpp is great if you're running Linux. Clementine if you prefer non-shell based. Same for Windows, I preferred Clementine or Winamp back in the day. Didn't want to mess around setting up Foobar2k.


----------



## motberg

music_man said:


> well of course from sound science. i meant which ones do people "feel" sound superior. not like in reality lol. in fact i am really surprised you answered that


 

 Hi, though I have not used these exact players, my feeling is the best sound quality from a full featured player suite would be one that can be used with Windows Server in core mode with the help of Audiophile Optimizer.
 Roon, Hysolid, HQPlayer, Foobar2000, TIDAL, are listed in the AO manual as usable. There may be some limitations though with each player operating system/mode compatibility.
 http://www.highend-audiopc.com/audiophile-optimizer
 Windows 10 is also an option, though seems it is still windows Server 2016 in core mode that will allow the best quality.
 I use Windows 2012 core, AO with Jplay mini. This provides excellent sound quality with many processing options (available in AO and JPlay) to select your preferred bit-perfect feeling 
 (....but there is no way Jplay mini in hibernate mode would be considered full featured)


----------



## music_man

i use jriver. i would use foobar. roon is to expensive. i know that sounds stupid coming from me but i mean i don't see the value. jriver is a great value. i am just using jriver with fidelizer. i guess there is hqplayer but it instantly crashes on two machines here. windows beta versions though. the others might be a big learning curve. i must run windows 10.


----------



## Music Alchemist

music_man said:


> i guess there is hqplayer but it instantly crashes on two machines here.


 
  
 Try storing the programs and files in virtual RAM drives. That may prevent any crashing.


----------



## motberg

music_man said:


> i use jriver. i would use foobar. roon is to expensive. i know that sounds stupid coming from me but i mean i don't see the value. jriver is a great value. i am just using jriver with fidelizer. i guess there is hqplayer but it instantly crashes on two machines here. windows beta versions though. the others might be a big learning curve. i must run windows 10.


 

 If you already know and like JRiver, then you can check with the Audiophile Optimizer author if any known problems with Windows 10 and Audiophile Optimizer and JRiver.
 (My guess is this is a fairly common combination due to the JRiver popularity)
 I am pretty sure the machine needs to be dedicated to music playback though.
  
 I have a HQPlayer license and also an older JRiver license and recently played both on the same Windows Server machine (a Dell i5 laptop).
 These 2 player programs had fairly similar sound to me when playing back files in the original format, (but I have read reviews where HQPlayer was generally considered a superior player).
 I did not do a very critical analysis though, just some casual playback for a few weeks and I did not notice any big differences.


----------



## Music Alchemist

motberg said:


> I have a HQPlayer license and also an older JRiver license and recently played both on the same Windows Server machine (a Dell i5 laptop).
> These 2 player programs had fairly similar sound to me when playing back files in the original format, (but I have read reviews where HQPlayer was generally considered a superior player).
> I did not do a very critical analysis though, just some casual playback for a few weeks and I did not notice any big differences.


 
  
 Did you activate the more extreme DSP settings in HQPlayer? That's what makes it sound different.


----------



## music_man

thats dsp though. not the natural sound. if anyone likes it that is fine. is audiophile optimizer better than fidelizer?


----------



## Music Alchemist

music_man said:


> thats dsp though. not the natural sound. if anyone likes it that is fine.


 
  
 It's a common misconception that DSP results in less accurate sound, but this is not always the case. EQ, for example, can make headphones and speakers more accurate. The upsampling type of DSP that HQPlayer and Chord DACs do is related to more precise reproduction of timing for better transients. I actually prefer foobar2000 over HQPlayer myself, but Chord DACs are on another level. (I don't use any external DSP in that case aside from occasional EQ.)


----------



## music_man

i did not know you meant upsampling. i thought you meant like effects. misunderstanding. i do not know if jriver upsamples as well as hqplayer and foobar but i would imagine it does. it has quite extensive upsampling capabilities. if using asio both in the jriver core and the asio plugin. i would imagine the asio plugin is better but i don't know. that all depends how well that particular asio driver is written. i actually have the dave here. you must use the software to force upsampling afaik? i think it is just sending it to the dac to do it's job if you upsample from the asio plugin. however i prefer to play redbook at redbook without upsampling. even on high end dacs i feel it degrades the sound. you cannot magically make what is not there. any upsampling must entail some loss? at least to my ears.


----------



## Music Alchemist

music_man said:


> i did not know you meant upsampling. i thought you meant like effects. misunderstanding. i do not know if jriver upsamples as well as hqplayer and foobar but i would imagine it does. it has quite extensive upsampling capabilities. if using asio both in the jriver core and the asio plugin. i would imagine the asio plugin is better but i don't know. that all depends how well that particular asio driver is written. i actually have the dave here. you must use the software to force upsampling afaik? i think it is just sending it to the dac to do it's job if you upsample from the asio plugin. however i prefer to play redbook at redbook without upsampling. even on high end dacs i feel it degrades the sound. you cannot magically make what is not there. any upsampling must entail some loss? at least to my ears.


 
  
 HQPlayer does more advanced upsampling than other players. But I ended up preferring foobar2000 without any upsampling. In that case, it was all about trade-offs in sound, back when I was using "normal" DACs.
  
 You have a Chord DAVE? I only have the Mojo. It's best to use bitperfect output with no software upsampling and let the DAC handle that, yes. (Chord DACs have hundreds of times more processing power than conventional DACs and always do far more advanced upsampling than anything else. I'd be surprised if you bought their flagship DAC without knowing that they do extreme upsampling to more accurately reconstruct the original analog waveform.)


----------



## Robert McAdam

I would suggest XXhighend (Windows) latest version (2.07) running in Ram OS is sonically superior to HQplayer (Windows) and wtfplay (linux) for PCM files.
  
 I have compared all three closely and XXhighend is actually well ahead at this point in time. Although a bit tricky to set up once running is easy. 
  
 I run upsampling and compared to none, much prefer upsampling even though my Benchmark Dac2 only accepts 24/192 max.
  
 My next Dac must accept 32/768. This is appearing in some new Dac's now.
  
 You do need a decent computer to run this software and does cost to get Ram OS disc. 
  
 Works with any Dac but has been designed to run into NOS dacs(Phasure in particular).


----------



## music_man

it is linux or windows? i hate to go buying a bunch of software just to try it out. hardware at a certain level you obviously go to a dealer and listen first. usually if they even have a trial of these it is badly crippled. ramdisc is too complicated for me. i like jriver because the functionality is close to roon but i think it sounds better. plus roon is expensive. i know that sounds stupid with my gear but i don't just throw out money. does xxhighend just run in windows? getting hqplayer to work is also too difficult. the thing is jriver is on over 20. these other programs are almost betas. that is probably why jriver and foobar run and hqplayer does not. don't know about xxhighend. i like fidelizer with jriver. simple.
  
 i had a question. can you make foobar look like a mini player on jriver without 100 plugins?
  
 i also find it is best to let the dac do the upsampling. just like alchemist said. with a dac that good i would not rely on software upsampling. in jriver it is through the asio driver. all of the sudden i cannot get foo_asio to work with jriver either now. crash. this machine is stable but some of this stuff is half baked imo.


----------



## motberg

music alchemist said:


> Did you activate the more extreme DSP settings in HQPlayer? That's what makes it sound different.


 

 Besides HQPlayer, I have 2 other paid up-sampling programs, I have tried every sensible PCM combinations with all 3 programs, but still find using the native files the best option overall.
 I did recently buy a DSD capable DAC as a second source to check up-sampling to DSD, as that is preferred by many HQPlayer users.
  
 Note AO is complimentary to Fidelizer, they can be run concurrently on the same machine.


----------



## music_man

motberg, +1. you should play at native resolution. unless you just prefer upsampling. no right or wrong here. however if you have a god dac i would let the dac do the upsampling. not in software.


----------



## castleofargh

all modern DACs convert to analog a signal at sample rates that far exceed 96 or 192khz, for that simple reason, it's usually meaningless to do a small oversampling or upsampling in the computer before sending the signal to those DACs.
 now some bad DACs will suck at 16/44. even to this day this is still a possibility(mostly because money), and of course NOS DACs are embodiment of wrong in that respect. for those DACs, running away from 44.1khz by any mean is almost always an improvement. an objective one, not just "I like it so it must be better".  of course I see an amazing irony anytime I think about a guy using a NOS DAC while oversampling his CD tracks, but if I was stuck with a NOS DAC, I'd do just that.
  
 the most accepted reason seems to be that the low pass filter can be gentler for band limiting, while still keeping low distortion levels. at 44.1khz a gentle low pass means starting in the audible range and getting audible roll off in the trebles. but starting high enough in frequency to avoid audible change in the signature at 44.1khz comes at the cost of doing a fairly poor band limiting job(and digital audio exists on the concept of good band limiting so there is that). but then if you use a strong low pass, people go crazy because "hermagerd ringingrrr!!!". so somebody somewhere will be unhappy. at higher sample rate, the filter can start outside the audible range and can be very very gentle and do a proper band limiting job. so basically, the crappier your filter at 44.1, the better is ti to have higher sample rate. but good DACs deals with that just fine and should be left alone IMO.
  if we're going full obsessed, there is also the game about async sample rate conversion used in some DACs. ^_^ plenty or reasons not to know what to do while being absolutely mad paranoid.
  
  
 in the end if someone is going to change the sample rate on the computer, it makes sense to at least use a good process to do it. windows resampling has never been the best solution. SOX works pretty well, and some stuff like HQplayer allow for way too many settings for the average guy IMO, but does offer great choice to the few who actually know what they're doing.
 personally I dealt with this the same way I deal with most audio things, I measure the signal I get using a few different options to at least confirm I'm not once again chasing unicorns, and when I believe that the variations are really not worth the extra CPU/money/efforts, and don't seem to make an obvious change to my ears, I forget about it and move on. in fact as the usual destroyer of fidelity that I am, with headphones I use SOX in foobar to turn the few highres stuff I have to 44.1 because I run some convolution filters at that rate. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 we all have our own priorities.


----------



## music_man

the engineer in me agrees with you but not the audiophile  remember, you are sound science not audiophile. two different schools. it is like creation vs. evolution. i just let everyone be happy with what they like.
  
 personally, i play back files at their native resolution and let the dac do the work. on the other hand i am lucky to have dacs many people do not.


----------



## music_man

i know better that bit perfect is it for digital. i do hear a difference amongst these but bet i would not pass a dbt. you know what i mean. in the mind i would gather but hey, that works too. we are humans not machines so if we are "tricked" what is wrong with that? a lamborghini gives plenty of adrenaline going 30mph too.


----------



## sterling1

music_man said:


> i know better that bit perfect is it for digital. i do hear a difference amongst these but bet i would not pass a dbt. you know what i mean. in the mind i would gather but hey, that works too. we are humans not machines so if we are "tricked" what is wrong with that? a lamborghini gives plenty of adrenaline going 30mph too.


 

 ​In audio, as in everything else marketed, it has always been about what folks can be persuaded to believe, not so much about the truth. When the truth gets in the way, then the marketing gurus go to emotional appeals. These appeals defy logic and critical thinking; yet, may win out over the facts when folks are not interested in the details though meaningful. But hey, don't stop believing, capitalists are depending on you to keep the economy going, as well as pay for development of new technology.


----------



## Fabithierry

JRiver 22 it's perfect for me: Memory playback, Sox resampling, TPDF Dithering, DSP, parametric EQ, automatic Media Center, audio analisis y etc etc...
  
 JRiver 22 Installed on a RAM Disk (I'm using Primo ramdisk) + Fidelizer + Process Lasso and nothing more! I got a really nice sound quality


----------



## Patu

I used foobar2000 for over ten years but recently, decided to try out new media players. I ended up with JRiver and was happy with it until Roon released version 1.3 of their software. Here's what I wrote in the Roon thread: 
  
 "I just invested to one year plan. This was my fourth trial period with Roon and this time I finally decided to go for it. Last time I ended up with JRiver because I thought it sounded better. Now, after I've done some small adjustments in my setup and Roon was updated to 1.3, I couldn't tell which one was better. They do still sound different but neither one is clearly better. I was also impressed by all the improvements they did for version 1.3, it really shows how much work these guys put in to the software. But what's best in Roon is really the main idea of the software, the user interface. It's light years ahead of any other player. It makes it interesting to just browse your own library, browse artist photos, read reviews, lyrics etc. The discover feature rediscovers your own library. Many albums which have been forgotten have been playing here recently. With big collection, this feature is extremely valuable. Also, when integrated with Tidal, you find new music by familiar artists when Roon shows their music from Tidal. The price was always a problem for me but I finally got over it. The one year plan isn't that expensive in the end, $10 per month. "


----------



## audioBenj

I hate iTunes because it is just too buggy and clunky for me. Instead, I am using Decibel. It has an easy-to-use interface and you also have the option to just the sample rate of your output device (speakers/headphones) as well, so as to not lose any quality when listening to lower bitrate music.


----------



## majus

hey there..
 recently I got a friends old Iphone and since I wanted to get rid of WMP for a loooooong time the times has come now to get some new player and maybe you can help me with a that, so I can manage Music Database. Arround 100Gb of my music that I listen to most of the time is structured in *folders by genre and/or artists.*
 Since the Iphone can´t do **** with that, I now would love to have a music player that can do the following 2 things (besides the usual playlist editing stuff, showing albums/artists/titels etc.):

 1. Most important: Display my actual folder structure in the player and let me play and maybe even Tag it with additional ID Information (does such a program even exist? a dream would come true )
 2. Let me Sync with Iphone or let me put my folders on the Iphone (6s)

 Burning CDs would be a nice 2 have
 Ripping CDs not important

 If there is no player that does 1., than a programm that let´s me look at my folder structure and tag it would be nice too..
 It would be very very kind if you could help with that, I tried 3 players yet and they all can´t do 1.

 Edit: As I read most of this thread JRiver might be would I´m looking for?


----------



## sterling1

​Just put iTunes on your computer and sync to the iPhone. You can then use the iPhone as iTunes player, or remote. Get an Airport Express and you can Wi-Fi music from the phone to your home theatre or stereo. If you do not have enough space on your phone to download your entire music collection onto the iPhone, you can still enjoy the entire collection from the iPhone by simply uploading your collection to the iCloud. You can enjoy the collection via Wi-Fi when you're at home through  your internet connection. On the road, you can access your music via data service from your phone service provider. Now, since you may not have unlimited data, you can download the songs you want to enjoy, which minimizes data usage. It usually only takes a few seconds to download a few albums. You can organize your collection of music in iTunes on your computer automatically by artist, album, genre, songs, etc. This will transcribe to the iPhone automatically too. From computer, you can rip or burn CDs to and from iTunes.


----------



## music_man

i would much rather jriver and android. of course that is just a personal matter. i think jriver is fine. it does everything more expensive software does with the same sq imo.


----------



## gregzDk

Could not justify spending 100 EUR on JRiver when compared to free Foobar.


----------



## music_man

ill agree with that. i think jriver is nicer but sound quality should be comparable. $100 euro though? i thought it is like $50usd. could be wrong. i didn't even pay attention to the price.


----------



## jcn3

gregzdk said:


> Could not justify spending 100 EUR on JRiver when compared to free Foobar.


 
  
 Price is $50 USD or roughly 47 EUR.


----------



## majus

Ah too bad I didn´t know JRiver is that expensive.. I would prefer free or 10 bugs but 50.. kind a much if there is a free/cheap player for my purpose.
 Using Itunes is not an option.. tried it already and it was the only reason why I never thought about buying an Iphone.

 Can foobar display my actual folder structure in the player and let me play and maybe even Tag it with additional ID Information (1.)?
 Or do you know any player/program that is able to do that?


----------



## Music Alchemist

majus said:


> Can foobar display my actual folder structure in the player and let me play and maybe even Tag it with additional ID Information (1.)?


 
  
 Directory structure view is available via this component:
 http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_uie_albumlist
  
 I like browsing my custom-organized folders as well, but I do it manually and just drag and drop files into the bare minimum interface in foobar2000 because the way I listen is usually with on-the-fly playlists of whatever I happen to be in the mood for.
  
 You can tag anything in foobar2000 by right-clicking and selecting Properties.


----------



## gregzDk

jcn3 said:


> Price is $50 USD or roughly 47 EUR.


 
 Yeah it was price of JPlay that was 99 EUR.


----------



## Music Alchemist

gregzdk said:


> Yeah it was price of JPlay that was 99 EUR.


 
  
 JPLAY has a free trial that never expires, and its only limitation is that it inserts a few seconds of silence every few minutes.
  
 I do not hear a difference between foobar2000 and JPLAY.


----------



## sterling1

majus said:


> Ah too bad I didn´t know JRiver is that expensive.. I would prefer free or 10 bugs but 50.. kind a much if there is a free/cheap player for my purpose.
> Using Itunes is not an option.. tried it already and it was the only reason why I never thought about buying an Iphone.
> 
> Can foobar display my actual folder structure in the player and let me play and maybe even Tag it with additional ID Information (1.)?
> Or do you know any player/program that is able to do that?


 

 ​What was your experience with iTunes and how long ago? Today's iTunes coupled with Apply Music is the most  comprehensive suite to enjoy all music ever recorded since the beginning of recording.


----------



## Music Alchemist

sterling1 said:


> ​What was your experience with iTunes and how long ago?


 

 I'd imagine his experience was that it lacked the custom folder view option he's looking for. (Since it displays everything using tags.)
  


> Today's iTunes coupled with Apply Music is the most  comprehensive suite


 
  
 ...Except for Roon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  


> to enjoy all music ever recorded since the beginning of recording.


 
  
 ...Except for all the non-digital formats.


----------



## majus

perfect, thanks! I´ll get Foorbar for now and have a closer look to it.


> ​What was your experience with iTunes and how long ago? Today's iTunes coupled with Apply Music is the most  comprehensive suite to enjoy all music ever recorded since the beginning of recording.


 
 Well, getting any kind of Music-Streaming service is not an option, too.
 I want to listen to the music I like anytime I want and for ever without some forced livetime streaming that deletes all my playlists when I quit it or just makes me loose big parts of it, therefore I want to own the music so I rather spent all of the money for buying tracks.

 Itunes, for me is the worst player I ever had my hands on, it barely handels my music without crashing every time I handle some bigger part of the music and I can´t use my original music database structure, it automaticly splits by Artist badly (every featured Track is extra), therefore just searching by artist and just playing all songs by artist is a pain and needs lots of extra time. Other players handle this with one click.. trouble with different formats etc.. just as an example. There are plenty of reasons for me.

 *Edit:
 I´m with MediaMonkey for now, since I can exactly does what I want (1.) and also it is able to sync and importan WMP ratings/playlists etc., foobar only supports older Iphones and Ipods.


----------



## sterling1

You do know that any music you download from Apple Music can indeed be purchased from the iTunes Store. Just delete the download, then go to the iTunes Store and purchase it. The music will then be downloaded as a "purchase", which will not disappear if you were to cancel service. I love Apple Music and find that its a great service for  music discovery which is to my liking.


----------



## majus

Y i know and it is a nice feature for that porpose, but if possible I´m looking for higher quality when I buy tracks, so I wouldn´t make any use of the Itunes store anyways. Mediamonkey got the same feature with other online shops, too and as I said.. using Itunes is not an option, love it or hate it 

 But thx for the advices!


----------



## music_man

how do i change bit rate in jriver? i know how to change the frequency but see no option for bit rate. plus, can windows 10 support 32 bit audio? afaik if you try to playback in 32 bit you will just get an error message. it would be great if i could have jriver playing 32 bit.


----------



## jcn3

music_man said:


> how do i change bit rate in jriver? i know how to change the frequency but see no option for bit rate. plus, can windows 10 support 32 bit audio? afaik if you try to playback in 32 bit you will just get an error message. it would be great if i could have jriver playing 32 bit.


 
  
 if you look near the bottom right of the tool bar (under the window that shows what's playing), you'll see an icon with three sliders.  hover your mouse over that while something is playing and you'll see the input, processing steps, and output information. you'll likely see the output as 32 bit.
  
 to set the the bit depth in jriver, go tools > options > audio.  under audio device, you should see your dac selected.  immediately under that, click on device setting. you'll see a bit depth drop-down (probably set to automatic) where you can select.


----------



## music_man

i do not have that option. I just realized asio is always 32 bit.that is why the option does not exist i assume. am i correct about this?
  
 i also noticed upsampling in dsp manager with sox on from 44.1 to 192 did not sound as good. it was just a little lower quality. i guess you cannot make something out of what is not there but most people like to upsample. i guess ymmv.
  
 just wondering if asio is strictly 32 bit though. i should know this but i forgot about it.


----------



## Music Alchemist

music_man said:


> i do not have that option. I just realized asio is always 32 bit.that is why the option does not exist i assume. am i correct about this?
> 
> just wondering if asio is strictly 32 bit though. i should know this but i forgot about it.


 
  
 ASIO is bit-perfect and sends the same data to your DAC as the file is. If the file is 16-bit, then it sends 16-bit.
  
 https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Audio_Output_Modes
 https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Bit-perfect_Audio
  
 Do you really have 32-bit files, though?


----------



## castleofargh

an asio driver is DAC specific and so are the settings. unless we're talking fake asio with something like asio4all.


----------



## music_man

So how do you upsample the bit depth in jriver with asio? if using streamlength drivers you cannot change any options in it's control panel and bit depth is not present anyways. you can certainly set it in wasapi. plus i was wondering how one would pay 32 biut integer in windows 10. even if your player supports it afaik windows 10 does not and an error will pop up.
  
 another interesting thing is the latest version of foobar sacd/dsd with the latest version of jriver, crashes jriver on exit. probably best to stick with the dacs specific drivers though anyways.
  
 i just want to be able to upsample bit depth in asio but cannot figure out how with jriver. on the professional side i do know how in nuendo/cubase etc.


----------



## music_man

cannot adjust bit depth with asio. using very high end dac. it says output,enabled at 64 bit 44.1khz. dac says receiving 32 bit stream. that is fine. i obviously do not need to upsample that. however i think i am going to change it to 192khz and se how i like the sound. the dac can go to 2.5mhz but jrivers highest is 768khz. i think the sound will actually degrade that high. plus this little nuc server may not handle that.


----------



## Music Alchemist

music_man said:


> So how do you upsample the bit depth in jriver with asio? if using streamlength drivers you cannot change any options in it's control panel and bit depth is not present anyways. you can certainly set it in wasapi. plus i was wondering how one would pay 32 biut integer in windows 10. even if your player supports it afaik windows 10 does not and an error will pop up.
> 
> another interesting thing is the latest version of foobar sacd/dsd with the latest version of jriver, crashes jriver on exit. probably best to stick with the dacs specific drivers though anyways.
> 
> i just want to be able to upsample bit depth in asio but cannot figure out how with jriver. on the professional side i do know how in nuendo/cubase etc.


 


music_man said:


> cannot adjust bit depth with asio. using very high end dac. it says output,enabled at 64 bit 44.1khz. dac says receiving 32 bit stream. that is fine. i obviously do not need to upsample that. however i think i am going to change it to 192khz and se how i like the sound. the dac can go to 2.5mhz but jrivers highest is 768khz. i think the sound will actually degrade that high. plus this little nuc server may not handle that.


 
  
 As you said in the past, it's better to just let your DAVE do the upsampling and not alter anything with your player. (Though EQ is always a good idea if you know what to do.) I don't use JRiver, but I do know that it's easy to use DSP (including upsampling) in foobar2000 with ASIO output. Any upsampling you could do on a computer is going to be minimal compared to what the DAVE does by default, anyway, so it's even more pointless than it normally would be.


----------



## castleofargh

music_man said:


> So how do you upsample the bit depth in jriver with asio? if using streamlength drivers you cannot change any options in it's control panel and bit depth is not present anyways. you can certainly set it in wasapi. plus i was wondering how one would pay 32 biut integer in windows 10. even if your player supports it afaik windows 10 does not and an error will pop up.
> 
> another interesting thing is the latest version of foobar sacd/dsd with the latest version of jriver, crashes jriver on exit. probably best to stick with the dacs specific drivers though anyways.
> 
> i just want to be able to upsample bit depth in asio but cannot figure out how with jriver. on the professional side i do know how in nuendo/cubase etc.


 

 short answer: you don't. first upsampling is a term used for "samples", so it's logically limited to talking about sample rate.
 now bits: as I said, the asio driver for your DAC came with it from the manufacturer who defined the bit depth output himself, so chances are it's a fine setting for that DAC. if you still think you know better or have very specific needs, you can probably find somewhere in the asio drivers a file to edit the bit depth value. after all it is defined somewhere. and that should work as long as the value is something the DAC and the streaming solution can handle!
 I personally don't really see the point TBH. the only perks of asio IMO, are really low latency for those who need it(so almost no amateur audiophile), and settings according to the manufacturer's wishes so it will tend to offer something of a good "direct" path even if I don't understand anything about audio. if I needed/wished to set everything myself, I would use wasapi. in fact that's what I do when try to measure specific stuff at specific outputs/inputs values.


----------



## Roseval

music_man said:


> just wondering if asio is strictly 32 bit though.


 
 It isn’t
 Basically there are 3 type of DACs, 16, 24 or 32 bit.
 This is a numerical spec.
 The DAC (the chip) needs this number of bits otherwise it won’t play
 ASIO can provide this.


----------



## music_man

okay thanks for clearing this up guys. i thought it was something you could set. i guess the drivers are written for the highest the dac will do. why wasapi lets you change it i do not know.
 i am very hard pressed to tell if 44.1>192 is any better than 44.1. you can't make what is not there. it should just be adding zeros. i am sure the dac is doing a better job than jrivers dsp.


----------



## dvonroeder

Anyone here been able to get Amara SQ working on a MacBook Pro with a Schiit stack?
  
 I tried to get it working a few weeks ago and it was unusable. Boomy bass and garbled mid-range. I emailed their tech support back and got not response.


----------



## music_man

i don't mean to be a jerk but i am finding out the "best" "player" is something like an aurender. I am tired of all the issues of a pc. apple is not much better really. no war please. i hooked up my aurender and feel the sq is better than jriver. plus do not need all that stupid stuff to clean the usb. true, the aurender has a $10 smps but the data lines are clean which is what is important. i just like seeing the "big picture" on 32" displays but the aurender ultimately does a better job imo. plus i can completely control it 2-way with my urc. jriver does not play very nice with the urc. really meant for jremote.
  
 anyways i found upsampling worse and i do not think you can even do it with the aurender. you plug it into the dac and let it play. granted, this is a high end system to begin with but i am very pleased with the digital sound. i really do not feel like taking out an lp other than to rip it now. i know others will go crazy to get an analog sound viia usb but i am perfectly happy. things move on. like cars today are much different than cars from the 60's. so i think messing with usb to great extent is fruitless. just my opinion. ymmv. with a pc i would use a regen or whatever(and was) with a lps and an aq jb but that is it for me. now i am using nothing but a good cable with the aurender. i just got tired of this. crashes etc. sure, nuc is not very powerful but i certainly do not want fans in here. not going to have a big i7 machine.
  
 i am happy with it. i thank you guys for showing me that upsapling or increasing bit depth in software probably sounds worse.
  
 if anyone has the means i would skip software at this point. so, thats the best software! none! that of course is imo and ymmv.


----------



## Music Alchemist

music_man said:


> i don't mean to be a jerk but i am finding out the "best" "player" is something like an aurender. I am tired of all the issues of a pc. apple is not much better really. no war please. i hooked up my aurender and feel the sq is better than jriver. plus do not need all that stupid stuff to clean the usb. true, the aurender has a $10 smps but the data lines are clean which is what is important. i just like seeing the "big picture" on 32" displays but the aurender ultimately does a better job imo. plus i can completely control it 2-way with my urc. jriver does not play very nice with the urc. really meant for jremote.
> 
> anyways i found upsampling worse and i do not think you can even do it with the aurender. you plug it into the dac and let it play. granted, this is a high end system to begin with but i am very pleased with the digital sound. i really do not feel like taking out an lp other than to rip it now. i know others will go crazy to get an analog sound viia usb but i am perfectly happy. things move on. like cars today are much different than cars from the 60's. so i think messing with usb to great extent is fruitless. just my opinion. ymmv. with a pc i would use a regen or whatever(and was) with a lps and an aq jb but that is it for me. now i am using nothing but a good cable with the aurender. i just got tired of this. crashes etc. sure, nuc is not very powerful but i certainly do not want fans in here. not going to have a big i7 machine.
> 
> ...


 
  
 The Aurender is a network player and music server. It still uses software. But despite costing many thousands, there are solutions under $1,000 that beat it.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/787020/review-comparison-of-5-high-end-digital-music-servers-aurender-n10-cad-cat-server-totaldac-d1-server-auralic-aries-audiophile-vortex-box/315#post_12575069
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/766517/chord-electronics-dave/5940#post_13067878


----------



## TheAttorney

I fully agree with the frustrations of getting high end sound out of PC audio. And I fully appreciate the attractions of a dedicated Aurender-like solution.
 But in terms of best SQ, I have demonstrated to myself that my little Windows laptop (with a few tweaks as per that thread) had better SQ than the top Aurender (W20 I think it was when briefly compered). But boy was it frustrating to get to that point - it's the networking aspect that was a big learning curve for me.
  
 This area is changing and improving so fast in the last year that I'm waiting for the dust to settle before reconsidering dedicated servers as a potential final solution.


----------



## music_man

i am interested whats better for a grand? i am sure there is.
  
 attorney, i imagine you cannot explain what all you did here. i have had it with pc audio. don't you have dave too? i thought you did but maybe wrong guy. some lawyer here has one i think.
  
 when much better comes out i will just get it. of course than there will be better dacs. what does not really change at this point is amplifiers and loudspeakers. the technology is tried and true. not much development going on there. all that is special about the ax-5 twenty is the volume control. otherwise plenty of amps are quite frankly better imo. i still like it for a tight space.
  
 i am very interested in what will be coming but of course i will have to wait. i feel the aurender sounds better than the pc but it is still not as good as a high end shiny disc spinner either imo. if i really want to enjoy something i play the disc. vinyl is it's own beast but i can't be bothered with it anymore. so now tens of thousands of lp's collect dust here. i think a very good disc spinner is my favorite sound to date. it easily beats the aurender and miles ahead of the pc. the meridian 808 reads the disc to ram. in that regard it is kind of unique. ram does sound good but these usb devices have too much noise. get this, my best sound form the spinner is not aes. it is a pof fiber toslink! from transparent audio. to me it beats the aq diamond quartz. it is odd though i would favor toslink to aes to begin with but whatever works.


----------



## Music Alchemist

music_man said:


> i am interested whats better for a grand? i am sure there is.


 
  
 Read the two posts I linked to.


----------



## Redcarmoose

I have been into PC audio both with a PC and Apple. And yes some days all is fine, then other days I seem to notice timing issues with both Apple and PC playback. 

It's realizing that timing is everything. The PC and DAC playback is sonically detailed but there are timing issues which both analogue tape and vinyl perform better at. Strangely vinyl and tape suffer from a bad noise floor as well as single to noise ratio. Tape and vinyl too can have changes in timing but it somehow achieves something that digital lacks, at least with USB implications. That's why I like spinning the silver disks. 

Using CDs helps me arrive at the best of both worlds. The USB timing issues are gone as I just use a coaxial digital cable from a transport to the DAC. I do oversample but think 16/44.1 is fine. 

Taking the USB out of the equation gets a slightly better timing and you still have the silent noise floor of digital. Most of my music is in CD form so it just works. 


In the end it's about having an emotional musical experience. Normally those experiences come from getting closer to the music file and hearing slight details. 

Timing is a strange issue as when the timing is wrong you can't at times put your finger on it. Even the consistent placement of instruments and vocals are a timing issue. So it even effects soundstage.


----------



## music_man

thats weird. timing should not be an issue. set your buffer higher? i have the microrendu. do not like roon or pc anymore really. if that is the one you meant. the aurender is "like" a stereo component.


----------



## Redcarmoose

music_man said:


> thats weird. timing should not be an issue. set your buffer higher? i have the microrendu. do not like roon or pc anymore really. if that is the one you meant. the aurender is "like" a stereo component.




Timing has been the subject of talk for years. I use Amarra with Apple and Foobar 2000 with PC. At times CDs sound better but not always. I thinks it's nice to at least have regular CDs for comparison.


----------



## Redcarmoose

music_man said:


> thats weird. timing should not be an issue. set your buffer higher? i have the microrendu. do not like roon or pc anymore really. if that is the one you meant. the aurender is "like" a stereo component.



https://www.moon-audio.com/aurender-x100l-digital-music-player.html?utm_source=google_shopping&m=simple&gclid=COyJ-ZmHutICFc2Kswody1cN2g&ad=106141898121


That's cool. Always like to see the option of taking the computer out of the equation. All this is just what a person personally feels sounds best. Much of the soundstage and soundstage timing issue and jitter paranoia is just that, thinking you can notice small fragments of jitter, when for most purposes it's been reduced to non-perceivable levels. 

Still my next source purchase would maybe be a stand alone CD player still. 

Most of the issues talked about in this thread DID relate to having buffers not set right in the beginning or also there was the question of synchronous or asynchronous USB years ago. Now as far as I know most use is now asynchronous. 

This is the same realm where folks seem to hear a difference from USB cables or USB conditioners. It could be a mental thing but pretty much every computer sound slightly different to me. Again it's almost perception due to thinking that there may be something to perceive?


----------



## vcoheda

i have often thought, maybe it is imaginary, that playing music through my CD player (either redbook or sacd) sounded better than playing the same through my computer. however, my usage is still heavily weighted toward my desktop due to convenience of use and downloading.
  
 i'm not sure why the aurender, or other music server, would be better than a laptop/desktop. it is still a computer-type device in that it stores music on a HD and uses software to play files. maybe i am missing something.
  
 putting the difference (real or not) in sound quality aside, i would say that computer audio has had a positive effect on my music listening. i listen to much more of my collection as well as new music and artists than before.


----------



## Music Alchemist

vcoheda said:


> i'm not sure why the aurender, or other music server, would be better than a laptop/desktop. it is still a computer-type device in that it stores music on a HD and uses software to play files. maybe i am missing something.


 
  
 Going from the impressions of owners, it would appear that network players (such as this one) improve the sound quality, while what you use as the server (computer or other dedicated device) doesn't matter. (Though some disagree and say that both matter.) I got slightly better sound quality (compared to my laptop, using the same DAC) with a Raspberry Pi I borrowed, but it wasn't enough of an improvement to bother buying it. I'll have to wait and see how the serious network players are later on...


----------



## Redcarmoose

vcoheda said:


> i have often thought, maybe it is imaginary, that playing music through my CD player (either redbook or sacd) sounded better than playing the same through my computer. however, my usage is still heavily weighted toward my desktop due to convenience of use and downloading.
> 
> i'm not sure why the aurender, or other music server, would be better than a laptop/desktop. it is still a computer-type device in that it stores music on a HD and uses software to play files. maybe i am missing something.
> 
> putting the difference (real or not) in sound quality aside, i would say that computer audio has had a positive effect on my music listening. i listen to much more of my collection as well as new music and artists than before.



Exactly, that's what I'm saying. If anything it's small, but still that's what we are doing here, working at improving small details. Still if your mind focuses on small areas of the music reproduction, it can isolate the issue and make a mountain out of a mole hill. 

It's kind of a slight loss clarity using a computer apposed to silver disks. It's maybe not just a timing issue but is the result of inherent noise with USB. 

USB was never designed with audio as a main funtion as it's just a protocol that evolved with computer audio due to popularity. In many ways it's an accident that we use USB. Still with improvements always changing we should see computer audio get better and better over the next 5 years. 

Due to connivence I too find myself using USB, still my most rewarding listens are from those shinny disks. It could be placebo for all I know?


----------



## music_man

the aurender does not hold a candle to the meridian 808. i personally feel no current player software, or quasi hardware can beat a top spinner. if i really want to enjoy a lovely disc i spin it always. i have a secret if you want one. old top of the line dvd players into a dac make very good setups. these players are most often less than a few hundred bucks. you want to look at highest end sony es and pioneer elite for instance. however with these you really need to use a cd mat. those are not expensive either. i use a mat with the 808 too as it is just a dvd riom drive. the disc shaking is not good. other high end spinners have a clamp.  it is the same if you like vinyl. ripped vinyl is just not the same as a good tt setup. the issue is now a days we want all the convenience. shuffle through 50,000 songs without getting up. well, there is a loss in sound quality with that imo. it depends what your priories are. i would go transport>music server>software. as far as sound quality. also you can find very old transports for cheap. with the philips swin arm in them. the problem is these might last days or years. 
  
 wanted to mention, it is the aurender w20 and the high end disc spinner still blows it away in sq imo. as i said you can luckily probably get a high end spinner cheap if that is the way you want to go. if you value sq more. of course you will need a pretty good dac to make the difference. those old players are 16 bit mostly. i found the spinner into the dac and let the dac play 192,24 sounds great. i also found a high end pof toslink was the best connection of all things!


----------



## castleofargh

redcarmoose said:


> Exactly, that's what I'm saying. If anything it's small, but still that's what we are doing here, working at improving small details. Still if your mind focuses on small areas of the music reproduction, it can isolate the issue and make a mountain out of a mole hill.
> 
> It's kind of a slight loss clarity using a computer apposed to silver disks. It's maybe not just a timing issue but is the result of inherent noise with USB.
> 
> ...


 
 yes and no. DACs do use a dedicated audio streaming method. if they used the typical data protocol for external hard disc, a few matters would be solved, but other problems would come up.
 personally when USB was picked I thought it was stupid and didn't get why they didn't at least go for firewire. to this day I'm not sure and feel like USB became what it is only because it's dirt cheap.
  
 now usb C is like 8billion pins over the size of a fingernail, and I wonder why they didn't go with HDMI or at least mix both into one final product. if they're going to stack more than 20 pins into one cable anyway, isn't the purpose to at least get rid of other cables?
 bah, it's not like we'll have our say in those types of decisions anyway.


----------



## Redcarmoose

castleofargh said:


> yes and no. DACs do use a dedicated audio streaming method. if they used the typical data protocol for external hard disc, a few matters would be solved, but other problems would come up.
> personally when USB was picked I thought it was stupid and didn't get why they didn't at least go for firewire. to this day I'm not sure and feel like USB became what it is only because it's dirt cheap.
> 
> now usb C is like 8billion pins over the size of a fingernail, and I wonder why they didn't go with HDMI or at least mix both into one final product. if they're going to stack more than 20 pins into one cable anyway, isn't the purpose to at least get rid of other cables?
> bah, it's not like we'll have our say in those types of decisions anyway.





I know nothing about USB but it seems a whole sub market was indroduced to band-aid issues. It seems though that besides USB protocol even the start of the digital stream via the computer replication of the 16bit 44.1 file also seems to incite issues. 

Folks here may be pleasantly amazed how a $15 dollar DVD transport from KMart would trump a computer when done coaxial out to an external DAC. 

And again maybe this is placebo maybe not. I feel no messurments have ever been produced only thoeory and sales talk. If a member spends 8K to 10K on a stand alone CD player they are already onboard before the listening even starts.


----------



## saddleup

So popping the silver disc into my computer's DVD drive and using the coax out from my soundcard would be the same as using a top end stand alone DVD player as a transport would it not?  I call shenanigans.


----------



## TheBIGKill1998

Hello,
  
 as music player i would definately recommend foobar2000.
 It does not really color the sound, is very customizable and there are plenty plugins for it available. 
 It may not be the most user friendly media player, but all the options it offers are a nice exchange for its missing user friendlyness.
  
 On top of that it is for free, aswell as most of the plugins for it.


----------



## music_man

call it as you may. not exactly my friend, try again. the entire problem with a pc is it is noisier than a freight train. you may not think that applies to the optical then. unfortunately it is jitter. you can get bit perfect with plenty of jitter. error correction. sounds like a turd too. the  jitter on like a x-fi toslink compared to a top spinner is like 50x as much. plus other nasties too much to go into detail here. why don't you just listen for yourself? live by a stereo store? not best buy lol. bring your fav cans and try a good spinner with good amp and good dac. while you are at it try better cans. loudspeakers is not fair unless you own the same ones. every $500 or so rule of thumb is going to make a big difference in loudspeakers. so if you listen to $150,000 loudspeakers you will still say it is just the speakers but not so unfortunately.
  
 plus many high end spinners do not implement what meridian does. i will give you, their $20,000 cdp has a $20 lite on dvd rom drive. a whole is the sum of it's parts and that is just one part of it. many will in fact prefer spinners that implement mechanisms such as the philips swing arm or a top loader for instance. there is no one way to implement a spinner correctly but i will promise you it not only smokes the pc it smokes this $$$ aurender as well.
  
 now, given all that your idea is not new. it is in fact a okay way. however at that point rip them to lossless and play from memory. you cannot play from memory in real time on any pc i know of. plus i would also use usb so you can use a higher sampe rate. usb is just as bad as toslink coming out of a pc so it hardly matters.
  
 it is like vinyl. it just has a sound that kicks a pc's butt. when digital hit the scene i shunned it as well. now i love digital. digital done right is very nice indeed. it is not going to utilize a pc however. especially one that is not very carefully dedicated to audio. a real pc audio server has hours into it of tweaking the os. still, the next step up would be, imo any dedicated music server. that is still software driven. yes, the cd transport is too to some extent. i think if you heard it you would eat your words. don't listen to a $300,000 system though. then you will just come away thinking it is something else besides the source. i would listen to like a 10 grand system. i think that pricepoint is nice mid-fi and shall serve most folks well.
  
 anyways, call it whatever you want. it is like saying a honda civic and a corvette z06 are both "sporty". just because the pc can play music does not mean it can do it good. heck, an ipod classic in a dock is better. i like the versatility of the pc. don't get me wrong there. for sound quality it does not hold a candle to a spinner.
  
 as for choosing toslink there are reasons for that too. as well as choosing pof of all things. quartz has to be better right? that is like people used to stick a 350 chevy in an rx7. it does not meet the format specification. plus it is all in the termination polishing. today's high end pof can be polished much clearer than quartz spitting the ight in every direction.
  
 i can say a stock camry runs an 8 second 1/4 mile but that is an alternative fact! hey, if you are satisfied so be it.
  
  
 redcar, that is not true exactly either. a $$$ cd transport and dac are in fact much nicer sounding than one you buy at kmart lol. does kmart even exist anymore?


----------



## Music Alchemist

music_man said:


> you cannot play from memory in real time on any pc i know of.


 
  
 Does storing everything in virtual RAM drives count? Anyway, it sounds the same whether you play the files normally or store them in memory. The only difference is that it makes stuttering (rapid stopping and starting of music) less likely.


----------



## music_man

granted. many high end disc spinners play in real time. just one of many ways to get the job done. as long as i like the sound i don't really care what is playing it. i have yet to hear a pc even with a lot of tweaking that can even match a $250 disc spinner. the $15 kmart might be going a bit too far. it is like you do not use a wrench to drive in a nail. although plenty of people do. if you just want to listen to music almost anything will do. if you want it to be an experience that probably calls for specialized tools. the real time spinners use oversampling generally which some people do not like. no one is wrong these are just my personal feelings.


----------



## castleofargh

in real time ^_^. based on what how fast the disc spins? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





nope. so based on the internal clock just like absolutely any other electronic device. most CD players have buffer and error correction methods. don't go imagining some analog system that doesn't exist. something somewhere is always the clock that matters
  
 IMO the problem is that we demand more than just accurate sound, we also demand it right away. you can often see people complain that there is some lag in foobar when they press next song because they had to increase the buffer to allow for like 10 VSTs. or they'll set all buffers to mini, but then they complain that something like sonarwork stutters with clicks and pops when set to some massive IIR filter that would challenge even modern CPUs for real time results. ^_^
 now when you press play on a CD player it will take 3 or 4 secs to start and we don't even think to complain. it's just a matter of what we got used to. computers have spoiled us with niceties.
  
 if a DAC came up with that 0.005% better timing, no removing a sample because it couldn't be read, and all the fool proof perks, but I couldn't use it with youtube because it start everything 3seconds late, or I can't play online games on it, nowadays I wouldn't buy it. 20years ago I would have thought it was genius. but now I have it all in those magic little computers and smartphones, I never want to give up any of it.
 when it was vinyls vs CDs I was overjoyed to avoid having to turn the damn thing over halfway through the album(plus no noise!!!). then came those CD players where you could put 3 or 5 CDs at once \o/. laziness is progress!
 I don't think computers or usb are the best stuff for the best audio, but they are the best stuff for me to leave my butt in my chair and set everything the way I want, be it DSP or playlists. that's audio happiness right there for me. even if computer audio was as bad as vinyl in term of fidelity, I would still stick to using a computer as music source.


----------



## Redcarmoose

music_man said:


> granted. many high end disc spinners play in real time. just one of many ways to get the job done. as long as i like the sound i don't really care what is playing it. i have yet to hear a pc even with a lot of tweaking that can even match a $250 disc spinner. the $15 kmart might be going a bit too far. it is like you do not use a wrench to drive in a nail. although plenty of people do. if you just want to listen to music almost anything will do. if you want it to be an experience that probably calls for specialized tools. the real time spinners use oversampling generally which some people do not like. no one is wrong these are just my personal feelings.




I have a $25 DVD player from an extra bedroom which is far superior sounding than any computer, even MacBook Pro and Amarra configuration. Obviously this could all be placebo on my part as my other transport is the preferred method?


----------



## Redcarmoose

Again though we maybe have to delineate what SQ is. As always it's not about all specifications being the same. Some just like vinyl due to the character shown. A $25 DVD player going coaxial to a DAC could give a sound, if smooth or distorted in a musical way could be an item of question. 

Who is to say that the megabuck CD players are not simply more musical? 

That is unless you really feel PC playback has uncontrolled distortions and could never really end up with a clear response?


----------



## Redcarmoose

As subjects in many of the SS forums there are not now or maybe will never be specifications about distortion to back-up what we are hearing. So most of this talk ends up being a matter of experience or a matter of taste. A matter of placebo or even a matter of understanding. 

The whole audio industry is sold on the fact that stuff is getting better sounding and improved by the week. Still when someone played a record from 1973 on 1976 turntable with a 2009 phonograph needle we are them questioned as to what we are hearing. Most of the scientific facts show we must be hearing distortion. I think we are hearing a warmth of vinyl but I also think we are experiencing better clock accuracy. 



It just leaves questions for computer audio to ponder and for those Naysayers to get an honest listen. Obviously we always have the group that states 01s and 00s are simply 01s and 00s no matter how they are carried or processed. 

It's all very small and again we are simply lucky to have so many choices at our fingertips. Simply the fact that we can choose gets us the option to investigate. We are up against an entire industry which has sold computer audio as superior and easy. 

With that said I have had great experiences with many set-ups. Still at times I seem to hear jitter in computer set-ups. But our listening is easily fooled. If we think jitter is there we can mentally create the audio effect and seemingly hear distortion when it's not even there.


http://www.head-fi.org/products/intona-usb-2-0-hi-speed-isolator-industrial-version-black-2-500vrms/reviews/18150

Note the latest USB dongle de-distortions fixer for a couple hundred dollars! Interesting too would be to place the owners computer set-up behind a curtain and test it against a $25 DVD player. They even show tests of better results. So we are also left with the question if the bandaid computer USB beats out a dedicated transport?


----------



## music_man

first of all this is an area that defies science. it is not rubbish or placebo. many people can hear the differences. even if you took a guy that always had a $100 stereo to a music shop and played him a expensive system he would be like wow! the difference is pretty obvious.  when you get to the highest end granted there are diminishing returns.
  
 i do not doubt the $25 dvd sounds betteer than a pc. pc is convenient it is not very freindly to sound quality. so then comes all the usb "fixes".
  
 to tell the truth a si mentioned a dvd player that was $2,500 in 2001-2003 and is now $250 used is a big step up. get you 95% to a $25,000 disc spinner. that is a little unknown trick of mine. those old high end dvd players can fit right in the highest systems and simply blow away computers. of course there is a little more work involved. not 100,000 songs at your fingertips. i get it with vinyl but how lazy is modern man?
  
 most cd players use error correction, ie oversmapling. they read more data into a buffer.
 the meridian products just read the entire disc into ram without error correction. it takes about a whole minute to start playing. plus you need a word clock. that is the clock. dacs like this are big bucks.
  
 i truly feel you can build a wonderful system used with your choice of cans or speakers for a few grand. to spend well into six figures provides little more. i did because i can. if i couldn't i would not cry about it. take that $25 dvd up to a used $250 sony es or pioneer elite and you can have serious sound. simply smashing any pc. in fact science will agree with this. at the end of the usb cable is nothing but noise and jitter. sure, you can be a couch potato about audio. or you can go for better sound.  this is objective but at a point becomes subjective. nothing wrong to use a pc if you are okay with the sq tradeoff.
  
 so the answer to this thread is all of these players sound very similar. bad. it is due to the very harsh pc audio environment. if you are asking about sound quality look elsewhere or just be happy with ever one has the ui you prefer. that is the real difference among these. the ui. not sq.
  
 if you prefer convenience over great sound quality i certainly don't fault anyone for that. we all make choices in our lives.
 that being said, the pc remains a terrible audio source. at least save your money on usb "fixes" and do it cheap as i have outlined elsewhere. fine to put lipstick on a pig just don't spend much on it. regen,rur whatever will not make the pc even close to a good spinner and it does not even have to be expensive. in fact probably less money than a pc!
  
 i would say however the pc might be a beter bet than aurender, etc. since it does so much more and these music servers still do not sound nearly as good as a spinner. it all depends what your priorities are. i never fault anyone though. everyone is free to do as they please in my book. the question of which player provides better sq is moot however. it is like a guy that puts a giant muffler on a mazda3 thinking now it has 200 more hp. if you want the pc "experience" or would prefer better(much) sq is entirely up to each individual. one thing i would not waste my money on is trying to band aid the usb out of the pc. the expensive music servers are also a waste imo. if you are that serious about sq i would strongly consider just dealing with a cd transport. there are hundreds of millions of cd's to be had used often for less than $2 each. anyway you cut it, it is not aking to manual labor. as for vinyl perhaps lol. seriously though, to me digital done right sounds outstanding. hint: it is not coming from a pc!
  
 i know i derailed the topic at hand but plain and simple your choice with this software is really the ui not the sq. they are mostly very similar. they are all bit perfect. however even though much more than bit perfect cannot be measured to many it certainly can be heard!


----------



## castleofargh

you guys are funny sometimes. you want science to look at a CD player or a vinyl, and then answer a question about why you, specifically you, right now, not 5 years ago, prefer a Mars bar to celery. we're 7.5billion people on the planet, all with enough chaos and variations in our lives to have different taste and opinions on things. you might like to think that when you prefer a sound it means something noble, or is evidence of some superiority about the playback system. but most of the time taste is only taste, and science doesn't agree with what you're running after because there is nothing to agree upon.
 here is my extensive analysis about when I prefer something over something else:
 -I like that.
 -what does it mean?
 -it means I like that!
 -OK cool.
  
  
 now if you decide at some point to care about objective fidelity, science does have the best tools for that.
  
  
  
  
  
  
BTW I think that our ancestors made this topic to discuss computer audio players.


----------



## Redcarmoose

castleofargh said:


> you guys are funny sometimes. you want science to look at a CD player or a vinyl, and then answer a question about why you, specifically you, right now, not 5 years ago, prefer a Mars bar to celery. we're 7.5billion people on the planet, all with enough chaos and variations in our lives to have different taste and opinions on things. you might like to think that when you prefer a sound it means something noble, or is evidence of some superiority about the playback system. but most of the time taste is only taste, and science doesn't agree with what you're running after because there is nothing to agree upon.
> here is my extensive analysis about when I prefer something over something else:
> -I like that.
> -what does it mean?
> ...




The thread is about computer audio players. That said maybe the most lazy way would be audio streaming from a service. That way you don't even have to buy or load a file but allow the streaming service to genuinely choose what music it thinks you may like. 

Amazingly you can be so lazy now as you don't even have to choose music, it just plays forever and ever as long as the computer is on. I do that. I actually think computer audio is fun. 


But what we are talking about is reference. If there is no point of reference then no base line to compare it to. Of course there are no specifications on why one would be better. Still it does not seem out oft he realm of speculation that computer audio could get better and better and overcome the bottleneck known as audioUSB. 

Threads like this are good because they inform folks before they spend a ton of $ trying to beat a dead horse. 


Just the fact that anyone can spend $250 on EBay and reach 90% of what a $10K transport can do is pretty amazing and I believe it. I use a transport built in 1997. The fact that starting in 2009 or so you had handfuls of external DACs that allow anyone with even a small amount of cash to toslink their way to a slightly different route . 

We're not saying computer audio is bad, just that folks should know that there are alternatives. 


I mean go around Head-Fi and look for a thread about CD transports or even a product that is new in regards to CDs. The format is a dying thing, soon to be exstinct. And digital USB is great, but not always better.


----------



## TheBIGKill1998

redcarmoose said:


> The thread is about computer audio players. That said maybe the most lazy way would be audio streaming from a service. That way you don't even have to buy or load a file but allow the streaming service to genuinely choose what music it thinks you may like.
> 
> Amazingly you can be so lazy now as you don't even have to choose music, it just plays forever and ever as long as the computer is on. I do that. I actually think computer audio is fun.
> 
> ...


 
 Well said dear Sir, i could not have said that better!


----------



## music_man

i agree. it is a shame it is extinct but good for me i can get a cd's for $2 or less now. as far as computer audio player software i maintain really just go with which ui you like. they are more similar than not. what is different is the ui.
 as far as science i agree too. however you must admit, and do that things sound different. i agree that this is solely taste. as far as computer audio players it is not like grado vs akg. it is much more subtle than that imo. i mean like if you use fidelizer you really have to question your sanity if it made a difference. it did in fact but it is exceptionally subtle. just set your player to wasapi and be done. i do have all the usb gadgets but would advise not to invest in them. if the sound is that important to you at least look at a music server or a spinner. plugging stuff in the usb chain simply will not fix what is broken. it will improve it but to me not enough. i personally would save that money towards hopefully a new generation of low cost/ high quality music servers. i mean look how cheap 6tb drives are now. i remember when a 1mb drive was 5 grand! or i could just recommend jriver if free foobar is not good enough. jriver does plenty, sounds pretty good and is not going to break the bank. roon on the other hand i would put it towards a music server or spinner. too darn expensive. this is just imo, ymmv.


----------



## castleofargh

redcarmoose said:


> The thread is about computer audio players. That said maybe the most lazy way would be audio streaming from a service. That way you don't even have to buy or load a file but allow the streaming service to genuinely choose what music it thinks you may like.
> 
> Amazingly you can be so lazy now as you don't even have to choose music, it just plays forever and ever as long as the computer is on. I do that. I actually think computer audio is fun.
> 
> ...


 
 take something like a benchmark DAC on USB, loop it into a QA401 audio analyzer(also USB, double damage combo!!!), and come back to me about the USB bottleneck in a playback system.
  
 as long as you keep thinking that your ears are a proper way to judge fidelity, your arguments will be wrong. our senses are good to decide what we like! there is no other tool for that purpose, but a human being is not a spectrum analyzer.  where is your reference sound? you went to the studio and listened to the song in the mastering room? because that's the reference sound for a CD. not how the band felt live that one time, and not how you're used to hear it on your previous not transparent gear.
 I was born listening to vinyls, it's easy enough for me to understand how the first CDs didn't sound right. because my only idea of right was vinyls played on one of the warmest amp/speaker I have ever heard since.
 I totally agree with you about the importance of a reference. without a set reference there can't be a concept of fidelity. but you can't just assume that your memories of past listening are the proper reference to judge fidelity. that's just not logical.
  
 and it's the same for players. a lot of people have opinions, but how many cared to measure the output using different players in different settings with their own DAC? I know I've tried and the variations didn't make me think I should change the player I'm used to. but maybe with some other DAC there would be a different result? IDK so I don't judge. again, measurements are the correct method to test fidelity. and you can burn a CD with some test signals and measure the output all the same, and find out how much better(or not) the CD player really is. it doesn't have to change your preferences or your listening habits, but at least you would know for sure that you're not confusing personal preferences(based on taste or anything else) and fidelity.


----------



## music_man

agreed. i have a totl agilent audio analyzer. i do not use it for listening pleasure but in professional applications. for listening pleasure, yes pleasure just listen to what you like! there is no right or wrong. if it sounds like poop to one it might sound like gold to another. that is where there is so much hifi gear. you cannot dispute much of it sounds different to the human ear. therein lies the whole point. it is for enjoyment not science! something might measure great but someone does not like it and vice versa. in the professional recording environment of course we employ a different set of rules. although there are also good and bad recordings but that is an entirely different chapter.


----------



## castleofargh

I can go with that. I really always hope that people will get the answer they're looking for using the appropriate method. all the DSPs and EQs I use in foobar(or outside) are set almost entirely by ear to please me and only me.


----------



## Redcarmoose

castleofargh said:


> take something like a benchmark DAC on USB, loop it into a QA401 audio analyzer(also USB, double damage combo!!!), and come back to me about the USB bottleneck in a playback system.
> 
> as long as you keep thinking that your ears are a proper way to judge fidelity, your arguments will be wrong. our senses are good to decide what we like! there is no other tool for that purpose, but a human being is not a spectrum analyzer.  where is your reference sound? you went to the studio and listened to the song in the mastering room? because that's the reference sound for a CD. not how the band felt live that one time, and not how you're used to hear it on your previous not transparent gear.
> I was born listening to vinyls, it's easy enough for me to understand how the first CDs didn't sound right. because my only idea of right was vinyls played on one of the warmest amp/speaker I have ever heard since.
> ...




If you read my postings earlier you will note that I'm stating that at times I think CD is better. At times I can't tell the difference by listening. Though USB has maybe never come up sounding better than CD to my ears except maybe once.

You talk about measurements but I think there would little way of testing. If there was proof it would be a complete thread all to itself with 1000s of posts. 





When I say reference I'm also saying just for comparison. Much of my equipment is just that, simply tools for audio reference. Graphs aside, a listener can forget what something sounds like so having the equipment around helps to add audio contrast to what your hearing. 


For me again it was simply messing with equipment. At the start in 2009-2010, it started with me not having settings right and not having WASAPI with Foobar. The first inklings of sound quality still kept my CD collection as my personal reference. 

And back in 2009-2010 we had a grand shift of sorts. HD audio was emerging and the methods for reduced syncopation, either by the DAC or by the computer, was at the time, still being hammered out. So then, yes. The CD was the reference as it was still the paradigm. So in 7 short years somehow USB has become reference as the short lived memory of formats has changed and it will change again. 

Personally when CD coaxial playback listening sounded different it took awhile to notice. It was taking the same music in a 16 bit 44.1 FLAC file and playing the exact same song on CD. Now I will be the first to admit my equipment sounds different all the time. I don't understand why but it simply just does. But in some listening the CD seemed to be more natural with less audible distortion. 

So obviously thinking that maybe USB has slight distortion it can be almost an implied placebo. But I seem to hear the same distorting factors much of the time with USB and not with CD. You can almost simply call it a playback character. 

The amount noticeable sonic clarity is maybe only noticeable in extreme situations? One eye opening experience for me was testing Winamp again. Again a perfect example of simply back to back listening as a test. 

I challenge anyone to listen to Winamp then Foobar2000 WASAPI back to back and say they can't hear a difference. And yes, much of these opinions are simply sound signature taste. Some folks like tube sound, some like solid state sound. And the arguments to the effect of tube personality VS solid state could parallel USB VS CD? 

Still scientific measurements in the form of graphs are also debatable. Our latest graph comparison for a USB filter seems to show changes to the signal? Still what changes they are is simply still a question.

http://www.head-fi.org/products/intona-usb-2-0-hi-speed-isolator-industrial-version-black-2-500vrms/reviews/18150


----------



## music_man

this is ot but maybe someone can answer. i use a high end hub with a lps as part of the usb filtering. i plug usb sticks to play muisc in the other ports. i find this provides very good sound. i was wondering if i can plug a usb hard drive in? i know those might be very noisy. so i am guessing the usb stick is a lot better than the hd. the only thing is it does not have the size. otherwise it probably is fine if i plug it in the mobo and load to memory in jrmc.
  
 i found toslink from the spinner to be much better but it cannot reach the resolution of usb. so there, i am torn. plus of course everyone elses argument of convenience. a dedicated music pc i do not see being any worse than any hardware/software music server. if you are going to play games, surf the internet etc. then i would get a nuc for audio or a aurender. of course the nuc is much less expensive but now i feel much the same thing. the nuc is a lot different than a massive pc. a lot less noise. not sure if it is on par with aurender but much less money. you can build a great nuc for $700. more or less depending on what you do with a sound card etc. if you just want usb from the mobo it can be less than $500. the aurender may be better, i don't know but to many cost is a factor. a dedicated nuc will certainly outperform a general usage big pc. actually quite frankly the psu in the nuc should be better than the one in the aurender. there is still probably more noise but how much i am not sure. a purpose built music server that only does one thing can have less noise even with it's cheap parts. of course you can also build an aurender-esque devicethat may in fact perform even better. just google diy music server.
  
 afaik the intona is not 480mbps needed to run the higher resolutions. that is the problem with isolators. they are all usb 1.1 even though it says 2.0 i am not sure unless this is something new. i feel there are better ways to isolation. galvanic is not really needed here. that is for electric shock. if it has any bearing on audio quality i also do not know. i agree i challenge anyone to hear the difference between bit perfect players on a pc. for starters most pc's are terrible for audio. as i said just choose your ui and that is all. i would probably use asio over wasapi however. as asio is designed for audio. wasapi is just a windows service that was added because of the current state of high end audio. in most situations asio should outperform it. a custom asio driver should also be in order but i do not wish to pay for it. the defacto steinberg driver should work. that is what is used to make all your cd's.


----------



## SEABREEZE

castleofargh said:


> take something like a benchmark DAC on USB, loop it into a QA401 audio analyzer(also USB, double damage combo!!!), and come back to me about the USB bottleneck in a playback system.
> 
> as long as you keep thinking that your ears are a proper way to judge fidelity, your arguments will be wrong. our senses are good to decide what we like! there is no other tool for that purpose, but a human being is not a spectrum analyzer.  where is your reference sound? you went to the studio and listened to the song in the mastering room? because that's the reference sound for a CD. not how the band felt live that one time, and not how you're used to hear it on your previous not transparent gear.
> I was born listening to vinyls, it's easy enough for me to understand how the first CDs didn't sound right. because my only idea of right was vinyls played on one of the warmest amp/speaker I have ever heard since.
> ...


 

 Its not that MM dislikes computer music, in this thread http://www.head-fi.org/t/834646/great-find-cleanest-usb-audio-best-sound he is sharing some tweaks he found to improve usb sound.. Additionally he said " i was a recording and sound engineer for over 40 years"  He just prefers spinners over USB  base sound.  Furthermore he has Parkinson pretty bad, so I am sure he would like USB to work as spinners do for him, as it would take a lot less effort to enjoy his music.
  
 I came to this thread read from start to finish to learn all about best audio player software. What I came away with all of the reading, some are more favorable than others, one is to expensive, but very good, and controversy as to computer vs spinners. + dac. Personally I would like to enjoy both. Especially because computer offers convenience. However I have been using spinner + dac, for years. Ironically and old ES as spinner as I found that to be my favorite transport from many I tried including the elite and wadia..  Also went the route of HD DVD player
  
 As for the 10k vs 300K system, I heard the 10k and less sound just as good as a 300K system. Its all about putting together the components and speaker system including cables synergistically to bring out the best, just what one is trying to do today with computers. From this thread it appears the latter is getting close.
  
 Happy Listening,, stop listening to the systems (computer/spinner + dac) and enjoy the music.


----------



## music_man

thank you seabreeze. i really appreciate that.
  
 my ears are indeed not a spectrum analyzer. my ears have feelings and emotions. trust me i know about taking measurements. i feel for listening enjoyment it is best to go with your own ears. recording is a different story. as for this thread i still feel the real choice here is the ui. they all sound very similar to me. i am not against computer audio at all. i think it just has to take time to mature. right now, using a general purpose pc for music enjoyment is unlikely to yield great results imo. a custom built nuc can certainly do better. perhaps as good as a hardware/software music server. to tell the truth i do not even like my aurender. you cannot just play any ip. must set up dlna and so on. that is what i mean it has a ways to go perhaps. trust me, it is going to get a lot better sooner than we think. eventually i have no doubt it wil surpass any spinner in fact. the main problem right now is a pc's usb is laden with noise and data loss. all this stuff will be relics. just watch. i am not telling everyone to get a spinner. that is for a hardcore few old folks such as myself. all of these software packages offer much more in terms of usability. i feel the software is actually fine. soon i am sure there will be a different protocol than usb. having to "fix" the usb with 5+ different devices in the chain suggests to me something is really not right. ethernet is great but few dacs have it.
  
 the dac3 is a different story. benchmark, which sees much studio usage makes a point of doing the best they possibly can. in it's price range it is great. they use a different topology and methodology than other manufacturers. so you picked on that fares pretty well. also, you can build a fine system for $10k.
  
 i just maintain as of right now i would be more interested in the ui than the sound of all these offerings. they do sound different but not drastically imo. i never said everyone must use a spinner. i expect few to. it depends on where your priorities lie. eventually pc music will be the only game in town. i am sure of that.
  
 i agree completely. the equipment is a means to deliver the music. the music is the experience. i would just pick whatever anyone thinks sounds good and stay there. too many people are focused solely on gear. of course if one prefers gear to music that is fine with me to. i never tell anyone what they should do. i merely make suggestions that i have found positive.
  
 btw, forget the hd question. that hub is 2.0. those drives are slow enough. i can just read to memory from the host pc. using thumb drives in a very high quality hub i fel is worthwhile. again, i merely suggest that i do not say it or anything is gospel. furthermore every single thing you read on any audio forum should be considered ymmv. just as you said the intona with the dac3 was ymmv. i do find it no surprise it had little effect on the dac3 though. they do a very good job being as it is crossover pro equipment.


----------



## sterling1

music_man said:


> thank you seabreeze. i really appreciate that.
> 
> my ears are indeed not a spectrum analyzer. my ears have feelings and emotions. trust me i know about taking measurements. i feel for listening enjoyment it is best to go with your own ears. recording is a different story. as for this thread i still feel the real choice here is the ui. they all sound very similar to me. i am not against computer audio at all. i think it just has to take time to mature. right now, using a general purpose pc for music enjoyment is unlikely to yield great results imo. a custom built nuc can certainly do better. perhaps as good as a hardware/software music server. to tell the truth i do not even like my aurender. you cannot just play any ip. must set up dlna and so on. that is what i mean it has a ways to go perhaps. trust me, it is going to get a lot better sooner than we think. eventually i have no doubt it wil surpass any spinner in fact. the main problem right now is a pc's usb is laden with noise and data loss. all this stuff will be relics. just watch. i am not telling everyone to get a spinner. that is for a hardcore few old folks such as myself. all of these software packages offer much more in terms of usability. i feel the software is actually fine. soon i am sure there will be a different protocol than usb. having to "fix" the usb with 5+ different devices in the chain suggests to me something is really not right. ethernet is great but few dacs have it.
> 
> ...


 

 ​Computer audio for stereo retrieves and delivers all  you would hear from a CD; but, what's missing today, that's to say, what has not matured, is the means to download multi-channel DSD and deliver it wirelessly to a pre/pro. The future of  music reproduction is multi-channel, lot's of channels, an orchestra of them. All this input about what software is best for computer audio is mostly meaningless, considering all the software out there today pretty much will get the job done.


----------



## music_man

i think purists will still prefer 2 channel stereo and it will never die. at least not anytime soon. it is like a fine single malt whiskey. some people will always enjoy it. even if you try to force them to drink malt liquor.


----------



## saddleup

I've been hearing that mutli channel music is the future since the first DVD Audio and SA-CD players hit the market in 2000.


----------



## jcn3

saddleup said:


> I've been hearing that mutli channel music is the future since the first DVD Audio and SA-CD players hit the market in 2000.


 
 Not to mention quadraphonic sound in the 70s . . .


----------



## Benik3

It looks like this topic went slightly off the original question.
  
 So I will ask maybe again, but more specific:
 Can you recommend some FREE audio player with INTUITIVE GUI?
 Before I used WMP12. I like the system of library. But I have problems with playing of .ogg.
 Of course I tried Foobar. The GUI is simply...not intuitive. I tried also to apply about 4 skins without success and I really don't want to spent a week to get it to work and look like SW of 21st century (If you know, what I mean).
  
 I don't want to pirate e.g. JRiver so I'm looking for alternative...
 Thank you 
  
 P.S. i don't have any high-end PC sound nor speaker/headphones.
 That's why I'm more concentrated on the GUI...


----------



## gr8soundz

benik3 said:


> Can you recommend some FREE audio player with INTUITIVE GUI?
> Before I used WMP12. I like the system of library. But I have problems with playing of .ogg.
> Of course I tried Foobar. The GUI is simply...not intuitive. I tried also to apply about 4 skins without success and I really don't want to spent a week to get it to work and look like SW of 21st century (If you know, what I mean).
> 
> ...


 
  
 Can't say which free software is the easiest to navigate (while still providing all the features you need) but this list might help:
  
 http://www.freeware-guide.com/x64/audio.html
  
 Just scroll down to the 'Players' section.
  
 I mostly use Foobar since its the most versatile freeware but also tried Tuniac which was ok and wanted to try Small Player but its 64-bit only (the machine I needed it for is 32-bit).


----------



## music_man

maybe winamp? i don't know because i have not used it in like 15 years lol. i liked the gui but unless it has seriously matured it is nothing like jriver or roon. of course those are not free though. that's a hard one. unfortunately good work usually costs something. foobar is honestly great for free but very difficult if you do not really know your way around windows. i understand. applying a skin can be a serious pita. the paid ones you just select a skin. done. don't mean to be a jerk i know you want free. it might not exist though.


----------



## Redcarmoose

There is a huge problem with Winamp. Back to back tests against Foober 2000 will show anyone even your Grandma that Winamp is a complete failure sound wise. 


Anymore the only thing Winamp would be good for is it's ability to sift through files fast. You can pop 100 Gigs of Mp3s into Winamp and it will almost put them in order in realtime.


----------



## SEABREEZE

This may be an interesting read for some, someone pointed me to it..
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/539740/mac-os-x-music-players-alternatives-to-itunes


----------



## Fabithierry

benik3 said:


> It looks like this topic went slightly off the original question.
> 
> So I will ask maybe again, but more specific:
> Can you recommend some FREE audio player with INTUITIVE GUI?
> ...


 
 You should try MUSICBee http://getmusicbee.com/  it's like a "free version" of Jriver 
  
 or AIMP http://www.aimp.ru/


----------



## kilkil

I second MusicBee, its library is very similar to Winamp.


----------



## Benik3

The MusicBee looks pretty good 
 BTW I thought that WinAMP stopped the development some time ago...


----------



## music_man

i had no idea about winamp just threw it out here lol. it looks like the only thing that is truly free is foobar. even wmp is not free per se because it can only come with windows which costs a lot in fact. although what about win 10 new media player? have no idea either as i have not touched it. i am just trying to help at all.
  
 as for paid. i would put it between roon and jmrc. roon has a fancier layout but jmrc is more geared toward an audio fanatic. jmrc is less money. i like the audio features, the catalog is good enough.
  
 one thing easy to do with a nuc setup just for audio that my 20 grand aurender is giving me nothing but problems. is playing from an ip. ie, not a service like tidal but internet radio. must setup dlna. then it keeps buffering on me. this is going to be another paperweight here.  the nuc with a lot of work sounds as good or better plus you can run anything you want. even linux. it is not too expensive either. if you want the best sound plan on putting 30 hours into setting it up. for sound i maintain these cannot touch a spinner but for the catalog of tens of thousands of songs on usb 3.0 4tb drives read to memory it is pretty obvious why these came about.
  
 i don't mean to be a jerk but i feel if you truly want high quality audio it cannot be a machine that does anything but audio.
  
 of course other people may have other favorite setups. that is fine too.


----------



## Neccros

Winamp was purchased from AOL years ago and the new owners are still working on updating it.  They post about it in the Winamp FB group...


----------



## DudeMyCans

How does everybody control whatever s/w you use ?

I have both FooBar2000 and MusicBee on my work system, but as my work keyboard is a basic one with no media keys it's always a bit of a pain when somebody walks into my office and I have to maximise the app and then fiddle around with my mouse to pause it. There's no problem with people listening to music where I work, but it's more tolerated than actively encouraged and so I like to keep it as discrete as possible (no desktop stacks, and in-ear phones). 

Ideally I'd like to have FooBar2000 running minimised in the background and have some simple controller to run it that doesn't involve multiple key strokes. Something that controls the basics such as allowing me to maximise the app, scroll through tracks, set volume etc. It's occurred to me that the iDrive from my car, and it's functionality, would be ideal. 

Is there any smart way to do it, or should I just buy another keyboard with media keys ? I have also thought about using a gaming mouse and setting up the buttons as media keys.


----------



## gr8soundz

You can edit Foobar's controls under File>Preferences>Keyboard Shortcuts. Should be able to add whatever setup you need.
  
 For instance Alt+Enter starts playback. I just tested it while Foobar was minimized and it worked but I didn't test any other functions (like pause or stop) since I use media buttons on my keyboard.


----------



## Music Alchemist

dudemycans said:


> How does everybody control whatever s/w you use ?
> 
> I have both FooBar2000 and MusicBee on my work system, but as my work keyboard is a basic one with no media keys it's always a bit of a pain when somebody walks into my office and I have to maximise the app and then fiddle around with my mouse to pause it. There's no problem with people listening to music where I work, but it's more tolerated than actively encouraged and so I like to keep it as discrete as possible (no desktop stacks, and in-ear phones).
> 
> ...


 
  
*Click here* for comprehensive foobar2000 keyboard shortcuts info.


----------



## kilkil

Music bee also has global hotkeys. I set mine to alt and p for pause, up and down arrow as volume, left and right arrow for next and previous song.


----------



## HiFiGuy528

Right now, I am enjoy the sound quality Sony's Hi-Res Audio app a lot. The bad part is it must be used with Sony DAC. This app is VERY basic, all about the sound. It actually sounds better than Amarra which I've loved for many years and have been a supporter since v1.0.


----------



## gr8soundz

There are a number of oem software players but, like Sony's, they only work with certain equipment.
  
 I've tried players by Fostex and Teac but after install they look for dacs made by each company. Can't play anything unless said dacs are detected and selected as playback devices.


----------



## DudeMyCans

Thanks everyone.


----------



## AppleheadMay

dudemycans said:


> How does everybody control whatever s/w you use ?
> 
> I have both FooBar2000 and MusicBee on my work system, but as my work keyboard is a basic one with no media keys it's always a bit of a pain when somebody walks into my office and I have to maximise the app and then fiddle around with my mouse to pause it. There's no problem with people listening to music where I work, but it's more tolerated than actively encouraged and so I like to keep it as discrete as possible (no desktop stacks, and in-ear phones).
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 I'd get a nice keyboard with media keys for the ease of use and for what you need it for.
 Some players have a remote control app for your phone/tablet but that won't give you quick access to play/pause, skip and volume since the phone goes to sleep mode all the time. I use roon with the IOS remote but for play/pause, stop, skip, mute and volume I use my keyboard.
  
 If you're in Europe I have an as good as new Corsair K70 Rapidfire RGB lying around here that can go for a bargain. The volume roller is especially nice.
 Only reason I'm getting rid of it is because I found it so good I upgraded to the bigger K95 Platinum RGB after a month. Got both their top wired mice too, awsome stuff! But I love mice, got Logitech's three best wireless ones as well. I'm probebly as addicted to computer input gear as to headphones.


----------



## Stratos24

Thanks for the MusicBee recommendation.  Very well-rounded software package.  It sounds great and the additional lyrics and artwork selection while online make it a really enjoyable music player.  Still playing with the many other included features.


----------



## Benik3

dudemycans said:


> How does everybody control whatever s/w you use ?
> 
> I have both FooBar2000 and MusicBee on my work system, but as my work keyboard is a basic one with no media keys it's always a bit of a pain when somebody walks into my office and I have to maximise the app and then fiddle around with my mouse to pause it. There's no problem with people listening to music where I work, but it's more tolerated than actively encouraged and so I like to keep it as discrete as possible (no desktop stacks, and in-ear phones).
> 
> ...


 

 I use Logitech G500 which has 3 buttons for thumb. So I use the middle one for play/pause. It's very handy, especially when I'm playing I need to quickly stop the music 
 I just had to change association of the play/pause button from "Multimedia: play/pause" to "Playback: play/pause" in MusicBee and of course set it to global. Otherwise it didn't detect the button from another application...


----------



## DudeMyCans

appleheadmay said:


> I'd get a nice keyboard with media keys for the ease of use and for what you need it for.
> Some players have a remote control app for your phone/tablet but that won't give you quick access to play/pause, skip and volume since the phone goes to sleep mode all the time. I use roon with the IOS remote but for play/pause, stop, skip, mute and volume I use my keyboard.
> 
> If you're in Europe I have an as good as new Corsair K70 Rapidfire RGB lying around here that can go for a bargain. The volume roller is especially nice.
> Only reason I'm getting rid of it is because I found it so good I upgraded to the bigger K95 Platinum RGB after a month. Got both their top wired mice too, awsome stuff! But I love mice, got Logitech's three best wireless ones as well. I'm probebly as addicted to computer input gear as to headphones.


 
  
 Thanks, I'd be interested but I don't think that keyboard would pass the 'discrete' test .


----------



## DudeMyCans

benik3 said:


> I use Logitech G500 which has 3 buttons for thumb. So I use the middle one for play/pause. It's very handy, especially when I'm playing I need to quickly stop the music
> I just had to change association of the play/pause button from "Multimedia: play/pause" to "Playback: play/pause" in MusicBee and of course set it to global. Otherwise it didn't detect the button from another application...


 
  
 Thanks, I think that something like this is the way to go as it's fairly discrete but gives full control. I could run it minimized on a second screen.
  
 I'm thinking of connecting my Schiit Modi to my docking station and then feeding it under my desk with an appropriate headphone amp hidden away. As I mentioned my company is okay with people listening but it's more a case of being tolerated than encouraged. Too many 'desk ornaments' in the form of a DAC / Amp stack would probably only result in the Health and Safety Manager banning headphones, but I'd get away with this as nobody would ever see it.


----------



## Digitalis

dudemycans said:


> How does everybody control whatever s/w you use ?
> 
> Ideally I'd like to have FooBar2000 running minimised in the background and have some simple controller to run it that doesn't involve multiple key strokes.


 
  
 You mean something like this:
  

  
  
 I use one of these palette tools for photo editing - but due to its programmable nature I can also set it to control winamp/foobar and also to answer/disconnect calls and set mic volume settings/gain in skype or discord


----------



## phile1

hi,
 (I have a PC)
 just a few people mentionned Media Monkey.
 I chose & use it after trials & trials of x y z media players.
 Finally, why bother with expensive MPlayer ?
  
 The features I like with Media Monkey :
 - free
 - various skins available to suit to your "need"
 - KEY POINT : in options>Output plug-ins : you can choose Wasapi > config > select : exclusive mode & 24/96 : this way the PC do not process any other sound that MMonkey & transcode to wav 24/96 (or 24/192 as you wish). Key point because this feature enhance greatly the SQ. No need to buy Fidelizer or that kind of softs.
 - direct access to my media server running in the NAS (file are on the NAS, Minimserver is the server & is installed on the NAS)
 - can run as a UPNP player, thus can be remote with a fairly simple UPNP complaint app on tablet
  
 Thumbs up for MMonkey !


----------



## music_man

logitech g mice wil do it nicer than a keyboard imo. i love logitech g mice. every iteration of them. i think it is the new rgb g502 i am using. i know most coders like a track ball but i vastly prefer these. fits my hand perfect. i know this is ot, sorry.
  
 i also wanted to say if music software sounds different it is their dsp and decoder. if you just ran bit perfect exactly the same it would be just that. exactly the same. other things can change the sound like cables but that is not software. a music server can sound different but again it is just really a computer running software. usually some type of stripped down linux kernal. well, the high end ones can have better output stages than a computer etc but that is pretty much where a regen or whatever comes in.
  
 this is not rocket science. pick the one you like the features and sound and be done i say. i do have to hand it to foobar for being free. that is very complex, mature software. they could easily charge $100. also i just mentioned software maturity. i would not be so quick to give more than $50 to a company on less than v5. heck, jriver is at 22 or more. plus they are constantly updating it. to me that speaks volumes as well. perhaps moreso than the sound. most any software does not really have it together at even v2. i know that can be argued and there are exceptions but i feel that is a rule of thumb. plus nice to know the company has been in business more than a year. under $50 it does not matter to me but before you spend big bucks.


----------



## plazzo

digitalis said:


> You mean something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Whats the name of these controls? Look nice as media controls


----------



## Digitalis

Those controls are from palettegear. They are designed as a custom programmable USB control interface for use with photo and RAW image editing suites, the modular buttons, knobs, and sliders are designed to be changed to any physical layout you choose: and be programmed to do pretty much anything you can do with a keyboard. However, as you can probably guess they are pretty pricey - as most things that are involved with photography usually are: the basic set will cost you about $200 USD.
  
 The Limited edition in the wood finish is particularly appealing:
  

 ..but at $899 USD. to put this in perspective, for roughly $200 less you could buy a pair of Emotiva Airmotiv6s.


----------



## BrOtO

I did find while ripping my CDs ..
wav is the best output format ...


----------



## plazzo

digitalis said:


> Those controls are from palettegear. They are designed as a custom programmable USB control interface for use with photo and RAW image editing suites, the modular buttons, knobs, and sliders are designed to be changed to any physical layout you choose: and be programmed to do pretty much anything you can do with a keyboard. However, as you can probably guess they are pretty pricey - as most things that are involved with photography usually are: the basic set will cost you about $200 USD.
> 
> The Limited edition in the wood finish is particularly appealing:
> 
> ...




Oh oh I was getting excited until i read the price. Such a pity


----------



## Redcarmoose

broto said:


> I did find while ripping my CDs ..
> wav is the best output format ...




I can't tell the difference between Wave ripped and FLAC, still no one really rips to WAVE due to the tagging drama which always becomes known. If you keep your wave rips in folders you'll be fine but add them to a player like ITunes and watch what happens to your song titles and numbering. That is the reason no one does it.


----------



## Music Alchemist

redcarmoose said:


> I can't tell the difference between Wave ripped and FLAC, still no one really rips to WAVE due to the tagging drama which always becomes known. If you keep your wave rips in folders you'll be fine but add them to a player like ITunes and watch what happens to your song titles and numbering. That is the reason no one does it.


 
  
 Most of my files are WAV. You can write tags, artwork, etc. to them using a program like dBpoweramp, and they can be read by most programs, including foobar2000. Last time I checked, iTunes isn't really compatible with WAV _or_ FLAC. You can't even import FLAC files into it. There's no practical reason to use WAV, since the bitstream is identical to FLAC, but I just like the idea of using uncompressed files since hard drive space isn't an issue and compressed lossless doesn't save much space anyway. And I know that AIFF is an uncompressed format that is compatible with iTunes, but the word "wave" just sounds so much cooler! Makes me think of ocean waves and sound waves.


----------



## vcoheda

90% (if not more) of my digital music collection is FLAC. It definitely seems like the standard file format.


----------



## sterling1

​There's has not been a "standard" since 16/44.1 PCM.  Not a problem however as today's players will play most any formatted file. I use iTunes. The iTunes library stores ALAC, WAV, AIFF, and AAC files. I have music in all of those file types.


----------



## music_man

i honestly think sometimes wav has a slight edge over flac. i store everything wav. jriver is fine with it. perhaps i could see a isue with roon. don't know. still, i maintain the spinner kills the pc and top aurender. the aurender is closer. the big problem is usb. if most dacs used cat6 this would be much better. i bet you guys soon they will.


----------



## castleofargh

music_man said:


> *i honestly think sometimes wav has a slight edge over flac*. i store everything wav. jriver is fine with it. perhaps i could see a isue with roon. don't know. still, i maintain the spinner kills the pc and top aurender. the aurender is closer. the big problem is usb. if most dacs used cat6 this would be much better. i bet you guys soon they will.


 
 I haven't found one guy who believed in this and wasted so much space keeping everything in wav, who actually tested properly for audibility of flac vs wav on his system.
 would you happen to be that rare bird?
  
 on my system I couldn't tell them apart if my life depended on it. on a few DAPs I got audible variations with non default compression values, but I couldn't find out if it's a processing limitation or if they just didn't care to properly test less common stuff, the same way almost all DAPs suck with ogg, at least at first.
 as for the "horrible" extra noise that could come from the decompression job, how often does that concern more than the LSB and how often can we get the exact same LSB when measuring even the same thing twice? my fridge turning ON alters my audio more than flac(true story).
 so as for all those stuff people talk about that I fail to replicate, I always wonder if I'm lucky with my gears(admittedly my laptop is an old but high end thing), or if it's audio myth being carried from one unsuspecting audiophile to the next?


----------



## manishex

All my songs are WAV, it's not that rare.


----------



## castleofargh

manishex said:


> All my songs are WAV, it's not that rare.


 
  what seems to be rare are people who properly tested that it made an audible difference. but that's not different from highres, anti jitter stuff, etc. when variations are down at -90db or below, proper testing rarely reveals any audible difference after all.
 but of course maybe some systems under specifically poor conditions end up with much louder variations, but I'm yet to see actual evidence of such circumstances where another big issue wouldn't be the real problem.


----------



## gr8soundz

I wouldn't claim that wav sounds better than flac. I have both in equal amounts but some consider the use of wavs only to be more like a system tweak.
  
 One less decoding process could be another tweak among many, possibly lead to improved sound quality. Not unlike (I believe) Charles Altmann's creation of the wav only Tera Player.


----------



## Robert McAdam

Personally I think if you have the option, Wave is the best way to go. I have heard a difference and prefer Wave. But because of all the variations in digital sound its not worth breaking your heart over. I still have some flac files only as this is the only download format available. Interesting, is a lot of music download sites now offer wave downloads. 
  
 Storage is not an issue these days its cheap. I run 2Tbytes and only 40% full off which 20% are hires 24/44/96/192 and these do take some space. Doubt I will fill it.


----------



## Redcarmoose

manishex said:


> All my songs are WAV, it's not that rare.




Interesting, do you open your folders one at a time in say, ITunes? Do you ever put large groups of songs/albums together as a party playlist in say Foobar with out tag issues?

As far as my experience goes, I have always had issues with numbering and tags when files merged. I was of the understanding I was not alone. Though you do hear of people going a cleaning up playlists manually with their WAVE rips. 
Not something I want to spend time doing?


----------



## Music Alchemist

robert mcadam said:


> I still have some flac files only as this is the only download format available.


 
  
 Digital music stores nowadays offer every file format imaginable. (Collectively speaking.) And you can convert to any format you want after the fact.
  


redcarmoose said:


> Interesting, do you open your folders one at a time in say, ITunes? Do you ever put large groups of songs/albums together as a party playlist in say Foobar with out tag issues?
> 
> As far as my experience goes, I have always had issues with numbering and tags when files merged. I was of the understanding I was not alone. Though you do hear of people going a cleaning up playlists manually with their WAVE rips.
> Not something I want to spend time doing?


 
  
 Like I said, you can write tags to WAV files (such as with dBpoweramp) and organize everything however you want in any compatible player, including foobar2000. (I don't know many audiophiles who still use iTunes.) You can even add time tags to sort albums in chronological order for each artist and so on.


----------



## Redcarmoose

music alchemist said:


> Digital music stores nowadays offer every file format imaginable. (Collectively speaking.) And you can convert to any format you want after the fact.
> 
> 
> Like I said, you can write tags to WAV files (such as with dBpoweramp) and organize everything however you want in any compatible player, including foobar2000. (I don't know many audiophiles who still use iTunes.) You can even add time tags to sort albums in chronological order for each artist and so on.




Many of us use iTunes to rip CDs into Apple Lossless for iPods. Normally just play Foobar. But as far as I can tell Apple lossless stays in order with no tag adjustments needed. I also can't tell the different between 16/44.1 FLAC, Apple Lossless or WAVE rips.

But with critical reference listening those old fashione disks rule. IMO


----------



## manishex

redcarmoose said:


> Interesting, do you open your folders one at a time in say, ITunes? Do you ever put large groups of songs/albums together as a party playlist in say Foobar with out tag issues?
> 
> As far as my experience goes, I have always had issues with numbering and tags when files merged. I was of the understanding I was not alone. Though you do hear of people going a cleaning up playlists manually with their WAVE rips.
> Not something I want to spend time doing?


 
 I use windows server (no network) and hqplayer for critical listening which doesn't group or album art anything however, Jriver does do that on my windows 10, some art was missing but theres an option if you right click to find one from the internet. I don't know what happens with playlists though...


----------



## Tomsonn

I am using MediaMoneky and Windows Media Player. Both working perfectly for me. I think it is always better use an Equalizer Software to get best sound quality with any audio player. I am using "EqualizerPro" software with audio player and it works perfectly for me.


----------



## rawrster

I still use itunes however it is mostly for purchasing music I can't find elsewhere. There are some youtube artists I like that only release on itunes so there's that. I use foobar for music listening and mp3tag for any tag editing. I usually update the tags when I rip a CD to flac or purchase something to make sure everything is in the format I want so that isn't much of an issue. I do wish there was something more user friendly than foobar that isn't a hog on resources but haven't been able to find anything.


----------



## Stratos24

Try MusicBee.  It's an excellent player with some attractive features.


----------



## music_man

i am just a purist. i prefer wav only because it is the native uncompressed format. i doubt you can hear a difference in fact. i just prefer it an have a lot of storage. just a preference not really having to do with actual sound. when i say a slight edge i am sure it is in my mind. as flac is pretty much the same thing. it is lossless of course. with extremely high end equipment i just prefer the native format of redbook. flac shall suffice for almost everyone. quite frankly 320kbps aac is very close. i have in fact tested and flac is a mirror image. however as with cables for instance some things cannot be explained. don't worry about it. use flac mainly due to the space savings and honestly it hardly makes a difference. if any. plus as mentioned above there can be tagging issues with wav if that matters to you.


----------



## Redcarmoose

manishex said:


> I use windows server (no network) and hqplayer for critical listening which doesn't group or album art anything however, Jriver does do that on my windows 10, some art was missing but theres an option if you right click to find one from the internet. I don't know what happens with playlists though...



Well that's just the thing, I don't think any of us have ever been told what's right or wrong but just somehow found a way that works for each of us. Probably the biggest issue I had with WAVE was having iTunes rip it then store it in ITunes where the tags and numbering would then later get slightly rearranged. Still I do think there is always that idea that there could be future formats and what better to decode from than WAVE. Many of us have also found sonic issues if a recoded file format process is done. 

Using Foobar2000 Resolute sounds exactly the same for me with portable as Apple lossless. I actually had file arrangement problems using Apple iPods and playing FLAC so I switched to taking a stack of CDs and ripping them to Apple Lossless in iTunes. Though to me Foobar on a PC sounds better than iTunes so I end up with three groups of music FLAC for PC with Foobar, Apple Lossless Portable and regular CDs. 

So in many ways I have made the process 3x more complicated. 

The strange placebo factor states whatever way we think sounds best does sound best.


----------



## Energy

I've noticed many programs have better support for MAC operating systems than for Windows. Anyone know why?

I've used J.River Media Center for the longest time on a Windows 10 computer and never had a problem. Does MAC laptops offer quieter power supply noise or something when compared to Windows laptops? I see so many audiophiles using MacOS.

About to buy a new laptop for the music room and not sure what to get which is why I asked.

I don't think power supply noise should be an issue though right? Laptops run from battery (low noise) and all of them have only a few fans for cooling anyways. Some nowadays are fanless so even better. Also the introductory of galvanic isolation devices and digital to digital converters shoulf make USB noise obsolete. Any comments?


----------



## Digitalis

music_man said:


> i honestly think sometimes wav has a slight edge over flac.


 

 Storing all your music in WAV is like storing all your images in un-compressed TIFF format.


----------



## Music Alchemist

digitalis said:


> Storing all your music in WAV is like storing all your images in un-compressed TIFF format.


 
  
 Nah, image compression levels are much higher than audio files. I use WAV and wouldn't have saved much (relative) space if I had used FLAC instead, even with thousands of albums.


----------



## Redcarmoose

energy said:


> I've noticed many programs have better support for MAC operating systems than for Windows. Anyone know why?
> 
> I've used J.River Media Center for the longest time on a Windows 10 computer and never had a problem. Does MAC laptops offer quieter power supply noise or something when compared to Windows laptops? I see so many audiophiles using MacOS.
> 
> ...




If you look at the whole thread, it's noticed that folks just get used to something. The whole PC VS MAC thing will never end maybe. Though some think every computer sounds a little different, I do. Still it's really small differences and much could be attibuted to the placebo effect. Same as WAVE sounding better than FLAC. If your mind thinks something is slightly better it sounds slightly better. 

It's really too bad there are not better music only PCs or music only MACs which are dedicated like gaming computer rigs! Obviously companies have tried to make media servers which take a few parts from a computer and make stand alone boxs which are computers in a way but are simply made for music. In Asia small audio music players are made to be way cheaper than a computer or our western high end media severs. But that is the question, if a stripped down media server for $200 from Asia could sound better than a PC or MAC because it has fewer parts, and smaller power supply? 

In the end I think you just have to try a bunch of stuff.


Though I personally think taking both USB and the full computer out of the loop is the wave of the future.

http://penonaudio.com/music-mp3-players/Desktop


----------



## castleofargh

energy said:


> I've noticed many programs have better support for MAC operating systems than for Windows. Anyone know why?
> 
> I've used J.River Media Center for the longest time on a Windows 10 computer and never had a problem. Does MAC laptops offer quieter power supply noise or something when compared to Windows laptops? I see so many audiophiles using MacOS.
> 
> ...


 
  
 if your room is quiet, a fanless solution will most likely improve the fidelity of your music a few magnitudes above any other change aside from the headphone/speakers. but I would do that only for a computer I don't plan to use for much else. and once you start going that road, maybe something like a raspberry pi would make more sense and save good money?
  
  making black and white concepts where battery is silent and home plugs are noisy is missing too much of the real picture and can lead to faulty reasoning. audiophiles really love faulty reasoning so be careful with that.
  for the most part, the computer doesn't really matter as long as you don't mess up the configuration and the DAC is well made to deal with whatever crap can come from the source. some DACs were made in a clean controlled environment and the designer never bothered with real life beta testing before he started selling the gear. for such a silly device, you will most likely need all the usb magic boxes in the world, and power cleaner, and maybe build a Faraday cage around it to achieve proper audio. to me all that isn't the sign that I have improved my sound system, it's the sign that I should get a proper DAC.
  
 anyway, I mostly suggest to have a problem before you concern yourself with solving it ^_^. I know some audiophiles are the kings of precautionary measures thinking it might improve the last 0.0001% of sound(objectively or subjectively), but often enough it goes way out of hand from an objective point of view and you can't tell the difference with good old paranoia. and I've never seen happy paranoiacs. IMO, just get something you're familiar with, something you know you'll enjoy using. that can really make listening to music nicer, be it the computer, the OS or the player itself.
  


digitalis said:


> music_man said:
> 
> 
> > i honestly think sometimes wav has a slight edge over flac.
> ...


 
 my thought too. but then again I bought 2 more 2T drives for picture backup, and storage is fairly cheap. so I guess it's just not something important.


----------



## Music Alchemist

energy said:


> About to buy a new laptop for the music room and not sure what to get which is why I asked.
> 
> I don't think power supply noise should be an issue though right? Laptops run from battery (low noise) and all of them have only a few fans for cooling anyways. Some nowadays are fanless so even better. Also the introductory of galvanic isolation devices and digital to digital converters shoulf make USB noise obsolete. Any comments?


 
  
 I have an Alienware M11x R2 with Windows 10. With headphones, I never got any noise related to the computer or power supplies, with the exception of the Schiit Fulla...but I did get really bad noise with the JBL LSR305 active studio monitor speakers I recently got. (Using a Schiit Fulla 2 as DAC/preamp.) It was definitely related to the computer's power supply, because it stopped when I unplugged it. Thankfully, all I needed to do was put a cheater plug on the laptop charger and that fixed it.
  
 USB noise is not obsolete by a long shot. You can very well encounter it. But don't worry about it unless you do.
  
 Also, as far as I know, laptops only run on battery power if they are unplugged. Mine is getting old and can't even last an hour without being plugged in.


----------



## gr8soundz

castleofargh said:


> if your room is quiet, a fanless solution will most likely improve the fidelity of your music a few magnitudes above any other change aside from the headphone/speakers. but I would do that only for a computer I don't plan to use for much else. and once you start going that road, maybe something like a raspberry pi would make more sense and save good money?
> 
> making black and white concepts where battery is silent and home plugs are noisy is missing too much of the real picture and can lead to faulty reasoning. audiophiles really love faulty reasoning so be careful with that.
> for the most part, the computer doesn't really matter as long as you don't mess up the configuration and the DAC is well made to deal with whatever crap can come from the source. some DACs were made in a clean controlled environment and the designer never bothered with real life beta testing before he started selling the gear. for such a silly device, you will most likely need all the usb magic boxes in the world, and power cleaner, and maybe build a Faraday cage around it to achieve proper audio. to me all that isn't the sign that I have improved my sound system, it's the sign that I should get a proper DAC.
> ...


 
  
 +1 for all that.
  
 I've built a half dozen fanless machines over the past decade. They are more expensive and more difficult to build but worth it. No background noise and almost no dust inside even after several years running.
  
 Also agree that one can go overboard with certain tweaks. Sometimes better to simplify your setup and enjoy the music. Once you find the right DAC (for you), setting up everything else gets a little easier.


----------



## music_man

or raw.


----------



## Energy

Thanks for all your help.
  
 I just fear a fanless computer would degrade quicker over time due to cooling concerns.
  
 I'm a student and need a laptop for both personalized music enjoyment as well as school and homework. I've had a gaming computer back then with an intense graphic card (GTX1080) and 9 case fans, but it still didn't make any noises with my DAC. Now that I have a digital to digital converter, noise becomes less of a problem. The main concern I had bad then was at late nights I could hear those fans working and to a more than audible degree. I saw so many people having MAC books on this forum as their source so I figured it was quiet in both aspects, power and fan noise.
  
 I'm a windows guy so after hearing you guys talk, I think it's safe to stick to windows and just get any decent laptop? I was thinking the fanless Dell XPS 13. It has a USB 3.0 socket and should suffice. Maybe if I need more room I should drop in a bigger SSD or utilize an external drive?


----------



## castleofargh

energy said:


> Thanks for all your help.
> 
> I just fear a fanless computer would degrade quicker over time due to cooling concerns.
> 
> ...


 

 if this is your situation, just forget all about those audio concerns and get the computer you need and can afford for your life. you obviously have more important stuff than maybe improving on some most likely inaudible noises. as for the external noise from fans, only you can tell if it's important to you or not. I'm one to go crazy about any audible noise, but most people just forget about it entirely.
 now mac or most fanless PCs aren't exactly the number one suggested solution for gaming if it's still your thing ^_^. I have a "gaming" laptop, it's kind of doing everything wrong, for the money one would probably do better getting a gaming PC and a cheap light laptop.


----------



## BrOtO

Wav format is more *Euphonic , Grainy and Wet* sounding compared to FLAC per my experience


----------



## AxelCloris

Deleted a couple of off topic posts.


----------



## Energy

castleofargh said:


> if this is your situation, just forget all about those audio concerns and get the computer you need and can afford for your life. you obviously have more important stuff than maybe improving on some most likely inaudible noises. as for the external noise from fans, only you can tell if it's important to you or not. I'm one to go crazy about any audible noise, but most people just forget about it entirely.
> now mac or most fanless PCs aren't exactly the number one suggested solution for gaming if it's still your thing ^_^. I have a "gaming" laptop, it's kind of doing everything wrong, for the money one would probably do better getting a gaming PC and a cheap light laptop.


 
  
 I didn't hear the fan noises before until I took more attention into this hobby so many the paranoia of others has made it's way to me. But you're definitely right, I've seen others who just completely ignores all of these things.
  
 No more gaming for me as I have to focus on school. The girlfriend is made me quit, so maybe after I'm done and financially stable I'll bounce back into it. I laughed so hard when you blatantly pointed out the gaming laptop problem and how it's probably better to get a gaming PC and cheap laptop on the side for audio among other things. Life is fun, we see our problems but sometimes we continue to do it anyways because a part of us just wants to do it. >_<
  
 I'll go with the Dell XPS 13! I was looking into Dell's and was surprised they no longer offered the heavy gaming XPS laptops of the past but then I realized they acquired Alienware some time ago. Stupid me... x_x
  
 Anyways, what program do you use for audio playback?
 I've been using J.River Media Center since they day I joined this jobby, it offers a decent selection of possible DSP, etc so I never found any need to go elsewhere.

 Now there are so many uprising programs with support for this and that, I'm just completely confused. 
  


broto said:


> Wav format is more *Euphonic , Grainy and Wet* sounding compared to FLAC per my experience


 
  
 You can hear the difference between two lossless files? That's astounding.
 I have a hard time hearing the difference between digital connections let alone files. I thought WAV would only be better if the computer is too bottlenecked to decompress it, but even then, that job doesn't take much work on the computer or program. Maybe this shows a flaw in the program and not the files?
  
 I've done previous wav vs flac showdowns in the past but have always concluded that they sound the same unless on a super crappy computer.


----------



## BrOtO

I heard both on LG V20


----------



## Energy

broto said:


> I heard both on LG V20


 
  
 Oh, so a phone. Well that's probably why. A smaller processor will do better with an uncompressed file than a compressed file like FLAC.


----------



## BrOtO

This one has Dedicated Audio SOC ESS Sabre 9218 for Audio processing upto 32 bits..

Does that make a difference ?


----------



## Redcarmoose

broto said:


> Wav format is more *Euphonic , Grainy and Wet* sounding compared to FLAC per my experience





Have you ever had identical files and had someone play them back random and you could diferentiate? It would maybe be a first for mankind?


----------



## BrOtO

I have the WAV rip .Lemme make a FLAC rip of the same and i will try this again ..same setting ..
Maybe its a placebo thing or something ....


----------



## Energy

broto said:


> I have the WAV rip .Lemme make a FLAC rip of the same and i will try this again ..same setting ..
> Maybe its a placebo thing or something ....


 
  
 Your phone/DAP has a decent processor so I doubt it suffers from processing power. If the processor wasn't good enough, the sound should either be choppy or cut off, but for it to both play smoothly and for there to be a difference is beyond me.
  
 WAV and FLAC should sound the same, they are both lossless. Only difference is that FLAC can be uncompressed and compressed in many levels. I recommend having a friend play the two files for you at random and see if you're able to discern a difference.


----------



## castleofargh

energy said:


> ...
> Anyways, what program do you use for audio playback?
> I've been using J.River Media Center since they day I joined this jobby, it offers a decent selection of possible DSP, etc so I never found any need to go elsewhere.
> 
> ...


 
 differences if any should be limited to the last bits or to specific settings and functions used, so again anything that works for you is probably fine.
 I use foobar, because over the years I got used to it and it just works. I only wish it could do 64bit and get some clever guy to make a VST wrapper for VST3 to ease up on the CPU when I want to use some pretty heavy settings. but it's not like I need it for typical audio playback so I stick to what I know for now.


----------



## castleofargh

energy said:


> broto said:
> 
> 
> > I have the WAV rip .Lemme make a FLAC rip of the same and i will try this again ..same setting ..
> ...


 
 the ess9218 is an all in one solution(decoding, DAC, amp), with the right app(I imagine whatever is by default on the phone) even the flac decompression should/could be handled by the sabre chip, instead of the usual player using the CPU so that only PCM is sent to the PCM speaking DACs. this ess chipset is apparently multilingual ^_^. 
  
 but in any case, flac once decompressed offers the same data as wave(+some tags probably). so if, and it's a huge "if", there is an audible difference, of course it's caused by the player, the device, or the way the flac was encoded. flac as a format doesn't have the ability to alter the signal in any way and claims of the contrary are false.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Besides doing back to back random switching to try and differentiate between FLAC or WAVE, the other variables are based on file decoding. Back in 2010 I had my first experience with a bad decoder. So there is always that chance that maybe the FLAC file had imperfections which made it sound inferior to WAVE. 

It was an Ashampoo program I was using not Foobar2000 in 2010. And I'm sure we could find whole teams here at Head-Fi who question the quality of sound files processed away from Redbook 16bit-44.1kHz. It's pretty much an understanding that there are a multitude of file qualities provided by different transcoders. 

And really above is another perfect argument for the purists who do have an affinity for virgin WAVE.


So in ending yes, lossless could have the potentiality of arriving at being a direct clone of 16bit-44.1kHz WAVE, but the sound quality is only going to be as good as the transcoding lets it be. That said it's rare that the transcoding is inferior but we must not forget it's absolutely a variable when trying to test for differences.


----------



## sterling1

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> Besides doing back to back random switching to try and differentiate between FLAC or WAVE, the other variables are based on file decoding. Back in 2010 I had my first experience with a bad decoder. So there is always that chance that maybe the FLAC file had imperfections which made it sound inferior to WAVE.
> 
> It was an Ashampoo program I was using not Foobar2000 in 2010. And I'm sure we could find whole teams here at Head-Fi who question the quality of sound files processed away from Redbook 16bit-44.1kHz. It's pretty much an understanding that there are a multitude of file qualities provided by different transcoders.
> 
> ...


 

 ​I wonder about how processing errors are corrected? My Sony PCM-7010F DAT Recorders have very powerful error correction for 16/44.1 and 16/48. The outcome is, as I hear it, the most life-like sound I've heard so far from a digital device. Interestingly enough, these recorders are not the latest and greatest, dating back to about 1992.


----------



## Redcarmoose

sterling1 said:


> ​I wonder about how processing errors are corrected? My Sony PCM-7010F DAT Recorders have very powerful error correction for 16/44.1 and 16/48. The outcome is, as I hear it, the most life-like sound I've heard so far from a digital device. Interestingly enough, these recorders are not the latest and greatest, dating back to about 1992.




This is a subject I know very little about. Though I do know that some decoder software will provide data showing the acuracy which took place during the decode. I don't think it's anything you can correct after the fact. The more elaborate decoding software actually goes and tests the quality and gives you a report as to the accuracy performed. Still maybe most of the time these mistakes if any are not audible. Only if you have experience with a really bad decoding you'll notice the extent of what is truly possible with bad software.


----------



## Music Alchemist

broto said:


> I have the WAV rip .Lemme make a FLAC rip of the same and i will try this again ..same setting ....


 
  
 I'd recommend using dBpoweramp to convert the WAV to FLAC. (Instead of ripping the CD all over again and potentially introducing more variables into the equation.)


----------



## BrOtO

I use PowerIso CDRip option to convert. It takes about 5 minutes (pretty fast!) to rip CDs in Wav .
It has got FLAC option too.


----------



## 329161

I didn't know where else to ask this, and I didn't want to start a new thread so, does anyone know of an Android music player app which is able to simulate tube amp sound with dsp?


----------



## gr8soundz

dcfac73 said:


> I didn't know where else to ask this, and I didn't want to start a new thread so, does anyone know of an Android music player app which is able to simulate tube amp sound with dsp?


 
  
 Viper4Android has that feature but your device must be rooted and installation is not the easiest.


----------



## 329161

gr8soundz said:


> Viper4Android has that feature but your device must be rooted and installation is not the easiest.


yes, I had a look at that, but my phone isn't rooted. Thanks for the heads up anyway


----------



## Music Alchemist

I am upset to report that on my current system, JPLAYmini in Hibernate mode sounds _clearly_ better than foobar2000. (With previous systems, I wasn't able to hear a difference between them.) But I can't do anything on my computer this way, so it's not very practical.


----------



## theveterans

Music Alchemist said:


> I am upset to report that on my current system, JPLAYmini in Hibernate mode sounds _clearly_ better than foobar2000. (With previous systems, I wasn't able to hear a difference between them.) But I can't do anything on my computer this way, so it's not very practical.



Do you really need jplay if your DAC has ASIO drivers? I play mine through the ASIO drivers from my USB to SPDIF converter.


----------



## Music Alchemist (May 11, 2017)

theveterans said:


> Do you really need jplay if your DAC has ASIO drivers? I play mine through the ASIO drivers from my USB to SPDIF converter.



It's not about what you "need", but the sound. I'm actually using the most extreme JPLAY settings: KS for the output mode (instead of WASAPI or ASIO) and ULTRAstream for the engine. I've heard that KS is superior to other output modes as far as the technical things it does. I've never heard a difference between KS, WASAPI, and ASIO themselves in the same player.

But like I said, JPLAYmini in Hibernate mode (and the aforementioned settings) sounds noticeably better on my current system than foobar2000 with WASAPI or ASIO. Every time I've compared a track for the past day, my general reaction is awe for the former and disappointment for the latter.


----------



## theveterans

Music Alchemist said:


> It's not about what you "need", but the sound. I'm actually using the most extreme JPLAY settings: KS for the output mode (instead of WASAPI or ASIO) and ULTRAstream for the engine. I've heard that KS is superior to other output modes as far as the technical things it does. I've never heard a difference between KS, WASAPI, and ASIO themselves in the same player.
> 
> But like I said, JPLAYmini in Hibernate mode (and the aforementioned settings) sounds noticeably better on my current system than foobar2000 with WASAPI or ASIO. Every time I've compared a track for the past day, my general reaction is awe for the former and disappointment for the latter.



It cripples the functionality too much with the Hibernate mode. That's why some revert to streamers rather than crippling their PC to achieve the same quality.


----------



## Music Alchemist

theveterans said:


> It cripples the functionality too much with the Hibernate mode. That's why some revert to streamers rather than crippling their PC to achieve the same quality.



Yep, those (network players, music servers, and the like) have been discussed occasionally in this thread. But it's nice to get improvements in sound quality without spending anything. (I'm using the free trial of JPLAY, which never expires and only inserts a few seconds of silence every few minutes, and I already had a USB flash drive.) I'm still upset about it, though, because I wasn't expecting it to sound any better, and it's a pain to use it.


----------



## Glenn Adema

For everyone reading this..Tried it all and found that What player sounds best by far for pcm on local storage.  Its just more analog. If you like analytical then use ao, fidelizer, project lasso and win2019 datacenter. For tidal, spotify streaming this setup its best of all with only 400 threads active (maybe less if setup right). Goodbye win 10 and all older Os. 

But if you want to go for analog sounding pcm just use wtfplayer on linux. But thats just my and lot of friends opinion. I would just say try it as its free also and report what you think of it. 

Its so strange that this player isnt advertised more. 

Keep on the good work, wtfplayer, fidelizer and ao optimizer. You are all respected by me on your own terain and changed computer audio forever. Regards, Glenn, a system admin for over 15 years.


----------



## manueljenkin (Dec 22, 2020)

Glenn Adema said:


> For everyone reading this..Tried it all and found that What player sounds best by far for pcm on local storage.  Its just more analog. If you like analytical then use ao, fidelizer, project lasso and win2019 datacenter. For tidal, spotify streaming this setup its best of all with only 400 threads active (maybe less if setup right). Goodbye win 10 and all older Os.
> 
> But if you want to go for analog sounding pcm just use wtfplayer on linux. But thats just my and lot of friends opinion. I would just say try it as its free also and report what you think of it.
> 
> ...



Wtfplay is the best I've heard too. For a windows alternative, I'll recommend you to try PlayPCMWin, Hysolid, albumplayer. I'll also recommend setting up a RAMDisk using tools like the one from AMD. You could also try xxhighend (if you can get it to work).



Music Alchemist said:


> Yep, those (network players, music servers, and the like) have been discussed occasionally in this thread. But it's nice to get improvements in sound quality without spending anything. (I'm using the free trial of JPLAY, which never expires and only inserts a few seconds of silence every few minutes, and I already had a USB flash drive.) I'm still upset about it, though, because I wasn't expecting it to sound any better, and it's a pain to use it.


Is there any setup guide for jplay? I tried it earlier once but I think I failed to set it up properly.


----------



## arjuna93

*Fidelia* is amazing sound-wise, but current version has issues.

I have contacted developers and they say update is expected in a matter of days.


----------



## Redcarmoose

https://colibri-lossless.com

This on the Mac.


----------



## RONJA MESCO

I want to know if there are any audiophile quality players for chrome?


----------



## manueljenkin

RONJA MESCO said:


> I want to know if there are any audiophile quality players for chrome?


Not sure of specific players for chrome, but enabling wasapi in chrome should go a long way in making it better. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chrome-exclusive-mode-audio.747478/


----------



## arjuna93

RONJA MESCO said:


> I want to know if there are any audiophile quality players for chrome?



What's the use case though?


----------



## manueljenkin

arjuna93 said:


> What's the use case though?



Streaming audio, generally with video on websites like say Vimeo etc. Or internet radio stations. There can be fairly high quality ones of these categories.


----------



## arjuna93

arjuna93 said:


> *Fidelia* is amazing sound-wise, but current version has issues.
> 
> I have contacted developers and they say update is expected in a matter of days.



Update is out in App Store


----------



## inmytaxi

fredeb said:


> Yeah - using it this way keeps one aware of the directory structure on the HDD . I right-click ( windows ) on folder and select " play in winamp " . I also don't create playlists ( or save them ) , The playlist window just shows what's cued up to play .


I get confused by software. My soft brain allows only file structures and winamp, foobar, and the like. Sounds fine to me.


----------



## lunawestller (Jan 28, 2021)

sterling1 said:


> Your not playing FLAC files from iTunes. iTunes does not do FLAC. It will do AIFF, ALAC, AAC, WAV. and maybe MP3 but not FLAC.



Media Leap allows the uploading and streaming of MP3, Ogg, and FLAC files.

I've only been using this app https://medialeap.com/ for a little while, but I am very impressed. This is exactly what I was looking for: a fully-featured service to manage my music library on the cloud.  I'm so glad I found this, it does everything I need and is as good.

Thanks


----------



## arjuna93

arjuna93 said:


> Update is out in App Store



And another update of Fidelia, handling of libraries is improved.


----------



## RONJA MESCO

manueljenkin said:


> Not sure of specific players for chrome, but enabling wasapi in chrome should go a long way in making it better. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chrome-exclusive-mode-audio.747478/


Thanks for this..I'll check it out !


----------



## RONJA MESCO

arjuna93 said:


> What's the use case though?


It was for just playing music files off of essentially.... didnt want to rely on my spare bootleg phone for streaming, whereas, thats what I have the laptop for since its powered 24/7.


----------

