• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Foobar or JRiver

Foobar VS JRiver

  • Foobar

    Votes: 42 51.2%
  • JRiver

    Votes: 22 26.8%
  • Other (Mention below)

    Votes: 18 22.0%

  • Total voters
    82

daftcombo

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
1,146
Likes
873
For the record: EqualizerAPO can do (almost) the same for free.
Yes, I use EqAPO usually which is easy to use.

I tried JRiver WDM last night, with Foobar as player for the experiment. Got latency and pops but it worked. I could probably have it to play clean with a bit of configuration but yeah, APO easier to use.
 

daftcombo

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
1,146
Likes
873
@maty perhaps we could go on with the discussion here.

Can you be more precise about what differences you hear between Foobar200 and JRiver?

I have another question: which one uses less CPU?
 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
1,376
Likes
557
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
So they almost nothing load the CPU, unlike Firefox when works.

Just now JRMC v25.0.96 64-bits: 24/96 FLAC

Process-Lasso-JRMC-foobar2000.png


24/96 FLAC A1 I Allegro Giusto from: Alfred Brendel - Schubert - Piano Works - Klavierwerke - Musique Pour Piano - 1822-1828 (1973), Vinyl x8, Philips, Netherlands

https://www.discogs.com/Schubert-Al...-Musique-Pour-Piano-1822-1828/release/3431730

The rules are different, trying to approximate the sound of foobar2000 to JRMC but there is no way. With Kernel Streaming.

EDIT: JRMC usually has High priority, like others multimedia players. Play music without finishing Windows optimization, just to make the screenshot.
 
Last edited:

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
1,376
Likes
557
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
Almost a year ago I passed the tests proposed by PMA on diyaudio.com very easily with both soft players. When they were complicated they were still overcome without difficulty with JRMC but not with foobar2000.

More analog sound, more pleasant, less strident but more detailed. In the end, the really important thing: I get EMOTIONED much more easily.
 

Julf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
567
Likes
396
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
More analog sound, more pleasant, less strident but more detailed. In the end, the really important thing: I get EMOTIONED much more easily.
Your subjective perception is noted.
 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
1,376
Likes
557
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
foobar2000, the same track: about 1.5%.

BTW, now it works thanks to JRMC WDM driver: https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/WDM_Driver
And... appears KS from JRMC!!! KS: JRVAD Wave

foobar2000-Brendel-KS-JRVAD-Wave.png


@Julf

As you seem to follow me almost every thread where I participate, tonight I will look under the bed in case you are there :eek:
 
Last edited:

digitalfrost

Active Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
114
Likes
128
Location
Palatinate, Germany
Question: What does it matter? And is more better, or less? With the CPUs have, CPU usage doesn't matter for music playback.
 

daftcombo

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
1,146
Likes
873
Question: What does it matter? And is more better, or less? With the CPUs have, CPU usage doesn't matter for music playback.
I'm doing tests at the moment on my laptop to limit CPU usage so that the fan doesn't start (I don't like extra noise added to my ambient music).
Going from HDD to SSD was already a big step forward.
 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
1,376
Likes
557
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
With 24/96 FLAC

JRMC: 2% (file load to memory) and foobar2000: 1.5%

Very small values. With old Intel i5 4460.

About the HDD, I have optimized (audio files) to play multimedia. Western NAS Red (you know, the fiability is very important). And two one backup from music, external

BTW: I am almost all the time typing an imaginary piano. Very great sound and interpretation! Without clicks and any noises, without soft processing.
 
Last edited:

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
1,376
Likes
557
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
The more compression, the more CPU load for decompression. How much? I do not know. Only I can say I can hear the difference between FLAC 0 and FLAC 4.

WAV - FLAC 0 - .... - FLAC 8 - MP3
 

Julf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
567
Likes
396
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
The more compression, the more CPU load for decompression. How much? I do not know.
Key phrase "do not know". How about finding out? More compression might cause slightly more cpu processing load, compensated by lower cpu load for not having to shift redundant extra data in and out.

Only I can say I can hear the difference between FLAC 0 and FLAC 4.
Indeed. Only you can say that. :)
 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
1,376
Likes
557
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
I know of a few who prefer WAV over FLAC. I have tried to convince them to do the WAV vs FLAC 0 test. The difference is minimal, I would not pass a blind test. But FLAC 0 vs FLAC 4 is easy. Years ago, with foobar2000, I appreciated the difference between FLAC 5 and FLAC 4. In those years I recommended FLAC 4 1024 kbps.
 

Julf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
567
Likes
396
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Years ago, with foobar2000, I appreciated the difference between FLAC 5 and FLAC 4.
How about posting your foobar2000 ABX logs?
 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
1,376
Likes
557
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
Never. And as you well know, for a few weeks, I will never trust foobar2000 or the ABX plugin for any type of test.

August 2011



Impresiones

...Las músicas suenan bastante mejor que antes de la última mejora de las cajas. Los dos temas del disco Get Out de Capercaillie Pige Ruadh y Dr. MacPhail's Trance suenan como un tiro, y es donde más se nota la diferencia en la comparación, mientras que en el viejo tema de Otis Redding Sitting On The Dock Of The Bay en Lo mejor del Soul es en la percusión donde se nota.
Well, the test was FLAC 4 vs FLAC 8.
 

Julf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
567
Likes
396
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Never. And as you well know, for a few weeks, I will never trust foobar2000 or the ABX plugin for any type of test.
So how did you actually test?
 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
1,376
Likes
557
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
August 2009

Tras hacer pruebas con Lo Mejor del Soul (1992) con FLAC 5 a 768kbps, FLAC 5 a 1024kbps y FLAC 4 a 1024kbps, he decidido optar por la última opción pues la percusión resalta más, incrementando muy ligeramente el tamaño respecto a la primera opción por defecto.




-4 -V -T “ARTIST=%a” -T “TITLE=%t” -T “ALBUM=%g” -T “DATE=%y” -T “TRACKNUMBER=%n” -T “GENRE=%m” -T “COMMENT=%e” %s -o %d
 
Top Bottom