Foobar or JRiver

[daftcombo]

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]

@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]

So they almost nothing load the CPU, unlike Firefox when works.

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

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.

 

[maty]

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]

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.

 

[majingotan]

Speaking of CPU usage, Foobar2000 with ASIO to my DAC uses about 1% CPU of my old dual core laptop @ 0.8GHz

 

[maty]

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

@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

 

[maty]

About Kernel Streaming and my JRMC conf:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...urements-of-sabaj-d5-dac-amp.8337/post-220381

 

[daftcombo]

foobar2000, the same track: about 1.5%.

1.5% in foobar, how much in JRiver? I missed it.

 

[digitalfrost]

Question: What does it matter? And is more better, or less? With the CPUs have, CPU usage doesn't matter for music playback.

 

[daftcombo]

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]

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.

 

[daftcombo]

Thanks. Is CPU usage bigger with WAV than FLAC ?
And compared to mp3?

 

[maty]

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]

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]

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]

Years ago, with foobar2000, I appreciated the difference between FLAC 5 and FLAC 4.

How about posting your foobar2000 ABX logs?

 

[maty]

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]

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]

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