Canuck Audio Mart Hifi and Audio ForumCanuck Audio Mart Hifi and Audio Forum
It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:06 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 7:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:20 am
Posts: 142
Location: Ottawa, ON, CA
Which is your favourite, and why? Do you notice any major differences in SQ? So far, I have only tried Audirvana, about to try Roon.

_________________
Got Hi-Fi?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 7:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 8:20 pm
Posts: 410
Location: Silver Creek, BC, CA
I used JRiver to rip + 5000 cd's over the last 3 years (actually doing more right now) it is the principal player on my laptop.
I stream with it no issues but I do not subscribe to anything as I live outside Canada for 6 months every year and the internet there is questionable at best!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 8:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:08 am
Posts: 27
Location: Vancouver, BC, CA
I'm partial to Foobar2000 because I love customizing. At the base: jrivers source code is very similar to that of foobar's (some of the foobar devs left to work on jriver fyi). The main advantage/difference with jriver is that it's easier to use for the layman. With foobar, the user needs to add plugins to take full advantage of the program. Foobar2000 is good enough if you don't mind tinkering with settings.

Anyone that pays a premium for a media player is a sucker. Plus, foobar is very lightweight/uses very little resources (a big plus for those with older computers).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:20 am
Posts: 142
Location: Ottawa, ON, CA
MV87 wrote:
I'm partial to Foobar2000 because I love customizing. At the base: jrivers source code is very similar to that of foobar's (some of the foobar devs left to work on jriver fyi). The main advantage/difference with jriver is that it's easier to use for the layman. With foobar, the user needs to add plugins to take full advantage of the program. Foobar2000 is good enough if you don't mind tinkering with settings.

Anyone that pays a premium for a media player is a sucker. Plus, foobar is very lightweight/uses very little resources (a big plus for those with older computers).


I cannot remote control Tidal on my mac from my iPad with foobar. So, it is not an option.

_________________
Got Hi-Fi?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 9:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 8:20 pm
Posts: 410
Location: Silver Creek, BC, CA
" The main advantage/difference with jriver is that it's easier to use for the layman."

pretty much says it all!!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 10:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:16 am
Posts: 125
Location: london, ON, CA
A lot depends on the quality of your metatags. As long as your metadata is perfect, or near perfect at least, I would say Audirvana might be marginally better because of a slight advantage in sound quality. The upsampling through the Izotope backend makes what I have convinced myself is a noticeable difference, although I wouldn't want to bet any money on my being able to tell the difference in a blind A/B.

If you have any doubts at all about your tags, though, don't bother with Audirvana. It is very dependent on metadata to work, and your library won't make any sense if your tags are haphazard. JRiver shows you your music according to the filesystem, so there is much less hassle. Its interface is also a lot more complete.

If you use Tidal, though, things swing back heavily in favour of Audirvana, because of the integration. The iOS remote app is also a plus, if you're set up for that. One other difference I find, which may or may not mean anything to you, is in the handling of plugins. In Audirvana, each plugin gets its own window, and they all pop up with the start of playback. In JRiver, it's all done through the plugin manager and you can only see one at a time. I like to throw my plugins over onto my second monitor where I can see them, so I prefer Audirvana for that. The plugins also run much closer to realtime with Audirvana. For EQ, I use DMG Audio's Equick, which has a really nice analyzer. It runs perfectly in realtime on Audirvana, in perfect sync with the music, while in JRiver there is a lag no matter what I do with the buffer settings. It borders on eye-candy in terms of importance, but I like it. 8)

I tried Roon and found it to be a big fussy pain in the ass. Library management and the information to go with your music seem to be its main appeal. The sound quality on its own is nothing to get excited about. It also doesn't accept plugins, if those matter to you.

There is also HQplayer, which has a good reputation for sound quality and accepts convolution room correction filters. Its interface is terrible, though.

Amarra 4 has recently been released. It looks nice, but its library management is a hot mess. It might be worth looking at in a year or two, but after half an hour with the demo, I'd say don't bother just yet.

Since you have tried Audirvana, you are obviously on a Mac, so no Foobar for you unless you're running it through WINE, or virtualized Windows. I'm not sure what that would do for sound quality.

There are demos of all these apps, so obviously you can try them all if you like. On the whole, I would say go with Audirvana if you have good tags or are willing to work on them (YATE is excellent for tags on the Mac). Otherwise, just go with JRiver.

And, obviously, everything is better than iTunes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 10:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:25 pm
Posts: 599
Location: toronto, ON, CA
MV87 wrote:
I'm partial to Foobar2000 because I love customizing. At the base: jrivers source code is very similar to that of foobar's (some of the foobar devs left to work on jriver fyi). The main advantage/difference with jriver is that it's easier to use for the layman. With foobar, the user needs to add plugins to take full advantage of the program. Foobar2000 is good enough if you don't mind tinkering with settings.

Anyone that pays a premium for a media player is a sucker. Plus, foobar is very lightweight/uses very little resources (a big plus for those with older computers).


Foobar 2000 is a freeware audio player. Does it work on mac ? Most use macs for music playback.I hope you know.
JRiver is only 50 dollars ,it is very robust,excellent music player with tons of features that you might want to use or not.It sounds awesome with out tinkering,one of the features that I love is the capability to cross fade tracks adjustable from 0.1s all the way to 16s, that actually works!.
To say that someone is a sucker for paying 50 dollars for a quality well thought out software is a strong statement,that I don't agree with.
It's actually very cheap for what it does.
George


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:08 am
Posts: 27
Location: Vancouver, BC, CA
Fair points.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yet, I still the find notion of spending $50 on a music player to be ridiculous. Maybe that's because I know what foobar is capable of and how to take full advantage of it (since I'm tech savvy); thus, I'm able to get the most out of foobar on my PC. Again, for the layman who doesn't have a lot of time, there's absolutely nothing wrong with other alternatives. Just don't come here saying the audio quality is superior because that's simply not the case.

Regards,

Michael


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:20 am
Posts: 142
Location: Ottawa, ON, CA
Lethargy wrote:
A lot depends on the quality of your metatags. As long as your metadata is perfect, or near perfect at least, I would say Audirvana might be marginally better because of a slight advantage in sound quality. The upsampling through the Izotope backend makes what I have convinced myself is a noticeable difference, although I wouldn't want to bet any money on my being able to tell the difference in a blind A/B.

If you have any doubts at all about your tags, though, don't bother with Audirvana. It is very dependent on metadata to work, and your library won't make any sense if your tags are haphazard. JRiver shows you your music according to the filesystem, so there is much less hassle. Its interface is also a lot more complete.

If you use Tidal, though, things swing back heavily in favour of Audirvana, because of the integration. The iOS remote app is also a plus, if you're set up for that. One other difference I find, which may or may not mean anything to you, is in the handling of plugins. In Audirvana, each plugin gets its own window, and they all pop up with the start of playback. In JRiver, it's all done through the plugin manager and you can only see one at a time. I like to throw my plugins over onto my second monitor where I can see them, so I prefer Audirvana for that. The plugins also run much closer to realtime with Audirvana. For EQ, I use DMG Audio's Equick, which has a really nice analyzer. It runs perfectly in realtime on Audirvana, in perfect sync with the music, while in JRiver there is a lag no matter what I do with the buffer settings. It borders on eye-candy in terms of importance, but I like it. 8)

I tried Roon and found it to be a big fussy pain in the ass. Library management and the information to go with your music seem to be its main appeal. The sound quality on its own is nothing to get excited about. It also doesn't accept plugins, if those matter to you.

There is also HQplayer, which has a good reputation for sound quality and accepts convolution room correction filters. Its interface is terrible, though.

Amarra 4 has recently been released. It looks nice, but its library management is a hot mess. It might be worth looking at in a year or two, but after half an hour with the demo, I'd say don't bother just yet.

Since you have tried Audirvana, you are obviously on a Mac, so no Foobar for you unless you're running it through WINE, or virtualized Windows. I'm not sure what that would do for sound quality.

There are demos of all these apps, so obviously you can try them all if you like. On the whole, I would say go with Audirvana if you have good tags or are willing to work on them (YATE is excellent for tags on the Mac). Otherwise, just go with JRiver.

And, obviously, everything is better than iTunes.


Thanks much for all that info! .. Looks like I am on the right track with Audirvana. Maybe I should just keep it and not bother wasting time with the rest.

_________________
Got Hi-Fi?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 8:20 pm
Posts: 410
Location: Silver Creek, BC, CA
Yiorgos wrote:
MV87 wrote:
I'm partial to Foobar2000 because I love customizing. At the base: jrivers source code is very similar to that of foobar's (some of the foobar devs left to work on jriver fyi). The main advantage/difference with jriver is that it's easier to use for the layman. With foobar, the user needs to add plugins to take full advantage of the program. Foobar2000 is good enough if you don't mind tinkering with settings.

Anyone that pays a premium for a media player is a sucker. Plus, foobar is very lightweight/uses very little resources (a big plus for those with older computers).


Foobar 2000 is a freeware audio player. Does it work on mac ? Most use macs for music playback.I hope you know.
JRiver is only 50 dollars ,it is very robust,excellent music player with tons of features that you might want to use or not.It sounds awesome with out tinkering,one of the features that I love is the capability to cross fade tracks adjustable from 0.1s all the way to 16s, that actually works!.
To say that someone is a sucker for paying 50 dollars for a quality well thought out software is a strong statement,that I don't agree with.
It's actually very cheap for what it does.
George


totally agree JRiver worth every cent been using it without a hitch for a few years now
figure $50 divided between +5000 cd's = pretty cheap conversion (not fools country)
audio quality aside I can do this no problem and transferring to micro sd cards is a breeze and I do not need to understand anything but the term FLAC!!! and album art comes up without me having to do anything....easy on my OLD brain!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 11:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:16 am
Posts: 125
Location: london, ON, CA
Got Hi-Fi wrote:

Thanks much for all that info! .. Looks like I am on the right track with Audirvana. Maybe I should just keep it and not bother wasting time with the rest.


It's what I've settled on, although it's not perfect. Roon and HQPlayer seem to be favoured by people who need networking. I honestly don't know anything about that. I'm just using this in my home office. Lots of people seem to like Audirvana's Ipad remote, although that's another 14 bucks. On the whole, I guess I'm in the school of thought that it's worth a few bucks to have a player that does what you want with an interface you can live with.

MV87 wrote:
Fair points.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yet, I still the find notion of spending $50 on a music player to be ridiculous. Maybe that's because I know what foobar is capable of and how to take full advantage of it (since I'm tech savvy); thus, I'm able to get the most out of foobar on my PC. Again, for the layman who doesn't have a lot of time, there's absolutely nothing wrong with other alternatives. Just don't come here saying the audio quality is superior because that's simply not the case.

Regards,

Michael


As you said, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Back when I was a full-time Linux user, I often expressed a similar opinion to yours. After many more years of experience, however, I no longer feel that way. I've used Foobar, and I don't care for its interface, and it has nothing to do with being "tech savvy".

As I mentioned earlier, though, as far as I can tell there is no Mac port of Foobar, so it's a moot point.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:25 pm
Posts: 599
Location: toronto, ON, CA
MV87 wrote:
Fair points.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yet, I still the find notion of spending $50 on a music player to be ridiculous. Maybe that's because I know what foobar is capable of and how to take full advantage of it (since I'm tech savvy); thus, I'm able to get the most out of foobar on my PC. Again, for the layman who doesn't have a lot of time, there's absolutely nothing wrong with other alternatives. Just don't come here saying the audio quality is superior because that's simply not the case.

Regards,

Michael


Ok,I am not a tech savvy personally so I will gladly pay 50 bucks (money that really only buys you coffee and muffins for two,at an upscale coffee place in Toronto now at days) for a ready to use out of the box music player that sounds awesome . Oh by the way,the title of this thread is JRiver/Roon or Audionirvana. I take this to mean that the author is not interested in trying any other freeware music players including Foobar 2000.
All the best
George


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:17 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Riverview, NB, CA
I've tried Roon to see what the fuss was about and as a way to control Tidal via my iPad. I didn't notice any difference in sound quality over JRiver but I didn't really care for it and didn't see it as a particularly good value for me. I went back to JRiver and a JRemote app on my iPad.
I consider the $50 I spent on JRiver to be some of the highest cost/convenience/ enjoyment value dollars I've spent. Sucker? Nah, that's the guy diddling around trying to get his freeware to work while I'm enjoying my music lol!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:08 am
Posts: 27
Location: Vancouver, BC, CA
David P wrote:
I've tried Roon to see what the fuss was about and as a way to control Tidal via my iPad. I didn't notice any difference in sound quality over JRiver but I didn't really care for it and didn't see it as a particularly good value for me. I went back to JRiver and a JRemote app on my iPad.
I consider the $50 I spent on JRiver to be some of the highest cost/convenience/ enjoyment value dollars I've spent. Sucker? Nah, that's the guy diddling around trying to get his freeware to work while I'm enjoying my music lol!


Literally would take any competent person less than 10 minutes. The feeling of superiority is unbecoming. It's nearly as bad as head-fi.

I think I'll see myself out.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:02 am
Posts: 1011
Location: Kingston, ON, CA
I initially experimented with various media players back around 2004 (MediaMonkey, FooBar2000, JRiver, etc.). In the end, I selected JRiver and haven't looked back since.

I can't really remember why any longer, but product and technical support has always been first rate with JRiver (if that's a consideration for anyone).

But for $50 you are getting a well-supported product.

I've never tried out any of the newer entries like Roon so I can't help you there. The $119 price tag for Roon always put me off for some reason.

I've been called a cheap bastard before (although I prefer to think of myself as a 'frugal audiophile').

_________________
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." (Aristotle, 384-322 BCE)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group