IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The Absolute Sound Magazine listening test, published in the January, 2012 issue (Not TOS8 compliant)
JimH
post Dec 4 2011, 00:07
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 14-July 02
From: Minneapolis
Member No.: 2588



JRiver Media Center was reviewed as part of an extensive listening test published in the January, 2012 issue of The Absolute Sound Magazine.

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?...68169.msg458772
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Dec 4 2011, 04:17
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 3313
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



Is this some kind of a joke? Why would any player (other than a defective one) sound any different from any other?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JimH
post Dec 4 2011, 14:54
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 14-July 02
From: Minneapolis
Member No.: 2588



There are a few reasons.

WASAPI or ASIO, for example.

A 64 bit internal data path.

High resolution files. They tested with HRx 176/24 files in some cases.

I agree with you that, if two players are playing from the same source, to the same sound device, and they are both set up the same, they will deliver the same bits to the device. But there are a lot of if's.

If your player of choice is foobar, I agree that it probably produces identical sound if set the same way.

More Audiophile bits about JRiver Media Center here:
http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Audiophile_Info

And a chart from the article:


This post has been edited by JimH: Dec 4 2011, 15:50
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
googlebot
post Dec 4 2011, 15:46
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 698
Joined: 6-March 10
Member No.: 78779



QUOTE (JimH @ Dec 4 2011, 15:54) *
But there are a lot of if's.


Rather a lot of "if not"s. The default configuration of most systems (basic Vista/7 installation, any basic player DirectSound/Wasapi/ASIO) will output exactly the same. Anything else is just rooted in myths from times when XP had trouble producing bit identical output in its standard configuration or flawed sample rate conversion in case of a mismatch between input and output sample rate. IMHO the way JRiver MC is presented here is scratching the edge of Hydrogenaudio TOS.

This post has been edited by googlebot: Dec 4 2011, 15:49
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JimH
post Dec 4 2011, 16:00
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 14-July 02
From: Minneapolis
Member No.: 2588



QUOTE (googlebot @ Dec 4 2011, 09:46) *
QUOTE (JimH @ Dec 4 2011, 15:54) *
But there are a lot of if's.


Rather a lot of "if not"s. The default configuration of most systems (basic Vista/7 installation, any basic player DirectSound/Wasapi/ASIO) will output exactly the same. Anything else is just rooted in myths from times when XP had trouble producing bit identical output in its standard configuration or flawed sample rate conversion in case of a mismatch between input and output sample rate. IMHO the way JRiver MC is presented here is scratching the edge of Hydrogenaudio TOS.

I've already said that I agree with you:
QUOTE
...if two players are playing from the same source, to the same sound device, and they are both set up the same, they will deliver the same bits to the device.
.

But how about playing the HRx files? Or DSD files? I don't believe iTunes or WMP will do that. foobar probably will. Others may.

Or 5.1 FLAC? iTunes? Any player?

Sorry if you feel this is inappropriate to discuss. The thread was intended for owners of JRiver Media Center. Please let me know what you feel is inappropriate for that audience.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Roseval
post Dec 4 2011, 16:01
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 453
Joined: 26-March 08
Member No.: 52303



QUOTE (googlebot @ Dec 4 2011, 16:46) *
The default configuration of most systems (basic Vista/7 installation, any basic player DirectSound/Wasapi/ASIO) will output exactly the same.


DS dithers the output, WASAPI exclusive and ASIO don't.

So the output by DS differs from WASAPI/ASIO

This post has been edited by Roseval: Dec 4 2011, 16:06


--------------------
TheWellTemperedComputer.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JimH
post Dec 4 2011, 16:07
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 14-July 02
From: Minneapolis
Member No.: 2588



A lot of the audiophile grade equpment has required some tinkering to get it going. Here's a wiki topic on our site:
http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/DAC_Settings

Many of the better USB DAC's use a USB driver from Wavelengthaudio.com.

I don't mean to open up a new front on the hardware side. I'm just saying that not all players will work well with this equipment.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Roseval
post Dec 4 2011, 16:11
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 453
Joined: 26-March 08
Member No.: 52303



QUOTE (JimH @ Dec 4 2011, 17:07) *
Many of the better USB DAC's use a USB driver from Wavelengthaudio.com.


Don’t think so.
Most of the new async USB DACs and async USB/SPDIF converters use the XMOS receiver.
It comes with a USB class 2 driver by Thesycon.


--------------------
TheWellTemperedComputer.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JimH
post Dec 4 2011, 16:19
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 14-July 02
From: Minneapolis
Member No.: 2588



QUOTE (Roseval @ Dec 4 2011, 10:11) *
QUOTE (JimH @ Dec 4 2011, 17:07) *
Many of the better USB DAC's use a USB driver from Wavelengthaudio.com.


Don’t think so.
Most of the new async USB DACs and async USB/SPDIF converters use the XMOS receiver.
It comes with a USB class 2 driver by Thesycon.

Hi Vincent,
We've done work for a lot of manufacturers and I don't believe we've run across Thesycon yet.

Jim
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Roseval
post Dec 4 2011, 16:23
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 453
Joined: 26-March 08
Member No.: 52303



A couple of DACs using XMOS for you: http://www.audiophilefr.com/Site/forum2/mu...s-2-t16248.html


--------------------
TheWellTemperedComputer.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JimH
post Dec 4 2011, 16:35
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 14-July 02
From: Minneapolis
Member No.: 2588



Merci.

I think the important thing about the article in The Absolute Sound is that the entire audiophile community is now being exposed to computer audio in a way that will probably cause a major new wave of experimentation and adoption. Until now, the merits of computer audio have been controversial for many audiophiles.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post Dec 4 2011, 16:39
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 951
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



Somehow i find this claims pretty bullshit regarding other things that must be proved at Hydrogenaudio,
I doubt that the internal "64bit" path has anything to do with better sound, that soinds like pure marketing to me.
When i read that upsampling from a 176/24 source to 192/32 improves the sounds Height and Claritry iŽd even vote to kick that thread in the recycle.bin!



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post Dec 4 2011, 16:39
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



It seems that JRiver Media Center was just the testers choice of player software. The table does not mention any other player software. They seem to compare hardware and various DSP options.

Without seeing the complete article it is difficult to say anything about that test, but it looks seriously flawed. For example it claims that resampling from 176 kHz to 192 kHz or even just increasing the bit depth from 24-bit to 32-bit produces audibly better quality: "Additional height and clarity improvement." smile.gif

JimH, as a long time user I truly like MC and its features, but perhaps that test is not something you should use as a reference.

This post has been edited by Alex B: Dec 4 2011, 16:45


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post Dec 4 2011, 16:58
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



Wombat, I don't think JimH believes that e.g. increasing the bit depth from 24-bit to 32-bit can make an audible quality difference.

He has said this:
QUOTE
We once tested what people could hear, with files at 8, 9, 10 bit depth, etc.  Very few people could hear the difference beyond 11 or 12 bits.

The quote is from this JRiver forum thread: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=59070

The thread contains also Matt Ashland's explanation about the 64-bit internal DSP processing. Matt does not claim that it would audibly increase quality.

This post has been edited by Alex B: Dec 4 2011, 16:58


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Dec 5 2011, 22:52
Post #15





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3327
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



I moved this discussion out of the Recycle Bin because I sense there's a bit of community desire to actually discuss this.

Note that the listening test does not comply with Terms of Service point 8.


--------------------
∑:<
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kraut
post Dec 5 2011, 23:20
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 226
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85965



QUOTE
Until now, the merits of computer audio have been controversial for many audiophiles.


Controversial because most of the easy tweaks used to claim sonic superiority cannot do not apply. Try rolling tubes on a soundcard, or try monster cables to hook up eSata connections.

There are still idiots out there who claim superiority sound wise of a non smps to a smps when supplying power to your sound card, who claim that an exterior Dac is superior to the Dac of your soundcard, who claim that any of the various players is superior to any other player, who claim superiority of one spdif cable over another, who claim superiority of 192kHz upsampling (why the fuck not upsample to 384 or 768 or into the MHz range, eh?)

Audiophiles are a part of the religious community twice removed from reality, and believe that everything effects the sound and can hear mice whisper.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gvanbrunt
post Dec 6 2011, 02:45
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 4-December 11
Member No.: 95586



I believe Jim is abundantly aware of the audio Zelots who make statements such as "lossless WAV sounds better than FLAC". smile.gif I don't think it was Jim's intention was to claim J River "sounds better" than x. I think he was surprised that it was being considered in that "realm".

I'm a long time user of J River Media Center mostly because of its power, flexibility and attention to detail. (Damn I'm almost sounding like on of those guys I just mentioned). In fact one of the primary reasons I started using it was they had their heads firmly planted on the ground when it comes to audio quality and design. They base their design on solid scientific principals and not "listening tests" (I'm not speaking of ABX etc) that are subjective BS.

Anyway, don't flame Jim too bad, even if that article isn't worth keeping in the bathroom for when you run out of toilet paper...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Dec 6 2011, 03:08
Post #18





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I'm not so sure the creation of this topic was such a good idea. JimH, are you aware of TOS #8 at all?!?

If so, how could you possibly think that this could be good PR for your product, especially after the soft pitch you lobbed in post #3?

To put it bluntly: it isn't.

The people here will tear you limb from limb and I think they're quite justified in doing so!

This post has been edited by greynol: Dec 6 2011, 03:13


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post Dec 6 2011, 03:16
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 951
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



I wouldnŽt have worried but this one question:
QUOTE (pdq @ Dec 4 2011, 05:17) *
Is this some kind of a joke? Why would any player (other than a defective one) sound any different from any other?

was directly answered with:
QUOTE (JimH @ Dec 4 2011, 15:54) *
There are a few reasons.

WASAPI or ASIO, for example.

A 64 bit internal data path.
...

+ some attached graphics with text about esotheric feelings expressing sound. I nowhere saw JimH distancing from these findings. Even when he is known to know better no one that reads it gets this impression here, at least me not.
I nowhere ever saw anyone providing any fact, leaving alone listenng tests proving 64bit playback improves sound. Now that i know that he is allowed to post such things here iŽll leave it alone oif cause. These days the most intersting things most likely are discussed over PMs anyway. I excuse me if i did disturb the peace with these negative posts.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Dec 6 2011, 03:23
Post #20





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Wombat @ Dec 5 2011, 18:16) *
Now that i know that he is allowed to post such things here iŽll leave it alone oif cause

I don't know that he's exactly been given a green light, rather I think you've been given the green light to respond however you wish provided you follow the TOS.

A critical point to mention is that this forum does not and never will require someone to provide evidence that two things sound the same.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Dec 6 2011, 12:48
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



QUOTE (JimH @ Dec 4 2011, 14:54) *
More Audiophile bits about JRiver Media Center here:
http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Audiophile_Info

And a chart from the article:

Apart from being a TOS#8 violation, a chart like this is completely hilarious in this context ("additional height and clarity improvement" when going from 24 to 32 bit output? laugh.gif). I don't think that quoting such nonesense will positively promote your product in these forums, rather to the contrary.

This post has been edited by Northpack: Dec 6 2011, 12:55
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post Dec 6 2011, 14:14
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



Oh dear, I thought that this thread split already got a mercy kill when it ended up in the bin.

This stupid thread is not good for MC. MC doesn't deserve an "audiofool" label.

In general, its audio quality has been just perfect during the last nine years (edit: I mean that it has not had any major design flaws that could somehow reduce the quality). The recent "audio path" additions and changes have improved compatibility with various HW devices and device drivers and given great new possibilities for using room correction, channel mixing & EQ, bass redirection, VST plugins etc. In MC these audio features are equally usable with music and video playback.

QUOTE (greynol @ Dec 6 2011, 04:08) *
The people here will tear you limb from limb and I think they're quite justified in doing so!

It would be more interesting to tear that "Absolute Sound Magazine listening test" limb from limb. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone here is going to buy it just to see how bad it really is. Even if someone would actually have this $5 pdf release, I don't think it would be legal to redistribute it. It could only be quoted.

This post has been edited by Alex B: Dec 6 2011, 14:45


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
.halverhahn
post Dec 6 2011, 14:21
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 254
Joined: 4-August 03
Member No.: 8168



QUOTE (Alex B @ Dec 4 2011, 17:39) *
Without seeing the complete article it is difficult to say anything about that test, but it looks seriously flawed. For example it claims that resampling from 176 kHz to 192 kHz or even just increasing the bit depth from 24-bit to 32-bit produces audibly better quality: "Additional height and clarity improvement." smile.gif


Especially true if you take into account, that the noise floor of DAC and amplifier (even of high quality pro gear) is max. somewhere in the -120db area. And 24bit offer 144db dynamic range!

My conclusion: Ridiculous listening test.

This post has been edited by .halverhahn: Dec 6 2011, 14:24


--------------------
.halverhahn
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Batman321
post Dec 6 2011, 14:50
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 28-December 09
Member No.: 76405



The recycle bin is waiting for this thread.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
monkey
post Dec 6 2011, 16:21
Post #25


Monkey's Audio developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 11
Joined: 15-October 01
Member No.: 298



Using a 64bit data path in JRiver was an engineering decision. Preserving precision is good practice in any processing, especially as the amount of processing increases.

Using 64bit ensures that the player can be bit-perfect with regards to precision at 32bit (the highest hardware output precision I have seen):
http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Audio_Bitdepth

But JRiver does not claim that in the final downmix 64bit sounds better than 24bit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 19:26