Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › foobar vs. jriver(a different take)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

foobar vs. jriver(a different take) - Page 2

post #16 of 31

WASAPI exclusive doesn't do any resampling, but WASAPI shared mode (and therefore DS, which sits on top) definitely does if there's a mismatch between what you play and what is configured as the default format.

Windows 7 sample ratio conversion can be improved with this patch: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2653312/en.

post #17 of 31

was there any conclusion to this? how do the folks here feel that the new wasapi event style release for foobar sounds vs jriver? my jriver trial just ended.  and now listening for differences between jplay and foobar with wasapi event style. not sure if i hear any difference. 

post #18 of 31

I finished up my trial period (about 5 days) with J River MC 17. I bought it. It is far superior to any other program in my opinion.

I compared to Foobar and Media Monkey 4 (w/wasapi).

 

I don't care if it's a resource hog compared to Foobar...they all are compared to Foobar.

 

Here's what I like so much about it-

 

1.) By far, the nicest interface of anything I've tried.

2.) Intuitive control features more expansive than probably anything short of Amarra.

3.) Event style WASAPI works in various different palyback modes.

4.) No other program works with my DAC and soundcard properly like this one.

5.) 64 bit processing allows for digital volume control without loss of resolution.(in DS mode for casual listening)

6.) Nice upsampling feature set for any bit depth up to 192.

7.) It sounds great in WASAPI mode AND DS.

8.) I haven't skimmed the surface of different things to try with the expansive control set.

 

Cons-

1.) Importing artwork was tedious, but worked fine.

 

For my needs, it was easily worth the $50.

post #19 of 31
post #20 of 31

This isnt like a technicaly awesome well grounded opinion here, and you probably can find inaccuracies in my opinion but here goes anyway.

 

Ive been trialing jriver for a month and have to say for my tastes its too bloated. I want something simple sleek and at the same time light on the system resources and simple to configure.

Every time I loaded jriver up it was slow on boot up, I had ugly screen for links to amazon and stuff, yuck and then it has this overcrowded menu with all this playlist **** with genre and ratings and blah blah etc (wont go on and on but you get the idea). To me its just a bit better then Itunes and I frigging hate stupid Itunes. Anyway rambling on. I have to click audio, then files, then wave folder, Then album then play. Too much drilling down and for some reason it never resumed where i left off last time. It was just not easily viewable with the left side going to far to the right past the edge I dunno, it seemed like a chore every time. It was so easy to get lost in menus and options and stuff anyway maybe thats just me.

Also I didnt really have the desire to want to learn all the nuances of this programme. I dont know how to explain that but yeah it just turned me off :-)

 

 

Where as foobar opens in a snap. Its clean, no links, its set to how i like it with ease. I filtered easily getting rid of crap I dont need. Nothing to gaudy with basic colors simple buttons preferances does your tweaking easily and everytime i oppened it I could resume imediately where i left off. Foobars overall UI gets me to the music quickest and simplest way every time with no crashes or issues. Its looks proffessional and adult. Its not a glorified gloss monster saying LOOK AT ME I AM SO BEUTIFUL.

 

Now for sound ive heard that it was alot better. Well from peeps i know recomending it to me who to be honest havent even tested against Foobar2000 but yeah whatever, i tried it and being honest theres nothing in it. Seriously i cant tell the differance. if I was to have identical set ups side by side and put headohones next to each other and switched real quick I might hear some slight very very slight differances going eitherway maybe pfft who knows its not clear cut. But just opening and closing each time going back forth I cant tell at all. Theres no real sound quality differance using the wasapi set up on both.

 

i was using audiolab Mdac/concerto amp/hi fi man he500/laptop windows 7

 

Conclusion IMO Just get Foobar2000 and save your money. Maybe make a donation of a couple of bucks.

post #21 of 31
JRiver is not as easy to use as foobar. It is for a more advanced user who must learn to use its features. It has so much more than foobar in terms of on the fly sample rate adjustment, memory playback, up sampling, bit perfect digital volume control however. Really depends on whether these features are desired.
As for sound quality, there is no real difference between the two, unless you like being able to hear 24 bit resolution right after a 16 bit track without running to your computer.
post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooze View Post

This isnt like a technicaly awesome well grounded opinion here, and you probably can find inaccuracies in my opinion but here goes anyway.

 

 

> Ive been trialing jriver for a month and have to say for my tastes its too bloated.

 

If you mean that JRiver is very customizable, yes it is.

 

> I want something simple sleek and at the same time light on the system resources and simple to configure.

 

I've compared JRiver's resource use to that of Foobar several time in the past and found no systematic difference between them for memory or CPU use.  CPU use stays at or below 1% on the PCs I've run JRiver on (from 2006 era PCs to Sandy Bridge based PCs. 

 

My experience is that JRiver is much easier to configure than Foobar.  You do need to surf the menus and dialogs but that is a skill that you need for PC software of all kinds.

 

> Every time I loaded jriver up it was slow on boot up,

 

When you first install JRiver, it tries to scan your hard drives looking for music, image and video files to add to its library. It counts down from 30 and then starts the scan.  It will do that every time you start the program until you import some files or rip some CDs so that the library is not empty.  You can click on a button in the bottom left area of the window to cancel the scan and then import some files manually or a rip a few CDs.  Then JRiver will not do that scan.  JRiver starts very quickly for me and is ready to use. (< 1 sec.)

 

> I had ugly screen for links to amazon and stuff, yuck and then it has this overcrowded menu with all this playlist **** with genre and ratings and blah blah etc

 

Sounds as if you are talking about the free Media Jukebox version that featured the Amazon music store.  It is several years old and four major revisions out of date by now.  In the current version of JRiver MC, there is a single row of words representing links to things like Amazon, AMG, Google.  It is hard to believe that the presence of four words in the upper right side of the window would spoil anyone's use of the program. 

 

The left side of the screen has a list of views you can use to browse your library.  Pick one view and then click on the small arrows at the right edge of the pane containing the tree.  The pane goes away and you have more room for displaying the information you need for browsing.

 

> . I have to click audio, then files, then wave folder, Then album then play. Too much drilling down and for some reason it never resumed where i left off last time.

 

There is a simple option to start in the last location.  You could choose that behavior in less time than it took you to write your post.

 

> It was just not easily viewable with the left side going to far to the right past the edge I dunno, it seemed like a chore every time.

 

Like many Windows programs, you can place the mouse pointer over the vertical edge of the pane that contains the tree of views and slide the edge left or right.  Once you get the division as you want it, it will stay there.

 

> It was so easy to get lost in menus and options and stuff anyway maybe thats just me.

 

> Also I didnt really have the desire to want to learn all the nuances of this programme. I dont know how to explain that but yeah it just turned me off :-)

 

Many programs like JRiver are written to serve thousands of people with different needs and preferences.  Your odds of getting the behavior you want are better if you figure out what you want and then look for ways to configure the software.

 

Conclusion IMO Just get Foobar2000 and save your money. Maybe make a donation of a couple of bucks.

 

It Foobar fits your needs, then use it.

 

The same author wrote a much simpler player program called "Boom".  If you just want to open a file and play it or play all the files in a folder, it is all you need.

 

Bill

post #23 of 31

Sigh

So yeah thanks for that well informed and extensive rebuttal of my failure as a human being to form an unbiased and technically accurate opinion.

All your points im sure are very well researched and highlight how great this product truly is.

 

For your average audio lover who wants something just as good as Jriver though you cant go wrong with foobar2000. Sounds identical to it and its alot more simple to use and its FREE.

post #24 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooze View Post

Sigh

So yeah thanks for that well informed and extensive rebuttal of my failure as a human being to form an unbiased and technically accurate opinion.

All your points im sure are very well researched and highlight how great this product truly is.

 

For your average audio lover who wants something just as good as Jriver though you cant go wrong with foobar2000. Sounds identical to it and its alot more simple to use and its FREE.

 

That's one great advantage of foobar2000, it's both simple to use and complex enough to customize any way the user sees fit.

 

File format compatibility, component availability, system footprint (on all but the most extreme builds), foobar2000 is unmatched. Sound quality wise, it's as good as bitperfect can get, and for people who use processing, it has one of the best resamplers in existence.

post #25 of 31

Foobar 'just as good as JRiver"?

 

Not if you want to do these things>

 

1.) Uninterrupted playback of 16 and 24 bit files in WASAPI mode to any hardware configuration

2.) Bit perfect digital volume control

3.) Memory playback

4.) Proper control of sample rates to your outboard DAC/hardware when formats change on the fly (again, in WASAPI)

5.) 64 bit floating Digital EQ for no loss resolution.

6.) upsampling or downsampling on the fly for any format to match your hardware specs while retaining WASAPI mode

 

True, the sound should be nearly identical with both, but with alot more work to do in Foobar. It's not even close between these two programs for people who are using 24 bit material.

 

Oh and one other thing, JRemote is a killer remote control APP for IOS.

post #26 of 31

Lets get this straight now I didnt say Foobar was as good as Jriver. Its far better then Jriver ROFL gs1000.gif

 

Up to what it can do feature wise for the price. 0.00 that is.

post #27 of 31

True, the price-performance ratio can't be beaten, that's for sure :)

 

I didn't take from your post that you were saying that one player was better than the other, I was just stating traits about one of them wink.gif

post #28 of 31
Hey, I like Foobar too. But after a couple of years struggling with settings for different formats, JRiver seemed like a bargain for $50. On top of that, JRiver is just so much more fun to use. They both sound great. The new Media Monkey with WASAPI is also nice for free. But not bitperfect without the extra work daily. And for the bells and whistles part, I love JRivers theater view running on a big display while properly taking care of my music! It's friggin cool.
post #29 of 31

For very large libraries, the library function in J. River wins hands down.  

 

After listening to both with the same setup.  I could not hear a difference in sound quality.  

 

For me the library function and the Video part is unmatched if you like both.  Both in a single solution as good as these are is well worth the $50.  I use it for audio and video all the time.

post #30 of 31

I much prefer JRiver over foobar (even on my slow laptop - JRiver is actually as light and responsive as foobar for me once I've configured it and turned off the features I don't need, the coding is really really good no matter what the haters say - it's not bloated) but it has nothing to do with sound quality. I use ASIO with both (so both are bit-perfect) and I can't tell a difference, nor should I be able to. 

 

JRiver can indeed do 64fp processing (is the difference audible, I don't know, but it can't affect quality negatively, so why not) and I do use DSPs (Isone mostly) but most importantly, JRiver does video playback (with madVR and LAV filters) with ASIO and still gives you the ability to use DSPs (with 64fp processing on top of that) > instant win for me, simply the only media player that can do that.

 

I consider foobar to be perfect when it comes to the audio part, but because I like the idea of having only one media player for both video and audio playback, JRiver wins hands down. It also has plenty of other functionalities that people may like (audio and video is all I need, though)


Edited by kalston - 12/28/12 at 7:38am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › foobar vs. jriver(a different take)