Best Music Player For PC - Page 4

jplay.eu is an absolute winner in SQ when playing in "hibernate" mode.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kr0gg 

jplay.eu is an absolute winner in SQ when playing in "hibernate" mode.

I have used hte software exclusively for about 2 months now and I think it is the winner (so far) in PC environment.

The biigest difference compared to other is the dark silence of the background making the music standout.  
 

Worth a trial if you haven't

M Tan.

I tried jplay.eu briefly and my first impressions are that yes there is a dark background but a loss of detail and dynamics compared to jriver wasapi event mode with no dsp or upsampling.

With my DI upsampling to 96khz it sounds best now.  Jriver and win7 in default sound output.

Previously with USB to NFB-8 with 24-bit 44khz in win7 sound config and dsp in jriver to 24bit and no upsampling sounded best.

It is all supposed to be bit perfect in the end but to me there is light and day in difference between equipment used and where and if any changes happen.

Speaking of quiet, I just downloaded Yo-Yo-Ma's---Bach: The Cello Suites from iTunes. This work is so quiet, you could hear a pin drop on shag carpet. I am really impressed with the mastering of this recording. And, right now, I'd say, regarding all of the Cello material in my computer library, stored at everything from 256k to about 3100k, this recording's sonics, as well as  musicality are the most spectacular in my library. I've enjoyed this music now from three media players, iTunes, foobar, and WMP. I cannot say the music sounds better  from any particular player. There's only a volume difference.

Ugh.  Ma's Bach Suites are much more sterile and uninteresting than Casals and Rostropovich.  His technique is impeccable as always, but his interpretation is bland.  Starker's later recordings (not his early ones) are also much better.  The mastering on Ma's CBS Masterworks recording is pretty bad.  The Sony Classical one is much better, and the playing is a bit more thoughtful, but still doesn't hold a candle to Rostropovich or late Starker.  If you ever have a chance to watch Rostropovich's video for the Bach suites, it's pretty awe-inspiring.

Suite 5 Prelude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFlLVIA6ANU&hd=1

Suite 3 Prelude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyFysf14x0s&hd=1

Rostropovich's recording was done in a church, so the acoustics are a bit different from your usual studio recording.

I like Ma and have seen him live many times, but his Baroque just isn't that noteworthy.  He does a much nicer job with the Haydn C and D, Lalo, and Boccherini concertos.

Thank you so much for the suggestions. I'll check them out. BTW, my iTunes download identifies the owner of this album as 1997 Sony Music Entertainment, so what do I have Sony Classical or CBS Masterworks?

You've got the Sony Classical recording (1997), which IMO is the better of the two.  The CBS Masterworks release is 1983; the mastering, possibly also due to the quality of recording, is so poor that it's distracting to listen to.  The Bach suites are such a difficult thing to record, and a lot of top-tier cellists consider it one of the most humbling performances to put out there.  Technically, the Suites aren't that difficult, but getting musicality out of it while remaining true to Bach's spirit is incredibly difficult.  What's even more challenging is that the original score has no bowing, dynamics, or tempo listed (other than the name of the piece like Gigue) which is why you'll hear so much variation between the different interpretations, stylistically.  The large criticism of Ma's recording is that he plays a very modern interpretation (possibly a bit too Romantic and rhythmically inflexible), and misses the essence of the work.  It's very audible if you compare him vs Casals, for the amount of heart that goes in note for note.

Most cellists consider Casals' interpretation to be the ultimate recording, but it's challenging to listen to, because of the poor recording (1920s/1930s) and Casals' unorthodox interpretation.  The Suites were actually not very popular until Casals created a lot of interest in them.  I think Rostropovich and Starker (particularly the 1997 RCA Victor's Red, also possibly on Mercury) are much easier to digest before trying Casals.  A lot of people also consider Pierre Fournier's interpretation to rival Casals.  The Suites are the kind of thing people will play for 70+ years of their life and still never master.  To quote Rostropovich on the Suites:

Good luck with your search for good cello recordings!  I run across many great violin and piano performances, but cello has always been a bit challenging for audiophiles.  Just something about the cello's tonality seems difficult to record, whether analog or digital.

You are so kind to provide details to my inquiry. Thank you.

I have tried foobar, winamp, Aimp3, JRiver with WASAPI and ASIO.

All sound quite good. The most simple to use it's AIMP3 (even don't need to put plugings cause it cames with them on stock). JRiver don't justify the price you pay for it, it sounds so good like the others players but not better than Foobar + WASAPI for example and the other it's free but JRiver don't.

The most difference i found it's they sound all good but with diferent sound signature; for example i found -with WASAPI and EQ Zero on all frequency- that the bass its more punchy and extended on Winamp and AImp3 than on Foobar who sounds more neutral-natural-balanced bass and better highs but less funny. Maybe WASAPI plugings on foobar and Winamp/Aimp differs on that...

If you have a lot of music you should use foobar. It's media library is amazing.

I find Jriver 16 sounds better to my ears than Foobar 2K or AImp3 - slightly improves soundstage vs other players I use and is the only player I have tried that delivers decent soundstage.

Strangely the Jriver 17 beta I just tried sounds worse than Jriver 16.  I'm pretty disappointed.

I would also try Jplay if you have a dedicated machine, but I don't have a dedicated music server yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elysian 

You've got the Sony Classical recording (1997), which IMO is the better of the two.  The CBS Masterworks release is 1983; the mastering, possibly also due to the quality of recording, is so poor that it's distracting to listen to.  The Bach suites are such a difficult thing to record, and a lot of top-tier cellists consider it one of the most humbling performances to put out there.  Technically, the Suites aren't that difficult, but getting musicality out of it while remaining true to Bach's spirit is incredibly difficult.  What's even more challenging is that the original score has no bowing, dynamics, or tempo listed (other than the name of the piece like Gigue) which is why you'll hear so much variation between the different interpretations, stylistically.  The large criticism of Ma's recording is that he plays a very modern interpretation (possibly a bit too Romantic and rhythmically inflexible), and misses the essence of the work.  It's very audible if you compare him vs Casals, for the amount of heart that goes in note for note.

 

Most cellists consider Casals' interpretation to be the ultimate recording, but it's challenging to listen to, because of the poor recording (1920s/1930s) and Casals' unorthodox interpretation.  The Suites were actually not very popular until Casals created a lot of interest in them.  I think Rostropovich and Starker (particularly the 1997 RCA Victor's Red, also possibly on Mercury) are much easier to digest before trying Casals.  A lot of people also consider Pierre Fournier's interpretation to rival Casals.  The Suites are the kind of thing people will play for 70+ years of their life and still never master.  To quote Rostropovich on the Suites:

 

 

Good luck with your search for good cello recordings!  I run across many great violin and piano performances, but cello has always been a bit challenging for audiophiles.  Just something about the cello's tonality seems difficult to record, whether analog or digital.

Cello has not been as challenging to my ears as trumpet, specifically Miles Davis recordings, with Kind Of Blue in particular. LP, CD, or SACD, it's as irritating to me as finger nails on a chalk board. Even with massive EQ it's so irritating  that I just don't listen to it anymore.

Check the dsp output section and see if anything is enabled since they changed something there since version 16. I have all dsp's etc disabled. Otherwise there shouldn't be any difference really.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by drez 

I find Jriver 16 sounds better to my ears than Foobar 2K or AImp3 - slightly improves soundstage vs other players I use and is the only player I have tried that delivers decent soundstage.

 

Strangely the Jriver 17 beta I just tried sounds worse than Jriver 16.  I'm pretty disappointed.

 

I would also try Jplay if you have a dedicated machine, but I don't have a dedicated music server yet.

Strange, i find itunes' media management to be a lot neater. The only reason i use foobar is because i cant seem to get itunes to pass through audio over s/pdif to my receiver, but with foobar i can.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by suigin 

If you have a lot of music you should use foobar. It's media library is amazing.

I don't know what is causing this but to my ears jriver 17 sounds flat and artificial on my system at the moment, and the imaging is a little vague.  Singers do not have presence and sound veiled/remote.  Jriver 17 just sounds like foobar, aimp3 etc.  To my ears they have killed whatever advantage it had before.

Obscure claims I know but I definitely wouldn't upgrade to Jriver 17 if the final sounds like this on my system.  If I asked for my money back from Jriver they would probably laugh at me...