Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › JRiver Media Center 18
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JRiver Media Center 18 - Page 17

post #241 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by imeem View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StudioSound View Post
 

You can set up separate zones for each device.

 

so u are saying that i can 2 soundcards active at the same time? Like my audioengine A2 would be using the fiio e17 and my sub would be using my onboard sound card? 

You cannot currently use two different soundcards on the same piece of music (in other words, not from the same "player").  You can have music playing in one "zone" with one soundcard, at the same time as a video is playing using a different soundcard in a different "zone".  In fact, I'm pretty sure that is the intended use of zones...

post #242 of 276
Quote:

Originally Posted by StudioSound View Post

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clemmaster View Post

 

The bit depth selection was moved from "DSP Studio -> Output format" to the "Playback Options -> Output Mode" in the most recent version, as well.

 

This is because people have a misunderstanding that they should match the output bit-depth to the source bit-depth. You should always output the maximum your hardware supports, and the change was made when JRiver's auto-detection was improved.

That is simply not true as stated - it depends on your hardware.  For example, HRT's USB DACs should always be fed exactly the same bit-depth as the source.  Upsampling does not help anything (this directly from the designer).  And, in fact, doing extra CPU-intensive tasks like upsampling is shown to slightly degrade sound quality (in blind tests with many listeners).

post #243 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by kstuart View Post
 

You cannot currently use two different soundcards on the same piece of music (in other words, not from the same "player")

You can use linked zones to do this.

 

The zones feature of JRiver is really powerful, and often overlooked.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kstuart View Post
 

That is simply not true as stated - it depends on your hardware.  For example, HRT's USB DACs should always be fed exactly the same bit-depth as the source.  Upsampling does not help anything (this directly from the designer).  And, in fact, doing extra CPU-intensive tasks like upsampling is shown to slightly degrade sound quality (in blind tests with many listeners).

Increasing the bit-depth is not upsampling - nor does it improve audio quality on its own. If you are making no changes to the source file, it's exactly the same as the 16-bit source, padded to 24-bit with zeros. It's not a CPU intensive process.

 

As soon as you make a change to the audio file though, such as reducing its volume (which is necessary to avoid inter-sample clipping with many files) then you want 24-bit for a 16-bit source, to avoid a loss in quality.

 

 

I am really curious about your blind test which shows that CPU usage degrades sound quality. Everything I have seen on the matter has proven otherwise.


Edited by StudioSound - 9/10/13 at 3:43am
post #244 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by StudioSound View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kstuart View Post
 

You cannot currently use two different soundcards on the same piece of music (in other words, not from the same "player")

You can use linked zones to do this.

 

The zones feature of JRiver is really powerful, and often overlooked.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kstuart View Post
 

That is simply not true as stated - it depends on your hardware.  For example, HRT's USB DACs should always be fed exactly the same bit-depth as the source.  Upsampling does not help anything (this directly from the designer).  And, in fact, doing extra CPU-intensive tasks like upsampling is shown to slightly degrade sound quality (in blind tests with many listeners).

Increasing the bit-depth is not upsampling - nor does it improve audio quality on its own. If you are making no changes to the source file, it's exactly the same as the 16-bit source, padded to 24-bit with zeros. It's not a CPU intensive process.

 

As soon as you make a change to the audio file though, such as reducing its volume (which is necessary to avoid inter-sample clipping with many files) then you want 24-bit for a 16-bit source, to avoid a loss in quality.

 

 

I am really curious about your blind test which shows that CPU usage degrades sound quality. Everything I have seen on the matter has proven otherwise.

Part 1 - But see:

 

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=82443

 

Part 2 - I misread the post, but it still applies to bit-depth, although less so.  It is still something that should be checked with a tech at the DAC company.

 

Part 3 - I have never seen anything which "proves" anything about audio.  Here is the DBT study:

 

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/7/70925.html

post #245 of 276

I agree that using 24 bit depth on 16 bit recordings has a benefit as stated but the upsampling of Redbook material would only prove a benefit to dolphins (assuming they use headphones).  Upsampling with computer in my experience does make everything sound a little bit brighter but I think that is a byproduct of the upsampling program. You may like what it does but it cannot extract or create more information than you have on the cd.

post #246 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by kstuart View Post
 

Part 1 - But see:

 

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=82443

 

This is linking multiple DACs to handle separate channels. Perhaps I misunderstood the problem, but it didn't seem like this was imeem's intention.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kstuart View Post
 

Part 2 - I misread the post, but it still applies to bit-depth, although less so.  It is still something that should be checked with a tech at the DAC company.

 

I'm not sure what it has to do with the DAC at all. Unless the DAC hardware somehow performs worse when sent a higher bit-depth signal - and you should be looking to replace the DAC ASAP if that is the case - there is no reason not to do this.

 

Essentially all you're doing is telling the DAC that values can be in the range of 0-144 instead of 0-96, and only making use of the 0-96 range with a 16-bit input - unless you adjust the volume which shifts it into the 0-144 range. (1-97 if you made a 1dB adjustment for example) Of course that is very simplified, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kstuart View Post
 

Part 3 - I have never seen anything which "proves" anything about audio.  Here is the DBT study:

 

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/7/70925.html

This was a flawed test, and in no means DBT. Here are some actual measurements: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/03/measurements-hunt-for-load-induced.html

post #247 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by StudioSound View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kstuart View Post
 

Part 3 - I have never seen anything which "proves" anything about audio.  Here is the DBT study:

 

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/7/70925.html

This was a flawed test, and in no means DBT. Here are some actual measurements: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/03/measurements-hunt-for-load-induced.html

Here are two conversations, #1:

 

Objectivist - How can two music players sound different ?   It is not possible !

 

Subjectivist - It is the effect of computer use on the computer electronics

 

Objectivist - I won't believe anyone can hear that without a DBT.

 

Subjectivist - Here is a DBT.

 

Objectivist - That was a flawed test.

 

#2:

 

Objectivist - There is no difference is sound quality between 16/44 and 24/192, especially because I cannot hear any.

 

Subjectivist - I can hear a difference.

 

Objectivist - Here is a DBT that shows you cannot hear a difference.

 

Subjectivist - That was a flawed test.

 

===

 

PS  Concerning the Archimago page - why does one person's measurements in one specific case prove anything, except that he cannot measure it ?  And the comments on that page were more interesting than the page...

post #248 of 276

To the best of my knowledge; the bit depth of a DAC is a numerical specification.

It needs this number of bits

If a DAC is 16 or 24 or 32 bits you have to feed 16 or 24 or 32 otherwise it won’t play.

 

post #249 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roseval View Post
 

To the best of my knowledge; the bit depth of a DAC is a numerical specification.

It needs this number of bits

If a DAC is 16 or 24 or 32 bits you have to feed 16 or 24 or 32 otherwise it won’t play.

 

 

All dacs can take a lower bit depth than their max spec but they cannot take higher. If you have a 24 bit dac and you try to feed a 32bit signal it simply won't play.

post #250 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by silversurfer616 View Post
 


Using EQ etc for a speaker system may be/is useful,but I listen exclusively with headphones and all sort of EQing compromises the integrity of a headphone as it changes the headphone's sound signature.I went through a lot of headphones to find the ones with the sound I like.

I think headphones like Audeze deserve that sort of "respect"!

Nevertheless,even unEQed....MC18 sounds really good!

When the player (j.river 19) is opened, I cannot get any sound on my youtube, it's like the sound is muted on my internet browsers.

How do I fix it? 

post #251 of 276
JRiver has an exclusive access on your audio hardware when playing music. It bypasses the windows mixer so no system sound will go out.
You need to stop the playback (pause doesn't work, stop does) then start the YouTube.
Sometime you'll need to reload the webpage (e.g. if you started the video before stopping the playback in JRiver). On rare occasions, I need to close and relaunch chrome completely.

You can otherwise choose to not use the exclusive access mode of wasapi. I use this at work and it works great.
Dunno if this feature is still part of MC19, though.
post #252 of 276

You can just use Direct Sound or untick exclusive access option.

post #253 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenpunk View Post
 

You can just use Direct Sound or untick exclusive access option.

Thank you for the suggestion!

 

Which option of the two would be less detrimental to sound quality?

post #254 of 276

Audiophile used to avoid Direct Sound as it goes through the Window sound mixer but things have improved dramatically since W7 and W8 so any difference might be very hard to detect those days. Try both and decide what work best for you. 


Edited by zenpunk - 10/14/13 at 5:29am
post #255 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenpunk View Post
 

Audiophile used to avoid Direct Sound as it goes the Window sound mixer but things have improved dramatically since W7 and W8 so any difference might be very hard to detect those days. Try both and decide what work best for you. 

Thanks!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › JRiver Media Center 18