or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › JRiver Media Center 19 is better!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JRiver Media Center 19 is better! - Page 6

post #76 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by imeem View Post
 

i'm not oversampling anything. I'm using optical so 24/192. Still doesn't explain why 24 bit dones't work in Jriver

As I said, you are going to need help form someone who owns the same device.

post #77 of 177
I haven't purchased JRiver because the EQ is very handicapped compared to foobar. Are there plugins to extend Jriver's basic EQ functionality?
post #78 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by supra28 View Post

I haven't purchased JRiver because the EQ is very handicapped compared to foobar. Are there plugins to extend Jriver's basic EQ functionality?

Vst plugins work just fine in JRiver. I find they actually work and sound better than they do in foobar. If you are looking for eq here is a site with some excellent eq:

 

http://www.terrywest.nl/equalizers.html

 

When I use eq in JRiver I use their CS12M. It is very good and very free. Just point JRiver to your vst plugins and it works.The 64 bit processing seems to work better with vst plugins than does foobar. At least that's been my experience.In JRiver you just go into DSP studio and choose manage plugins. Then select your vst plugin and you're done,


Edited by Chodi - 4/18/14 at 8:08pm
post #79 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by supra28 View Post

I haven't purchased JRiver because the EQ is very handicapped compared to foobar. Are there plugins to extend Jriver's basic EQ functionality?

Check out EasyQ. It's pretty easy to use and gives a nice graphical representation of the changes you are making:

 

http://www.rs-met.com/freebies.html

post #80 of 177
Thank you. Will try both
post #81 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by imeem View Post
 

my DAC is Fiio e17. When i select 24 bit, the sound turns into static. However, in foosbar, 24 bit works fine. Since selecting 24 bit (in a 32 bit package) works, what's the difference? 

You are using WASAPI.

This is a bit transparent protocol.

If you tell the media player to output 24 bits, it will send exactly 24 bits to the audio device

 

You are using Toslink=SPDIF over optical

The SPDIF standard requires a 32 bit word for each channel.

 

Hence if you send 24 where 32 is required you get static.

 

BTW: the Toslink standard says 24/96 kHz max.

In practice the hardware might perform better


Edited by Roseval - 4/19/14 at 3:21am
post #82 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roseval View Post
 

You are using WASAPI.

This is a bit transparent protocol.

If you tell the media player to output 24 bits, it will send exactly 24 bits to the audio device

 

You are using Toslink=SPDIF over optical

The SPDIF standard requires a 32 bit word for each channel.

 

Hence if you send 24 where 32 is required you get static.

 

BTW: the Toslink standard says 24/96 kHz max.

In practice the hardware might perform better

so would it be best to select 24 bit (in a 32 bit package) or just select 32 bit? 

post #83 of 177

Your best bet is "automatic"

Should adapt the bit depth to the audio device used.

post #84 of 177

then it's 32 bit. Because when i choose automatic, it chooses 32 bit. 

post #85 of 177
I am hoping that someone here would have had come across this situation: I have a DAC that only plays up to DSD64. I have some files which are DSD 128. How do I play these files in JMC 19? What settings do I need to set?

Any pointers would be much appreciated.

smily_headphones1.gif
post #86 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiats View Post

I am hoping that someone here would have had come across this situation: I have a DAC that only plays up to DSD64. I have some files which are DSD 128. How do I play these files in JMC 19? What settings do I need to set?

Any pointers would be much appreciated.

smily_headphones1.gif

So that this may benefit anyone later facing this issue,'the solution is to:
1. Disable bitstreaming &
2. Under DSP studio, upsample everything to dsd 64.

Simple. smily_headphones1.gif
post #87 of 177

Ok i just found out something: On my setup, jriver + wasapi via optical sounds different than foosbar + wasapi via optical (both is set to output at 32 bit, -20 dB, no DSP). It is very apparent in Lorde's Team when the bass hits @ around 26 seconds. On the jriver setup, the bass is deeper/more impactful.  However, if I use usb on jriver and foosbar, both sounds exactly the same to me. On my other songs, the difference is alot less, but the still sounds a bit different to me. 

 

Any1 have ideas what is going on? 


Edited by imeem - 6/19/14 at 9:04am
post #88 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by imeem View Post
 

Ok i just found out something: On my setup, jriver + wasapi via optical sounds different than foosbar + wasapi via optical (both is set to output at 32 bit, -20 dB, no DSP). It is very apparent in Lorde's Team when the bass hits @ around 26 seconds. On the jriver setup, the bass is deeper/more impactful.  However, if I use usb on jriver and foosbar, both sounds exactly the same to me. On my other songs, the difference is alot less, but the still sounds a bit different to me. 

 

Any1 have ideas what is going on? 

If I understand you correctly you are using the digital volume control in both set at -20db. Jriver and foobar handle volume control differently. When you go past -18db you are getting into an area where there may be some signal loss. More so on Foobar than Jriver. If you are using the digital volume control for as much as -20db I suggest that is your difference. At less than -10db you probably could not tell any difference. 

post #89 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chodi View Post
 

If I understand you correctly you are using the digital volume control in both set at -20db. Jriver and foobar handle volume control differently. When you go past -18db you are getting into an area where there may be some signal loss. More so on Foobar than Jriver. If you are using the digital volume control for as much as -20db I suggest that is your difference. At less than -10db you probably could not tell any difference. 

Yes im controlling the volume on the software. However, even if i make foosbar+wasapi+optical louder than jriver+wasapi+optical, the jriver setup's bass still sounds better. I still don't understand how foosbar+wasapi+usb sounds the same as jriver+wasapi+usb, yet switching over to optical makes jriver sound better than foosbar. 

post #90 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by imeem View Post
 

Yes im controlling the volume on the software. However, even if i make foosbar+wasapi+optical louder than jriver+wasapi+optical, the jriver setup's bass still sounds better. I still don't understand how foosbar+wasapi+usb sounds the same as jriver+wasapi+usb, yet switching over to optical makes jriver sound better than foosbar. 

As I implied before, when you take a lossless signal and make it losey through the use of the volume control your optical output is dealing with that differently than your usb connection. Jriver has the ability to use more digital volume attenuation than foobar before changing a lossless signal to losey. At minus 20db you have likely done just that with foobar. The difference is just more obvious to you over optical. Try your experiment with both set at 0db and see if you get the same results.

 

I am assuming you are using wasapi event with both programs? If not, and you are using basic wasapi then you are also going through the Windows mixer or perhaps you have that set correctly on one program and not the other?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › JRiver Media Center 19 is better!