> No, this is irrelevant, and YOU contributed nothing to this thread.
I have contributed to threads about JR MC in the past. I write about what I know from experience and from reading credible reports.
You seem to feel that any mention of JR MC needs to be beaten down so that everyone else accepts that Foobar is the greatest. It is quite clear that you don't know much about JR MC 14. You should allow the people who want to talk about MC to do so without trying to discredit that software.
You have established that you think Foobar is the greatest. You have also established that you don't actually know anything about JR MC 14. Start a thread about Foobar and tell everyone why you think it is the greatest.
> By the by, I'm going to try out J.River in a little bit.
Give it more than 30 seconds.
In the future, don't trash any product without having some actual knowledge to go on.
> And to think, I just got my Foobar where I'd like it.
Nothing wrong with your continuing to use Foobar.
> Things I dislike: HUGE footprint (50-100 MBs). Bogged down by large amount of features.
I've monitored Foobar and MC14 using task manager with the same set of files in their libraries. I watched execution of each program for many minutes to see how memory usage changed. Virtual memory size was similar for Foobar and MC 14 (around 40 Mbytes.) Actual memory use varied over time for both programs with no clear advantage to either program overall. I've posted those results on the AA PC Audio forum.
If Foobar isn't using a library, its memory use will be less. That is true for MC 14 as well.
Bogged down? Are you talking about the time it takes MC 14 to start? With about 28,000 files, MC 14 is ready to use in under a second.
Are you talking about how fast the UI updates when you select a tag value and the file list is updated? I don't see any delays on my system.
Some of your perceptions may be based on an older version of MC. MC 11 used less memory but was less responsive. J. River has continued to tune MC and MC 14 is snappier now than older versions were. Sometimes using more memory to cache things like tag values is the right tool for speeding up program execution.
I have been using MC for about 4 years. I have no problem with buffer underruns causing glitches.
> Working with .cue files aswell as single tracks is a giant pain.
What problem do you have?
When I import a CUE file, I see each line in the cue file shown as a music file.
> Tagging system is more complicated than it needs to be.
I don't understand this. Do you mean the UI you use when you rip or import files? Do you mean the way you display a list of music files? Do you mean the way you specify tags for the browser pane mode?
Selecting which tags to display in the list of music files is simply a matter of selecting tags from a list. Selecting which tags to use for browsing files is similar: just pick from a list. Specifying a sort order for a view involves picking tags from a list too.
If you want to change the sort order on the fly, you can click on the column heading. If you want to create a new view, you can do it in 1-2 minutes picking tags from the list at each step.
> It doesn`t have the GUI to be audiophille
Well, the MC 14 UI isn't limited, awkward and undocumented. If that is your definition of a UI for an audiophile player, you are right.
If you think that a rich UI necessarily affects audio quality, prove some proof.
Bill
