[Hybrys]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FasterThanEver /img/forum/go_quote.gif > 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. Bill

Your response is ugly and bloated. Similar to JRMC14.

I gave it a good four hours. AND I wasn't trashing it at all beforehand. Thanks for paying attention, though.

Footprint comparison. Same song, MC14 actually has a smaller buffer:

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f2...obarvsmc14.jpg

What now, chief?

MC14 isn't bogged down in startup, but anywhere beyond that, it seems to like to update things on the fly, which can cause some interface lag. The average person doesn't have an i7 box to dedicate to music. (That said, this is no slouch. C2D E8600 / 4gb ram / 9800 GT.)

It's also bloated in the fact that, sure, it can play music well. But also wants to try to do everything else. It had also initially tried to take Video file associations, and was terrible at playing an MKV. If Music Jukebox was v14 aswell, this wouldn't be a problem. But it's a lot more than I need to navigate through. I've only ever used MC14, by the way.

My entire library was auto-imported into MC14. Any folder with a cue file was then entered twice into the library. Usually with incorrect information (because I had since updated the ID3 tags on the files themselves). With no option to ignore all .cues, and becoming increasingly frustrated with no way to filter doubles effectively, I ended up just having to zip up my .cues.

Tagging was something that I was really peeved by. When you want to modify the tag, it doesn't tell you a damn thing when you select it. You have to look in the lower left corner (which it doesn't tell you it's there), then you can only modify select fields. By default, the 'Artists' section was sorted by the 'Album Arists' metadata, and yet, you can't easily modify that information without going in a round about way. (Renaming the artist in the tree, instead of via the tagging setup. -_-)

The interface doesn't feel like it was built for audio. It was built to be an 'end all' then just used for audio. If it was slimmed down to use audio/media server options and features only, I might even use it over Foobar. But, nah.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

The memory use by J River Media Center is a non-issue, at least for the amount of memory that J River uses. It's not a memory hog and on a modern computer or even a netbook it is a non-issue as far as performance and playing music.

You need to be very careful about relying on the memory use that Task Manager reports. What it reports and what that means for the memory that is actually in use can be two different things. You can go into MSDN and read all about what the various memory reporting features in Task Manager mean. What they actually mean is not obvious, especially to someone who does not do software development.

You can change the settings for what JRMC updates in the background. It's actually very light on resources about that, but you can disable the background updating if you want.

The GUI does use up some CPU. You can see the CPU use increase at times while the GUI is displayed. Minimizing JRMC to the task bar reduces the CPU use so something is going on in the GUI. But again you need to be careful about drawing too much of a conclusion about that. The way a program behaves when minimized and when displayed are not the same and not due just to GUI issues.

Tagging is an art of compromise. Different developers are going to approach it differently. Mapping general concepts like "album artist" to the proper fields in different file formats requires some degree of abstraction. If things aren't mapping correctly for you for the way you've got files tagged then it's possible to change things around so you can get the right fields displayed.

Most tagging operations take place in the tagging window that you can open up in the lower left-hand pane. It's not the most obvious way to go about things, but it's the way they've chosen to do it. If you're in a detail view you can edit the tags right in the columns.

The Artist tag can be directly edited in the tag pane or in detail views. I'm not sure why it wasn't letting you change it.

Things do get a bit messy if you try to do CUE files. You can end up with both the CUE and the individual file(s) imported into the library and that gets confusing and messy. You can remove the redundant files from the library but it's admittedly a PITA and requires that you know your way around how JRMC works.

I tried playing around with CUE files back around version 12 or so. It was just to see how it would work. I didn't like the way JRMC handled it. The albums that were CUE files would behave in different ways than the albums that were individual files. JRMC definitely prefers working with individual tracks rather than CUE files. It can do CUE files, but it just doesn't feel right. Tagging is one area where things were and felt different. Tagging a CUE is different than tagging the individual files. Generally when working with CUE files in JRMC the tagging info is going to be kept in the database and not written back to the file(s) inside the CUE or into the CUE file itself. The tagging info will be there in the JRMC database, but won't end up in the CUE or the individual file(s) that are in the CUE. Probably not the way you are expecting it to work.

I haven't tried CUE files much since, so I don't know if version 14 has gotten better at handling CUE files or not.

JRMC isn't a direct replacement for Foobar. And Foobar isn't a direct replacement for JRMC. Both go about some things differently. You have to adapt for each. There are some things that Foobar will continue to do better than JRMC and some things JRMC will continue to do better than Foobar.

I still use Foobar mostly as an audio utility, but also as a player. Foobar has some plugins that JRMC doesn't and likely will never have. Foobar can play DVD-A while JRMC likely never will (due to legal issues). Foobar also has more variety of plugins for headphone modeling and other sorts of things. There's just more community development done for Foobar for that sort of stuff. So Foobar is still very much useful. I just prefer to do my library management and most playback using JRMC. The library management in JRMC is fantastic for my use.

 

[Hybrys]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif The memory use by J River Media Center is a non-issue, at least for the amount of memory that J River uses. It's not a memory hog and on a modern computer or even a netbook it is a non-issue as far as performance and playing music. You need to be very careful about relying on the memory use that Task Manager reports. What it reports and what that means for the memory that is actually in use can be two different things. You can go into MSDN and read all about what the various memory reporting features in Task Manager mean. What they actually mean is not obvious, especially to someone who does not do software development.

I'm well aware that the memory use is non-issue. But, if someone is going to claim something as graphically/feature rich as MC14 has the same footprint as something as basic and modular as Foobar, I'm going to refute it. Preferably in basic ways, such as a Task Manager viewing. (By the by, MC14 also used more disk cycles, and had a higher memory turnover.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can change the settings for what JRMC updates in the background. It's actually very light on resources about that, but you can disable the background updating if you want. The GUI does use up some CPU. You can see the CPU use increase at times while the GUI is displayed. Minimizing JRMC to the task bar reduces the CPU use so something is going on in the GUI. But again you need to be careful about drawing too much of a conclusion about that. The way a program behaves when minimized and when displayed are not the same and not due just to GUI issues.

That footprint screenshot includes no server running, no auto import, no program updates... Everything turned as slim as possible.

The GUI uses lots of CPU/GPU cycles, and I shouldn't be forced to minimize my audio application to maintain sub 5% cpu usage. (To be fair, though, it was playing a level 8 Flac 24/96.) I just dislike how inefficient the coding seems to be, like it's doing 20 things that don't need to be done at once. For example, I was playing around with the DSPs, and something for ffdshow came up. Why? Hell if I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif Tagging is an art of compromise. Different developers are going to approach it differently. Mapping general concepts like "album artist" to the proper fields in different file formats requires some degree of abstraction. If things aren't mapping correctly for you for the way you've got files tagged then it's possible to change things around so you can get the right fields displayed. Most tagging operations take place in the tagging window that you can open up in the lower left-hand pane. It's not the most obvious way to go about things, but it's the way they've chosen to do it. If you're in a detail view you can edit the tags right in the columns. The Artist tag can be directly edited in the tag pane or in detail views. I'm not sure why it wasn't letting you change it.

The entire problem that I has is that the Tree View was sorting by Album Artist, and yet there was no direct way to change that field. Not even in the 'tagging window'.

I did kind of like that I was able to tag on the fly without having to open a second window, but I almost wish for a hybrid compared to the majority of those applications. IE: open a tagging window that stays on top, but allows me to interact with the library window, live updating the tagging window.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif Things do get a bit messy if you try to do CUE files. You can end up with both the CUE and the individual file(s) imported into the library and that gets confusing and messy. You can remove the redundant files from the library but it's admittedly a PITA and requires that you know your way around how JRMC works. I tried playing around with CUE files back around version 12 or so. It was just to see how it would work. I didn't like the way JRMC handled it. The albums that were CUE files would behave in different ways than the albums that were individual files. JRMC definitely prefers working with individual tracks rather than CUE files. It can do CUE files, but it just doesn't feel right. Tagging is one area where things were and felt different. Tagging a CUE is different than tagging the individual files. Generally when working with CUE files in JRMC the tagging info is going to be kept in the database and not written back to the file(s) inside the CUE or into the CUE file itself. The tagging info will be there in the JRMC database, but won't end up in the CUE or the individual file(s) that are in the CUE. Probably not the way you are expecting it to work. I haven't tried CUE files much since, so I don't know if version 14 has gotten better at handling CUE files or not.

What happened to me was that, on the initial import, it created two copies of each album that had a cue file. From there, you have two options. Remove each one by hand, or use a search to grab all the .cue files that aren't needed (most of my tracks are split anyway), zip 'em up for backup, and delete them, THEN delete your entire library, and have it reimport. (Which I did... And it took a good 15 mins.)

.CUE handling did feel messy, and I didn't like that part of it at all. Compared to Foobar, where I plopped it in, and the tracks came up, and everything was good. That said, an implementation where you can simply filter out any .cue files on import via an option would be easy to do. (Since it has to have a filter already, it should be extremely simple.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif JRMC isn't a direct replacement for Foobar. And Foobar isn't a direct replacement for JRMC. Both go about some things differently. You have to adapt for each. There are some things that Foobar will continue to do better than JRMC and some things JRMC will continue to do better than Foobar. I still use Foobar mostly as an audio utility, but also as a player. Foobar has some plugins that JRMC doesn't and likely will never have. Foobar can play DVD-A while JRMC likely never will (due to legal issues). Foobar also has more variety of plugins for headphone modeling and other sorts of things. There's just more community development done for Foobar for that sort of stuff. So Foobar is still very much useful. I just prefer to do my library management and most playback using JRMC. The library management in JRMC is fantastic for my use.

Atleast then we can say we're both not fanboys, just critically thinking. JRMC isn't a replacement for Foobar. Foobar is made to be light weight, modular, and efficient, where as JRMC is made to be an all encompassing, feature rich enviroment. I just dislike the zealotic masses defending their favorite product, and feel the need to show them other, decenting opinions. Along with this, I've never really liked 'Library' type approaches to music organization. I prefer a simple, sorted playlist (Ex: iTunes / JRMC vs Foobar / Winamp). If I liked a library approach, I probably wouldn't be so against iTunes or JRMC. And if I wanted a full, feature rich media center for an HTPC, I'd probably use JRMC.

BUT WUTEVS.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

I tend to think of Foobar as being more of a file (or a directory) based player and JRMC as more of a database based player. That's just a general overall impression of each and not really correct for either of them. But in general Foobar is more about playing audio files and JRMC is more about playing your library and putting things in a database. Of course JRMC can play files without putting them in its database and Foobar can do a database...

The only thing I'm a fanboy about is gapless playback. As long as the media player or portable player does gapless I'm all good. Foobar, JRMC and even iTunes all do gapless so they're all good. Which one to use is just preference.

You can control what file types get imported. So you can exclude CUE files from the import. If you have your CUE files pre-split (each track is an individual file) then don't import the CUE and just import the tracks.

Go to Tools >> Options >> Library & Folders
Click on the down arrow to the left of an auto-import folder
Select "Settings for this folder"
From there you can exclude CUE files from the import


About editing the Artist field. If you were in the view I think you were in, that view is actually based on "Album Artist (auto)" which is an automatically generated field and not editable. That would explain why you couldn't edit it.

"Album Artist (auto)" has some rules for how its generated. J River's wiki explains it: Using Album Artist and Album Artist (auto)
While you can't edit the "Album Artist (auto)" field you can edit the Artist field or the Album Artist field (editing Album Artist will override Album Artist (auto)). The behavior of "Album Artist (auto)" is confusing till you discover how and why it works.

The views are editable. If you're in the "Artists" view you can go to the tab for that view and click on the down arrow and select "customize view". Or right-click on "Artists" in the upper left side of the window and select "customize view". From there you can change how things are grouped and sorted. I make a bunch of custom views for my library. Sort it and view it the way you like.

You can also add options to the top toolbar. Right-Click on the area just to the right of the "Help" menu. You'll get an option to customize toolbar. I find it handy to have "Playing Now" "List Style: Album Thumbnails" "List Style: Details" and some other convenient options in the toolbar.

 

[FasterThanEver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your response is ugly and bloated. Similar to JRMC14.

I suppose when you are short on facts and logic, you have to resort to insults.

About my "bloated" post. I did a careful test and reported it in adequate detail. What I said about MC 14 was based on actual knowledge. I'd say that is better than the misinformation in your posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif Footprint comparison. Same song, MC14 actually has a smaller buffer: http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f2...obarvsmc14.jpg

Do the math. Audio buffers normally hold a few seconds of audio. That amount is tiny compared to the difference in memory use shown in your screenshot.

In my post I said that I followed memory use in both players for some time. I reported that virtual memory use was comparable in both players and that actual memory use fluctuated up and down for both players for no overall advantage for either player. I monitored MC 14 just now and watched memory use go from 38 MB with a 28,000 file library down to 26 MB when I minimized the MC 14 window and then down to 5 MB for a 600 file library with the window minimized.

You showed a single snapshot. If you paid attention to what I reported, you would understand that a single snapshot proves nothing.

You said that "My entire library was auto-imported into MC14".

MC 14 caches database information, it does increase memory usage. That is true for Foobar as well. So if you didn't import the same set of files in Foobar as in MC 14, you weren't comparing apples to apples. (If you don't want JRMC to autoimport files, you can tell it not to quite simply.)

> But, if someone is going to claim something as graphically/feature rich as
> MC14 has the same footprint as something as basic and modular as Foobar,
> I'm going to refute it. Preferably in basic ways, such as a Task Manager
> viewing.

As stated above, I used task manager and I did the test thoroughly and carefully. You didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif Tagging was something that I was really peeved by. When you want to modify the tag, it doesn't tell you a damn thing when you select it. You have to look in the lower left corner (which it doesn't tell you it's there), then you can only modify select fields. By default, the 'Artists' section was sorted by the 'Album Arists' metadata, and yet, you can't easily modify that information without going in a round about way. (Renaming the artist in the tree, instead of via the tagging setup. -_-)

You can edit tags in several ways. Here are the two I use:

- Click on a row in the list of files and then click on the cell you want to edit. When you finish entering a value in that cell, use the down arrow key to move to the next row with the same cell selected for entering a change.

- Display the tag window and then select a some rows in the file list. Now any changes you make to a tag in the tagging window apply to all the files you selected.

Perhaps you didn't understand how to display and use the tagging window. You probably didn't realize that you can control what tags the tag window displays as well. (Click on the icon to the left of the word tag at the top of the tag window. Choose "Show tags in current view" to see all the tags in the file list in the tag window. You can choose what tags to display in the file list.)

Ham_sandwich covered the Artist/Album Artist issue well.
Or perhaps the Artist tag was not displayed in the file list and was not shown in the Tag window.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif The interface doesn't feel like it was built for audio. It was built to be an 'end all' then just used for audio.

You just don't understand how to use MC 14. MC has been an audio player for 4 years at least. You are just making up empty rhetoric.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif If it was slimmed down to use audio/media server options and features only, I might even use it over Foobar. But, nah.

I don't believe that you would honestly try MC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif MC14 isn't bogged down in startup, but anywhere beyond that, it seems to like to update things on the fly, which can cause some interface lag. The average person doesn't have an i7 box to dedicate to music. (That said, this is no slouch. C2D E8600 / 4gb ram / 9800 GT.)

I use MC on a 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo PC with 2 GB of Ram, motherboard graphics and a library with about 600 GB of Flac files. I see no delays in playback or in using the UI except when I make a tag change to a few thousand files in one operation. That takes a few seconds.

> (By the by, MC14 also used more disk cycles, and had a higher
> memory turnover.)

I monitored CPU use on my PC (which is slower than yours) with both players a number of time, observing for several minutes each time. CPU use stays below 1% for both players playing 44.1/16 flac files without upsampling. For MP3 files, I see 2-3% usage for each player. Upsampling does raise CPU use but not by much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's also bloated in the fact that, sure, it can play music well....

Did you just say that MC can play music well?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif My entire library was auto-imported into MC14. Any folder with a cue file was then entered twice into the library. Usually with incorrect information (because I had since updated the ID3 tags on the files themselves). With no option to ignore all .cues, and becoming increasingly frustrated with no way to filter doubles effectively, I ended up just having to zip up my .cues.

Ham_sandwich go it right. You can import CUE file or MP3 files or both. You choose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif I gave it a good four hours. AND I wasn't trashing it at all beforehand.

I don't expect that you are going to change your mind. However, other people reading this thread might see that you just didn't figure out how to use MC 14. Your complaints about MC 14 are mostly admissions that you didn't learn to use it. The claims about bloat and the negative effect of supporting video and images are just rhetoric without supporting facts.

Bill

 

[Hybrys]

See, compare me and Ham_Sandwich's conversation, to the way that you answer. It's insulting and low. To be perfectly honest, I can show you a video of MC14 producing lag, and you'll still say it's my fault.

I don't have the time or patience to properly form this arguement, so I'm gonna do it the lazy way.

You're saying that testing with Task Manager is inadequate? You're damn right it is. Will the simple user not really know the difference in performance? You're damn right they won't. My entire post was the basis of an outsider; a first-time user. Yes I used it wrong, THAT'S THE POINT. It's the POINT that I wasn't able to use it right the first time around, and had to take time to research.

Now to counterpoints. I followed memory for a time as well, AND my point has more 'proof' that yours, since I actually provided the proof in a documented fashion, while your 'proof' is all anecdotal. The screen shot isn't a peak, it's the average difference, while both players, both with databases and GUIs loaded. I shouldn't have to minimize the GUI to have an acceptable memory footprint, nevermind using less than 5% CPU.

I understood how to edit tags quickly. It was a little oddly hidden, but, I got it pretty quick none the less. The Album Artists issue was the only problem, which I got around by completely avoiding the issue, and just externally renaming in the Tree View.

Can you really deny that if the dev. time was spent on all audio, instead of audio/video/server/images/TV/etc, the audio portion wouldn't be better? The interface wasn't just built for audio. If it was, and the application was slimmed down to be only audio/server, I'd use it. The included DSPs were really good, and easy to use without needing to download other things (unlike Foobar).

I did try to take a quick look around the options for something that would selectively exclude files, and I wasn't able to find it... Must be hidden away somewhere. (After testing, it's hidden away pretty well. You have to select the folder, and look like you want to change the path, then hit Advanced.) Too bad I can't open the application right now because it collapsed over itself and broke from me trying to set my optical out to 24/192 via WASAPI. (Fixed it up; still won't do 24/192. It will do 24/96, though, which I guess it fine seeing as that's the extent of my collection right now. And yes, my optical out can handle 24/192... Foobar does it no problem.)

I'm bored now. Later, bro. Keep being a fanboy. Lets you really experience hardware/software well.

 

[Roseval]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeatFan12 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I see you posted on that website in reference to the Library Server. I have been messing with it but to no avail. Could you post the steps on setting it up and running it with 2 PCs.

Instead of the library server, try the DLNA server
This allows you to play the content of any DLNA server in your network including all MC 14 libraries

 

[sonci]

To all people having problems with .cue files:
-If you use standard NTFS discs,
and yo've ripped EAC multitracks with .cue, just enable hidden, in the cue file properties, Foobar won't see them,

if yo've ripped EAC single track with cue, then select hidden in the single track properties, this way Foo will see the .cue and still it will play fine every track, it should be the same for JRiver..

-If you use NAS server, then above doesn't work since you can't update hidden file properties in EXT2 or EXT3

 

[FasterThanEver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif See, compare me and Ham_Sandwich's conversation, to the way that you answer. It's insulting and low.

Then get your facts straight and don't insult other people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif To be perfectly honest, I can show you a video of MC14 producing lag, and you'll still say it's my fault.

It is possible, One cause might be that MC 14 is auto-importing in the background and doing some time consuming things. Some possibilities: it was importing images and building thumbnails. Or it was looking up cover art for music files. The Tools/Options/Library & Folder dialog has checkboxes for these options. You also add or remove folders from the list to be downloaded.

MC 14 works as installed. If you don't like something about the way it works, you can probably change that behavior with a few mouse clicks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're saying that testing with Task Manager is inadequate?

I said that the way you tested with task manager was inadequate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif My entire post was the basis of an outsider; a first-time user. Yes I used it wrong, THAT'S THE POINT. It's the POINT that I wasn't able to use it right the first time around, and had to take time to research.

If you had just said "I tried to use MC 14 and it didn't work the way I wanted it to. I could figure out how to change its behavior." that would have been fine.

Whenever you switch from a program you know to a different program, you have a learning curve. The better your skills at learning, the faster you get up to speed. One of those skills is to acknowledge that you don't understand something and not blame the software. Then you can fix the problem by scanning the menus and dialog for setting options, reading the documentation or asking questions on the relevant forums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif I followed memory for a time as well, AND my point has more 'proof' that yours, since I actually provided the proof in a documented fashion, while your 'proof' is all anecdotal. The screen shot isn't a peak, it's the average difference, while both players, both with databases and GUIs loaded. I shouldn't have to minimize the GUI to have an acceptable memory footprint, nevermind using less than 5% CPU.

That wasn't the point of the memory use numbers I reported. I described how MC 14's memory use varied in different circumstances as an example of how much memory use varied and gave numbers. In the earlier post, I said that both Foobar and JRMC exhibited such variations and that neither player have an overall advantage in memory use with comparable libraries.

Unless you doctored the image, your screenshot shows memory use at one point in time. You claim that it represents an average. By your criteria, that claim is as "anecdotal" as my reporting numbers rather than providing a series of screenshots.

If there is a large difference in your use, it may be because JRMC has imported lots of images or videos that Foobar has not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif I understood how to edit tags quickly. It was a little oddly hidden, but, I got it pretty quick none the less.

Then you should have said that the first time. "I understood how to edit tags quickly" sounds as though tag editing in MC 14 wasn't so tough for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can you really deny that if the dev. time was spent on all audio, instead of audio/video/server/images/TV/etc, the audio portion wouldn't be better?

You are asking a theoretical question. Would I prefer to have a few more audio features? Yes. Do I wish that everything I might want for audio was already in MC 14? Yes. Do I feel that MC 14 is worse as a music player specifically because of the presence of image and video support? I've haven't found any such compromises.

I imagine that adding image and video support was a business decision for J. River. They did the development work; they get to choose what they include in the program. As a MC 14 user, I just evaluate the result. It does what I what I want from a ripper/tag editor/player better than anything else I've found, so I use it. MC 14 is better than the MC 11 version I started with in various ways.

In the real world, MC 14 is a benefit to me. If having image and video support makes the J. River company more profitable and more likely to continue developing MC, I'm all for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif The interface wasn't just built for audio.

You keep saying that but your examples so far have just illustrated that you didn't understand how to use MC 14. How would you improve the interface?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif I did try to take a quick look around the options for something that would selectively exclude files, and I wasn't able to find it... Must be hidden away somewhere. (After testing, it's hidden away pretty well. You have to select the folder, and look like you want to change the path, then hit Advanced.)

Try the Tools/Import command. Click on import single file or autoimport depending on what you want to do. If you clicked on "import single file" and then next, you'll see an area listing file types. If you clicked on "autoimport", you'll see a list of folders. Click on one or more and then click the Edit button. You will see a list of file types.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hybrys /img/forum/go_quote.gif Too bad I can't open the application right now because it collapsed over itself and broke from me trying to set my optical out to 24/192 via WASAPI.

My experience: MC 14 outputs at 24/192 via DirectSound on a Win XP PC or via WASAPI exclusive on a Win 7 PC without problems. There may be a problem with your PC configuration or JRMC's use of your soundcard and its driver, but you can post on the J. River web site and get help.

Bill

 

[Hybrys]

You're boring and recycled. It's like talking to a Yakbak.

 

[HeatFan12]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roseval /img/forum/go_quote.gif Instead of the library server, try the DLNA server This allows you to play the content of any DLNA server in your network including all MC 14 libraries

Will give it a shot.....

Thanks


What happened to this thread? They are just media players guys. We all have our preferences. I have been using Foobar for years and don't think I'll ever give it up, but trying different things won't hurt.

 

[mojave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeatFan12 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi mojave, Great article on J. River. I see you posted on that website in reference to the Library Server. I have been messing with it but to no avail. Could you post the steps on setting it up and running it with 2 PCs. Thanks

I missed this earlier. Here is a quick way to get up and running if you haven't already.

On the server, in the Organization Tree, select Services & Plug-ins, Library Server and click the start button. You can also click the Options button to for manual port selection and authentication (password protection).

Under Tools > Options > Startup > Windows Startup, select Media Server under Run on Windows Startup.

On a client computer with JRMC 14, go to File > Library > Search for Library Servers. Media Center will automatically find your Library Server and load its library.

Under Playing Now on the client, you will now see Zone 1 and Zone 1: There. "There" is the server and you can play the music either on the client computer or on the server.

You can set Library Server to automatically convert some lossless file types to mp3's or other lossy formats to conserve bandwidth. To enable, on the client go to Tools > Options > Library > Library Server Conversion. This is helpful when streaming over the internet.

 

[HeatFan12]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojave /img/forum/go_quote.gif I missed this earlier. Here is a quick way to get up and running if you haven't already. On the server, in the Organization Tree, select Services & Plug-ins, Library Server and click the start button. You can also click the Options button to for manual port selection and authentication (password protection). Under Tools > Options > Startup > Windows Startup, select Media Server under Run on Windows Startup. On a client computer with JRMC 14, go to File > Library > Search for Library Servers. Media Center will automatically find your Library Server and load its library. Under Playing Now on the client, you will now see Zone 1 and Zone 1: There. "There" is the server and you can play the music either on the client computer or on the server. You can set Library Server to automatically convert some lossless file types to mp3's or other lossy formats to conserve bandwidth. To enable, on the client go to Tools > Options > Library > Library Server Conversion. This is helpful when streaming over the internet.

Thanks mojave

On the main server PC, no probs at all. The Zone 1 There is great. I heard the music coming from the other room (other PC)...LOL...The zones show up no problem...However on the client PC everytime I search for library servers it fails to find it.

I'll play with it a bit more. It's a great feature and hope I can sort it out.

Thanks again

 

[GungaDin]

In my experience, J. River will not stream lastfm even though it's got the plugins for it. Which leads me to my next point....

A $50 media player that will not perform basic player functions competently right from the start is a total non-starter for me. It's not that 50 bucks is some huge, insurmountable price. It gets on my last mother-effing nerve when a company charges a non-trivial amount of money for software that chokes on tasks that free software (foobar) can complete effortlessly.

You're a "pro" media company? You want to charge $50 dollars for the privilege of using your "pro" product? Fine, but you'd better be the best. Or at a bare minimum, better than what's being served up for free.

 

[Armaegis]

Is this a widespread problem or only you? Seems a bit harsh to condemn the product solely on a single feature that isn't working for you.