[jiiteepee]

I prefer JRiver over Foobar due to better interface and more (Movies, Images, Streaming).

Running DAC thru KS upsampled all to DSD128 (DAC limitation) with iZotope Ozone Advanced as VST plugin.

 
Do you find it necessary? Just wondering what are you using for to listen the music (headphones/speakers)

 

[m-i-c-k-e-y]

All are optional, but all made a difference for me (KS, upsampling(on JRiver), plugins). My computer can handle it so why not.

It's like this: I am not good in photography nor having very good cameras/lenses. But I know how to Photoshop and its plugins.

There is a 10 Day Trial of Izotope Ozone Advanced. Feel free to download and try:
https://www.izotope.com/support/download/ozone-5-advanced

On your JRiver VST Plugin choose Izotope Ozone 5.dll found on C:\Program Files (x86)\Steinberg\Vstplugins\iZotope\Ozone 5 Advanced\x86

And experiment...

 

[nightskyraven]

Thumbs up for foobar. I used to be a fan of Winamp too back in the day, but once I got my first Xonar card, I switched to foobar and I've been loving it ever since. Main reason for the switch was the rather clumsy and inefficient ASIO plugin for Winamp that I was using. Unfortunately, there was only one working such plugin for Winamp, so I had no choice.
 
Made the jump to foobar, and it's been perfect all the way. Winamp is a thing of the past. Future belongs to foobar. Using it with WASAPI now, and it's performing great.

 

[Dobrescu George]

izotope ozone 5 is what i use for mastering purposes only, would be painfull to adjust for every song....
 
Also, how am i supposed to set the wasapi?.... push or event?...

 

[adisib]

 
Also, how am i supposed to set the wasapi?.... push or event?...

 
Event

 

[Jam Boy]

a pretty interesting subject... so.... 


 


For cover art, as i understood, it is a very very bad ideea to embeed it into a lossless file.... so i should keep a cover.jpg in the folder of the album.... now.... i might need a program to turn my cover.jpg files into a 500x500,..... they are mostly very very high definition, and i really don't like the ideea of going through all my collection and replacing every cover.jpg to a lower version of it.....


 


 


i mean, i am using irfaview for image viewing, but it cannot convert images as a lot, only one by one....

 


Can someone expand on this?

 

[Dobrescu George]

 

  a pretty interesting subject... so.... 
   
  For cover art, as i understood, it is a very very bad ideea to embeed it into a lossless file.... so i should keep a cover.jpg in the folder of the album.... now.... i might need a program to turn my cover.jpg files into a 500x500,..... they are mostly very very high definition, and i really don't like the ideea of going through all my collection and replacing every cover.jpg to a lower version of it.....
   
   
  i mean, i am using irfaview for image viewing, but it cannot convert images as a lot, only one by one....

 


Can someone expand on this?

 Already checked myself... did not know how to do batch conversion... it seems that irfanview is capable of doing that....
 
also, embedding album art into a lossless file, or an mp3 is bad for any protable player.... for computer it CAN destroy the file due to program errors.... but on portable players it is deadly to use embedded art...........

 

[Jam Boy]

 Already checked myself... did not know how to do batch conversion... it seems that irfanview is capable of doing that....
 
also, embedding album art into a lossless file, or an mp3 is bad for any protable player.... for computer it CAN destroy the file due to program errors.... but on portable players it is deadly to use embedded art...........

 


Hmmm. Well, I got paranoid and just went through my whole library deleting the embedded files and linking them instead. 2 hours down the drain.

 

[Dobrescu George]

it was not that much... as i said, for protable use it is better to have cover.jpg in the folder... for home use, it might be ok to have embbeded art, but it should take some space, and it is done not so elegant,... you can fiind the method of ape tagging for flac files on the internet....

 

[castleofargh]

 it makes sense to use 1pic instead of 10times the pic. but the end result difference will usually let you add 2more songs or someting like that, so it's not really a reason. 
  also there are still daps out there that won't deal with a .jpg in the folder. or others like cowon that will ask for it to be renamed as cover. jpg or something like that. so you end up doing what you can instead of what you prefer ^_^.
but on the computer you can do whatever you like, errors can always happen, but it's really rare unless you decide to play crisis in max resolution, while defragmenting, while rendering a 600giga model un 3DMAX, while embedding your covers ^_^.
whatever you do, you should always have a back up of your music files outside of the computer, because **** happens.

 

[Dobrescu George]

indeed.... actually, my music is processed on my computer hd, but when i listen, and where i keep is always on an external hdd.... i kind of have a large collection....
 
also, you are right... mostly, any DAP or program accepts a cover.jpg for cover image in the folder, so renaming everything to that works kind of nice...

 

[Redcarmoose]

Amarra

http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarra_hifi

 

[Dobrescu George]

Sorry, no mac users here.... 
 
Also, i just have been testing 24/192 vs 24/96 vs 16/48 vs 16/41.... Clearly, no difference is made to the ear, even though in hdtracks materials, there is something that can be seen in graphics representation./.....
 
Actually, if i were to say, there IS a difference, in the cymbals, like the cymbal is clearer,in hdtracks material, and is like 0.01 seconds more accurate.... but the difference does not worth 3X the size on disk... i mean, it is not like the difference between a flac and a mp3... there you can CLEARLY hear the differences.... but in hdtracks vs flacs, the differences are minimal to the ear.... there are differences that can be heard, but not great...
 
Have been using Foobar/VLC for software error countering, DAC was fiio x5, and the listening thingy was Ultrasone dj1pro or my Microlab solo7c......
 
Again, You will be able to hear a difference in sound, but the difference is WAY less than what you would expect from a 3x size of a normal flac....

 

[Redcarmoose]

Amarra

http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarra_hifi

 
 

  Sorry, no mac users here.... 
 
Also, i just have been testing 24/192 vs 24/96 vs 16/48 vs 16/41.... Clearly, no difference is made to the ear, even though in hdtracks materials, there is something that can be seen in graphics representation./.....
 
Actually, if i were to say, there IS a difference, in the cymbals, like the cymbal is clearer,in hdtracks material, and is like 0.01 seconds more accurate.... but the difference does not worth 3X the size on disk... i mean, it is not like the difference between a flac and a mp3... there you can CLEARLY hear the differences.... but in hdtracks vs flacs, the differences are minimal to the ear.... there are differences that can be heard, but not great...
 
Have been using Foobar/VLC for software error countering, DAC was fiio x5, and the listening thingy was Ultrasone dj1pro or my Microlab solo7c......
 
Again, You will be able to hear a difference in sound, but the difference is WAY less than what you would expect from a 3x size of a normal flac....

 
 
 
Just an example to try, it really sounds great.

 

[jiiteepee]

  Hy!...
 
I am not really that good into windows programs great for music...
 
So... right now i am using foobar2000, and have been using it for the pas 2 years, as it sounds way better than winamp...
As i needed an equalizer, after selling my creative x-fi soundblaster 5.1 usb soundcard, i downloaded viper4windows... i don't know if it distorts the music or not... As a DAC i am using fiio X5....
 
Any software recomandations for windows that would make my music experience better?....
 
Linux is also accepted only if you can explain in detail what i have to do... usually, windows seems to sound better than linux, using similar softwares...
 
Also, why would i even try 24/192?... now that i have a DAC that can do 24/192, i read everywhere that it is a scam, and flac ripped correctly, CD quality, is the best quality i am ever going to get....

 
 
 
Quote:

  Sorry, no mac users here.... 
 
Also, i just have been testing 24/192 vs 24/96 vs 16/48 vs 16/41.... Clearly, no difference is made to the ear, even though in hdtracks materials, there is something that can be seen in graphics representation./.....
 
Actually, if i were to say, there IS a difference, in the cymbals, like the cymbal is clearer,in hdtracks material, and is like 0.01 seconds more accurate.... but the difference does not worth 3X the size on disk... i mean, it is not like the difference between a flac and a mp3... there you can CLEARLY hear the differences.... but in hdtracks vs flacs, the differences are minimal to the ear.... there are differences that can be heard, but not great...
 
Have been using Foobar/VLC for software error countering, DAC was fiio x5, and the listening thingy was Ultrasone dj1pro or my Microlab solo7c......
 
Again, You will be able to hear a difference in sound, but the difference is WAY less than what you would expect from a 3x size of a normal flac....

 
You say you can hear the difference between linux and windows but not between various resolutions between 16/44.1 - 24/192 ... how did you compare audio between these OS/resolutions (give an example of your test setup/run)?
 
Wasn't it question 'bout programs for Hi-Fi* listening? ... most playback software are capable for to send the audio data 1:1 original (= Hi-Fi) if there is zero DSP in chain. If you don't like the original sound then just use DSP for to get it sound the way you wish it sound to.
 
Your weakest links in chain (headphones/speakers) are maybe not as Hi-Fi as you think (and as Hi-Fi what your software/DAC are) ... so, as I mentioned already, it's headphones/speakers you need to invest to ... and remember to choose gear intended for Hi-Fi use

 
*High fidelity (or hi-fi or hifi) reproduction is a term used by home stereo listeners and home audio enthusiasts (audiophiles) to refer to high-quality reproduction of sound.