Audiophile Software Roundup: The Case For And A Comparison Of HiFi Software

[ratso]

I agree with gene , relax. Ah is not the journal of medicine ... people are not dying cuz of one dudes opinion . You didn't pay for the article
If its good enough for gene its good enough for me. I am learning more by reading technical stuff but every once in awhile its nice just to a subjective opinion . If this happened daily that would be different .

there are plenty of websites around that offer "one person's opinion". as a matter of fact, pretty much ALL OF THEM do. that is the point and why people get bent out of shape by this. this place is like a little island of sanity in a sea of crazyness. i hope gene understands that is why we are such a "tough crowd", cuz we all like this place and want to see it continue being that island.

 

[gene]

Article Backlash & Followup

First I'd like to thank everyone for holding our publication to such high standards. However, I've learned over the years if you're too stringent on a viewpoint, you narrow not only your audience but also the people willing to work with you. While I am a scientist/engineer at heart, I have also learned over the years that not everything can be fully explained, especially sound preferences, by measurements or mathematical formulas. Theory and reality are often very different.

That being said, the purpose of this article was to compare the features of the different software playback systems. I solicited Core Audio to write this article simply b/c none of our staff had the time to do it. This article almost didn't get published b/c of my disagreements with Ryan on "Bit Perfect". However, I compromised by allowing him to state his viewpoints. It's up to the reader to decide if they have merit or not. I separated his "Bit Perfect" comments into an editorial note so it's not the main focus of the article.

I also asked Cliff to add in a part about foobar since that was left out.

The sound ratings will remain but we will relabel them as "Subjective Sound Ratings". I don't wish to disparage the author or any fellow enthusiasts that believe they can hear a difference between the software programs. This is especially true given some of the software programs utilize DSP processing to alter the sound.

Again, I thank you for your comments. This helps us to improve our articles. Let's not keep beating a dead horse however. You commented, we listened.

The article will be updated by the end of the day.

 

[slipperybidness]

First I'd like to thank everyone for holding our publication to such high standards. However, I've learned over the years if you're too stringent on a viewpoint, you narrow not only your audience but also the people willing to work with you. While I am a scientist/engineer at heart, I have also learned over the years that not everything can be fully explained, especially sound preferences, by measurements or mathematical formulas. Theory and reality are often very different.

That being said, the purpose of this article was to compare the features of the different software playback systems. I solicited Core Audio to write this article simply b/c none of our staff had the time to do it. This article almost didn't get published b/c of my disagreements with Ryan on "Bit Perfect". However, I compromised by allowing him to state his viewpoints. It's up to the reader to decide if they have merit or not. I separated his "Bit Perfect" comments into an editorial note so it's not the main focus of the article.

I also asked Cliff to add in a part about foobar since that was left out.

The sound ratings will remain but we will relabel them as "Subjective Sound Ratings". I don't wish to disparage the author or any fellow enthusiasts that believe they can hear a difference between the software programs. This is especially true given some of the software programs utilize DSP processing to alter the sound.

Again, I thank you for your comments. This helps us to improve our articles. Let's not keep beating a dead horse however. You commented, we listened.

The article will be updated by the end of the day.

I must say good approach overall. Just because you don't personally agree with something does not necessarily mean that it completely lacks merit.

 

[Frans]

Personally, I would have liked to see a review of iTunes or perhaps Windows Media Player to go along with those software packages reviewed in the article. I never heard of most of them (no pun intended). How do they compare to software most people know and what do these software package add to what he calls 'entry level software'. Just to get a better understanding of his point of view and point system.

 

[Cliff_is]

Personally, I would have liked to see a review of iTunes or perhaps Windows Media Player to go along with those software packages reviewed in the article. I never heard of most of them (no pun intended). How do they compare to software most people know and what do these software package add to what he calls 'entry level software'. Just to get a better understanding of his point of view and point system.

In general, the software on this list does two things that iTunes and WMP can't (natively, anyway). First, play popular lossless file formats, like FLAC and DSD. There are other codecs that some of them support as well, like the lesser used Vorbis (an MP3 alternative). Second, they can allow you to bypass sound processing that the OS does, you can look up WASAPI Exclusive and ASIO modes to learn more about this.

Beyond that, many of them offer higher levels of control over how the audio is being processed than iTunes or WMP. Some, like foobar2000, support 3rd party plugins to add even more functionality.

The interface also tends to favor the audiophile crowd, showing things like sample rate, file path, and file size. With iTunes or WMP, you have to dig a bit to find that info, it isn't just displayed whenever you select a track.

I hope that clears up some of the differences.

for what it's worth, I don't have a great computer audio setup and listen to Spotify or Pandora 90% of the time anyway. I only use HiFi software when using my laptop to serve audio to my main listening system.

 

[jcunwired]

the purpose of this article was to compare the features of the different software playback systems. I solicited Core Audio to write this article simply b/c none of our staff had the time to do it.

I didn't mind the article for what it contained, but if the above is the true purpose there are several omissions much more important to end users than discussion of square waves and jitter. Playlist creation and management, metadata storage, album art, library management, remote control with smartphone or tablet... I could go on.

I'm with Cliff. I use foobar because of its rich features, huge support community and excellent library management. With foobar2000 and an external skin, it's really all anyone needs. There is a learning curve, but multiple sources for help.

I also am a big streaming fan, I have both Google and Spotify subscription services, but also a large library so it's about 50/50 for me. Additionally, I use Squeezebox connected to all of my audio systems and Logitech Media Server, but only when I want to sync playback across three different zones.

 

[dingus48]

First I'd like to thank everyone for holding our publication to such high standards. However, I've learned over the years if you're too stringent on a viewpoint, you narrow not only your audience but also the people willing to work with you. While I am a scientist/engineer at heart, I have also learned over the years that not everything can be fully explained, especially sound preferences, by measurements or mathematical formulas. Theory and reality are often very different.

That being said, the purpose of this article was to compare the features of the different software playback systems. I solicited Core Audio to write this article simply b/c none of our staff had the time to do it. This article almost didn't get published b/c of my disagreements with Ryan on "Bit Perfect". However, I compromised by allowing him to state his viewpoints. It's up to the reader to decide if they have merit or not. I separated his "Bit Perfect" comments into an editorial note so it's not the main focus of the article.

I also asked Cliff to add in a part about foobar since that was left out.

The sound ratings will remain but we will relabel them as "Subjective Sound Ratings". I don't wish to disparage the author or any fellow enthusiasts that believe they can hear a difference between the software programs. This is especially true given some of the software programs utilize DSP processing to alter the sound.

Again, I thank you for your comments. This helps us to improve our articles. Let's not keep beating a dead horse however. You commented, we listened.

The article will be updated by the end of the day.

If the scientific method did not exist, your approach would make as much sense as any other. But given that we do have the scientific method, appealing to anything else when such methods are deeply relevant (as they are for this subject matter) is a far cry from the best form of truth as we know it.

The simple answer is to return to the tagline of your site as stated in your logo ("pursuing the truth in Audio & Video"), or change the tagline to something more accurate to what has been going on lately (like "trying to make everyone happy", as you state on post #3 http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/loudspeakers/86475-absence-negative-reviews.html). You are free to pick any goal you like for your publication, but please don't state one while actually pursuing another - that seems to me is what has gotten people upset, ironically.

The truth as best we know it to accepted scientific and logical standards definitely won't make everyone happy. Pick one. More specifically, please pick the truth.

 

[bogrod]

First I'd like to thank everyone for holding our publication to such high standards. However, I've learned over the years if you're too stringent on a viewpoint, you narrow not only your audience but also the people willing to work with you. While I am a scientist/engineer at heart, I have also learned over the years that not everything can be fully explained, especially sound preferences, by measurements or mathematical formulas. Theory and reality are often very different.

Gene, that is true. However, that is kind of the point. What's the difference between theory and reality. Another way to put it might be to say what is measurable and what is audible? And if so, how do you prove the audible differences in "reality"? (you know the answer to this question already, but asking it anyway)

I'm not even going to claim, like you do, that everything can be explained. I also think that people can get too buried in what is theoretical and measurable, but yet never are willing to take the step to prove that what is theoretical and measurable is also audible (i.e. a true ABX DBT is a highly reliable way of going about that). I think that is why so many people in this thread are balking. How far do you wander into subjectivism and theoretical minutiae?

You can claim anything in this hobby. Anyone can claim that there is a difference between situation/device A and situation/device B. But I know you know very well how that there are ways of figuring out if the differences are indeed audible to listeners, and not just theoretical situations, measurements, or advertisement claims.

However, I've learned over the years if you're too stringent on a viewpoint, you narrow not only your audience

This is the part that worries me the most. What kind of audience are you really trying to encourage? The subjectivists? Are you trying add a little of the Audio Asylum crowd? Will expensive high-dollar cables appear soon on the audioholics store? Is the tag "pursuing the flowery audiohphile language" going to come next? I hate to even consider this, but given your last post, it seems as if this is the kind of direction you're trying to steer Audioholics in, even though I know you from your standpoint as an engineer (and not a website/webstore owner or business parter) you know better.

 

[Hyrlyfrm]

I prefer my ones with just a little bit of zero, but my zeros with a little extra one. It makes my system sound more musical.

 

[gene]

This is the part that worries me the most. What kind of audience are you really trying to encourage? The subjectivists? Are you trying add a little of the Audio Asylum crowd? Will expensive high-dollar cables appear soon on the audioholics store? Is the tag "pursuing the flowery audiohphile language" going to come next? I hate to even consider this, but given your last post, it seems as if this is the kind of direction you're trying to steer Audioholics in, even though I know you from your standpoint as an engineer (and not a website/webstore owner or business parter) you know better.

Umm I want everyone reading my site, objectivists and subjectivists alike. I sure hope the people at AA enjoy at least some of our content here and respect what we do.

Before wondering what direction I am trying to "Steer" Audioholics, you should at least try to stay current with what Audioholics is doing.

Evidently you didn't get the memo as of 3 months ago that there is no longer an Audioholics Store.
The Audioholics E-Store is now bad robot.com! | Audioholics

 

[gene]

The simple answer is to return to the tagline of your site as stated in your logo ("pursuing the truth in Audio & Video"), or change the tagline to something more accurate to what has been going on lately (like "trying to make everyone happy", as you state on post #3 The absence of negative reviews). You are free to pick any goal you like for your publication, but please don't state one while actually pursuing another - that seems to me is what has gotten people upset, ironically.

I haven't changed the focus of this site since its inception. I just learned to chose my words more carefully to not alienate my audience while still getting the message across. We are also more selective of what products we review. Our traffic ratings continue to grow and our business is growing enough so I can hire more qualified writers. As long as that maintains, I will continue to follow that direction.

 

[bogrod]

Umm I want everyone reading my site, objectivists and subjectivists alike. I sure hope the people at AA enjoy at least some of our content here and respect what we do.

Before wondering what direction I am trying to "Steer" Audioholics, you should at least try to stay current with what Audioholics is doing.

The content of the article in question that this thread addresses, plus some of the posts in this thread and your responses to them gives a glimpse of that. I suppose my issue is, how much more common is the "I can't explain everything" and measuring minutiae and subjectivism going to become?

Given the established base that you have here, plus (what I assume still is) your mission statement, I wouldn't be surprised if the kinds of questions and comments like what are in this thread continue elsewhere.

Evidently you didn't get the memo as of 3 months ago that there is no longer an Audioholics Store.
The Audioholics E-Store is now bad robot.com! | Audioholics

Yes, the name has changed. Are you nor anyone connected with this website no longer gaining financially from it? If so I will apologize and retract that comment alltogether.

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't address the top portion of my post, which had relevant questions.

 

[chashint]

While searching the site for information about Audio Advisor I stumbled onto the article.
I was quite surprised to find that kind of content.
Subjective judgement articles are fine, but there are things in the article in regards to the way a computer saves and outputs a digital music file that is simply not factual.
If any individual thinks one software player sounds better than another, that is fine, I see no purpose in debating the point.
Where the problem comes in is when that person starts making stuff up as to why/how they think their favorite achieves the better sound.
Once an author makes up something in a subject area they obviously know nothing about the smell test fails.
While the article in current form did not provide me with any useful information, I would enjoy reading an article evaluating different software music players with the focus being on detailing any additional features that may be in the "paid" products verses those in iTunes, Media Player, Foobar, VLC.....
My wife describes me as a reluctant iTunes user and I would agree with that assesment.
iTunes library management is the best I have been able to find, of course the major flaw with iTunes is, it only works with Apple devices.
If iTunes would allow writing to a flash drive (along with the same flexibility of file conversion as writing to an Apple device) I would consider it a home run.

Since this article was posted in its current form, Audioholics could still turn it into something useful by doing a feature set evaluation and if the resources are available launching a blind listening test comparing the author's favorite to Media Player, iTunes, and foobar.
Rip tracks as (MP3 & AAC 128k, 196k, 256k, 320k), FLAC, ALAC, and include original source material.
Hardware remains constant throughout.

 

[gene]

Yes, the name has changed. Are you nor anyone connected with this website no longer gaining financially from it? If so I will apologize and retract that comment alltogether.

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't address the top portion of my post, which had relevant questions.

There hasn't been any financial ties with Audioholics website and the E-Store in years. I'm done debating the integrity of this site over an article. Either accept it or move to another forum.

 

[swspiers]

Wow! Seriously? The Group Think here is rampant to the point that some folk believe the following fallacies: 1. That they are objective. I did not read one objective criticism to the article, just a bunch of ranting and finger pointing- hardly reflective of rational thought. 2: The fallacy that since you know so much, you are entitled to DIRECT the Audioholics Master Chief how to run his site. 3: finally, the fallacy that you are saving AH from the subjectivists. Give me a break. The kind of trash talk I just read is going to kill this hobby, one piece at a time. I don't have any data on the subject, but I wonder how many people, who will never write a word, you guys just scared off because you just have to be 'right'? Such blatant disrespect is not deserving of respect, and it is an embarrassment to the entire audio-enthusiast community.

 

[Boerd]

I am using J River Media + Tone Boosters with my head gear (see my signature).
The only reason I bought JRiver Media is for the VST container. Tone Boosters is for imaging with cans.
The interface of J River Media is lame; they should learn a thing or two from iTunes.
Now, the price is very good for TB isone; J River MC is not really worth the money.
I wish iTunes had an VST container - that would be the day.
At this point I rip with J River MC, I edit tags with iTunes and I stream with the Squeeze Center from Logitech (go figure!).
Of course, I can't hear the difference between iTunes and J River Media (when all the DSP is off).

 

[Boerd]

I tried to hold back. I really tried. And I was able to do so for about 20 minutes.
Now I have a few comments about the points system in this article.
The article rates the players (amongst others) on "Subjective Sound Quality".
Really? Is this better than subjectively rating cables with batteries (like the audioquest ones) ?
Please, don't become the next Stereophile - there is already one and they're very good at "it" (the "subjective" "it").

 

[RichB]

I did not have a problem with the article trying to lay out the camps.
I am also in camp2.


Here is my audio path:

J River USB
BDP-105 USB DAC In, 7.1 Analog outs
Marantz AV8801 XLRs
Parasound A51
Revel Salons

I use J River with all DSP functions and conversions disabled.

I can switch between Oppo supplied ASIO, WASAPI, and Kernel Streaming drivers and they all sound a bit different.
While playing you can select a different driver, but you must stop and start playback to make the new driver engage.
Of these, I prefer the Kernel Streaming.

I have no doubt that these streaming method sound different with the BDP-105 when the USB DAC is a constant.
So, if the driver choice and other settings alter the sound from one program, it is not unreasonable that difference programs can sound different as well when outputting a digital signal.

- Rich

 

[panteragstk]

Big fan of both JRMC and Foobar2000. I tend to use foobar a bit more since it has the dvd audio plugin that will play the files and send them to my receiver untouched. Sounds great and I don't have to transcode to multichannel FLAC or WAV files. JRMC's 10' UI is pretty nice though.

 

[RichB]

I decided to buy JPlay after trying it a bit I convinced myself it had a Kernel streaming modes that had some promise streaming to the BDP-105 DAC. I expect this is DAC dependent.

After playing for countless hours, I decided to make JPlay my default driver using its XSteam engine.
i also tried ASIO4ALL which was very close when using its hardware buffer.

it turns out that all drivers with the "Use large hardware buffers" checkbox sounded cleaner and better resolved with this option checked.

I have concluded that there is no question that the BDP-105 USB DAC performance is dependent on the driver and that drivers device settings.

- Rich