Forums - Print Page

Forums
https://www.decware.com/cgi-bin/yabb22/YaBB.pl
AUDIO FORUMS >> General Discussion and Support >> CA Comparison of JRiver MC on Mac & Windows
https://www.decware.com/cgi-bin/yabb22/YaBB.pl?num=1363700609

Message started by Pale Rider on 03/19/13 at 14:43:29

Title: CA Comparison of JRiver MC on Mac & Windows
Post by Pale Rider on 03/19/13 at 14:43:29

Fascinating report. If you're into that sort of thing. ;)

Title: Re: CA Comparison of JRiver MC on Mac & Windows
Post by Fireblade on 03/19/13 at 17:54:22

Nice! Yet another audio myth that bites the dust.

Title: Re: CA Comparison of JRiver MC on Mac & Windows
Post by beowulf on 03/19/13 at 21:46:17

Wow, you would think Apple sprinkles magic pixie dust in their hardware the way the Mac people are jumping up and down with their panties in a bunch ... :o

Title: Re: CA Comparison of JRiver MC on Mac & Windows
Post by Pale Rider on 03/19/13 at 23:34:59

I must be missing something beowulf, because when I looked at that thread, I did not see much platform partisanship, and what I did see, seemed fairly well distributed, and none of it seemed rabid. I saw only a couple of PC adherents [stevebythebay who wrote: "Oh, and JRMC, from an end user perspective, along with JRemote, leaves Amarra in the dust." Well, that's objective. Not. And many might not agree with it.] and Mac fanboys [e.g., Gordon of Wavelength, who as an equipment maker might have some credibility but also his biases; and one person called him out] defending their choice or assessment. But I sure didn't see "Mac people jumping up and down with their panties in a bunch."

I just finished re-reading the comments again [all 52], and most were relatively reasoned, some were critical of the test framework, and some got caught up in the old subjective-vs.-objective assessment debate. Out of the 52, perhaps 2 are Mac partisan, and maybe 2 or 3 PC partisan. But even those explained their uses and why they believed what they did.

I am especially interested in this issue, because I am hopeful JRiver will make a successful expansion to the Mac OS X platform. I paid for the software, and I am beta-testing it with a Mac Mini and my PWD. I am heartened that at least one article found little measurable difference between the output of the Mac and PC versions of JRiver. That bodes well, if the measurement approach is valid.

Title: Re: CA Comparison of JRiver MC on Mac & Windows
Post by Donnie on 03/19/13 at 23:38:07

I sure do like my JRiver 18!

Title: Re: CA Comparison of JRiver MC on Mac & Windows
Post by Pale Rider on 03/19/13 at 23:59:52

I hear tons of acclaim for JRiver MC 18 on the PC side. I am hopeful for JRMC on the OS X side, but am not too worried. I would be even more interested in running JRMC on my NAS, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. However, running it off a Mac, and being able to use the JRemote over the network could be attractive. I haven't installed the latest alpha yet, but I understand it has network play. This will make it more interesting.

Title: Re: CA Comparison of JRiver MC on Mac & Windows
Post by SteveC on 03/20/13 at 01:20:55

So, this says...that bit-perfect output from this JRiver is, well, bit-perfect... on mac and pc. Both achieve bit perfection so there's no difference in sound.

This also means, that any other player software that outputs bit-perfect (foobar with wasapi, etc) also will sound exactly the same (in the same system, into the same DAC, ...).

So your choice of players is really about functionality, performance, features, ease of use, searchability, playlist managability, how pretty it is. etc.

All the bit perfect ones all sound identical. (by the definition of bit-perfect).
--------------
I know a lot of people understand what bit perfect means. For anyone who might not get the big picture on it, I'd like to try an analogy.

Imagine I give you a combination lock with a combination/code of 16 numbers. let's say: 1111 0000 1010 0000. Only that code opens this lock. (16 Binary digITs. or Bits).

So I tell someone the code verbally. They write it down on paper and hand it to someone else. Another person transcribes it to email to someone else. They transmit it with a flash light, morse code to a friend. He tells it in Korean language to another and finally a person taps a meaningful code/sequence out on the shoulder of the person who has this lock. It doesn't matter how or where the information was transmitted. It only matters that the final numbers are: 1111 0000 1010 0000 or else the lock will not open.

Bit-perfect output just means the numbers (your music or the lock combination) were not changed at all. So output of all bit perfect players are identical. "Lossless" is similar and related phrase for this.

This also means a digital cable (usb, hdmi) whatever, cannot affect the sounds AS LONG AS they are not losing/altering the original bits. In extreme conditions cables can lose bits, but only when pushed to the very end of their capabilities: Usually wire is too long so the electrical signal gets weak, so the receiver confuses 1 for a 0 somewhere. no longer bit perfect. (music sounds different, lock won't open)

hope that helps someone.

Title: Re: CA Comparison of JRiver MC on Mac & Windows
Post by Fireblade on 03/20/13 at 01:31:02

On the bit contents, agreed. Timing is the other essential variable involved when sound is the objective. Once you have bit perfect information, the crucial step of streaming that information in a perfectly timely fashion, keeps jitter at bay.

Title: Re: CA Comparison of JRiver MC on Mac & Windows
Post by beowulf on 03/20/13 at 02:34:31

Quote:

PR
I just finished re-reading the comments again [all 52], and most were relatively reasoned, some were critical of the test framework, and some got caught up in the old subjective-vs.-objective assessment debate. Out of the 52, perhaps 2 are Mac partisan, and maybe 2 or 3 PC partisan. But even those explained their uses and why they believed what they did.

I have to admit I did not read all the comments (I read the entire article), but I only skimmed the comments and the ones that caught my attention were the ones about the subjective/objective debating and presupposed most others were going back and forth on the same issue. [smiley=embarassed.gif]

In any regards, I liked the article and feel that bit perfect is "bit perfect" and it makes sense that most of the differences people are hearing stem from the hardware they are using such as DAC's and other refinements.

Title: Re: CA Comparison of JRiver MC on Mac & Windows
Post by Pale Rider on 03/20/13 at 14:17:39

I totally get that. My eye first caught the hyperbole as well. I am glad that the issue is getting a thorough thrashing at CA.