[Say]

After reading this pinned thread I am amused and frustrated at the same time to find how silly some assumptions have become.  All of my responses will be regarding the computer as a front end. Before I do so let's use history as a guide. When CD players first came onto the scene we were amazed at the relative compact size an album could fit into. Then we were just as amazed to realize that digital music sounded different than analogue. Worse too. Piercing highs and dull midrange. Over the following years vendors created beefier power supplies and fancy capacitors and highend companies integrated them into their circuit boards for the sake of making "Perfect Sound Forever" sound more perfect. A whole slew of tweaks soon emerged in order to get that last iota of pleasure from the compact disc player. Though bits were always bits, not every bit sounded the same. How could this be? Maybe if the DAC were to be separated from the transport those bits would sound better. Afterall, 1's and 0's were best in their own little cozy home, away from cross contamination. Then along came jitter. We were told that timing, and the transmission and recovery of bits mattered.

Now we have computers as transports. We also have software that coordinates the transporting. Those 1's and 0's feel right at home. Just like the CD player/DAC combination (which also is a computer) the desktop/laptop/headless top/streamer top would send data/music files to a DAC and eventually it came out of our speakers/headphones. This coarse digital waveform resembled analogue though not as pretty. 

Now here is the part that bewilders. Those with experience will tell you that mechanical transports have a unique sound signature. An identity. So do S/PDIF cables. Things like impedance matter too. Yet, according to some knowledgeable people and even some posters here, software apparently does not matter as long as' bits are bits'. Somehow we are led to believe that finally, after all the previous decades of trial and error, that the transportation mystery of bits, also known as binary 1 and 0, has now been solved. Their quality and integrity is intact. Whew! I am glad. That's what they tell us anyway, as long as we use a bit perfect software program. Being as such all of these types of programs will sound the same considering everything else being equal. If we hear something different between a mechanical transport, software transport or whatever transport then we are only fooling ourselves.

Yet, I still hear a difference between transports of any kind. I don't know if that is due to the influence of power supplies, skin effect, slew rate, rise time, bed time, jitter, or special secret memory buffers doing their magic via special secret agent software - telling bits where to hide. Eventually it doesn't affect my perception. For my perception will tell me what I hear. One thing I do know is that if I hear it. It exists. Whatever it is.

No matter how hard they tell us that the mystery of bit transportation has finally been solved I would like to think that, just perhaps, they missed something. That very something they all missed (and maybe deceptively attempt to portray) may very well be in their own perception. As for mine. Bits are bits and they all sound different.

Next, I wonder if they will tell us that the secret of storing those bits has been solved too and how you store them does not matter. Afterall, bits are supposed to be bits. Right?

[woody777]

I noticed an improvement using Reclock with Google Chrome for MOG streaming, which is my main music source these days.  I use MPC-HC with MadVR for mkv playback (bluray rips), but haven't tried it yet for music files.  Have you tried Reclock with MPC-HC in that context?  Does Fidelizer really make that much of a difference?

I'm curious... How did you get Reclock working with Chrome? I love Mog, but it drives me nuts that I can't bypass the Windows mixer and use WASAPI exclusive mode. I realize your post is kind of old, but I hope you see this. Thanks!

[doctorcilantro]

One thing I do know is that if I hear it. It exists

"it" being?  It's possible to hear something that does not exist. I'd argue your statement is not a tautology.

[adydula]

I want some of what Say was drinking when he wrote that diatribe....OMG.

I think your bits are coming from FEMA trailers....

Alex

LOL

[toddbagwell]

Guys, discussion and disagreements are fine, but posts that do nothing but insult others are not.

If you don't like or use something in your system, fine, but there is no need for posts that serve no purpose than to degrade others.

Todd

[Say]

"it" being?  It's possible to hear something that does not exist. I'd argue your statement is not a tautology.

A definition of:  Hear - To perceive sound with your ears. To perceive or sense (sounds), esp. through stimulation of auditory nerves in the ear by sound waves.

I don't know about you but I could only hear things that do exist (it). To hear sounds that don't exist (those that do not stimulate the auditory nerves) would be called a hallucination.

[Say]

I want some of what Say was drinking when he wrote that diatribe....OMG.

I think your bits are coming from FEMA trailers....

Alex

LOL

Please be more precise otherwise one would not know how to receive your post.

[Say]

Guys, discussion and disagreements are fine, but posts that do nothing but insult others are not.

If you don't like or use something in your system, fine, but there is no need for posts that serve no purpose than to degrade others.

Todd

Thank You for clarifying the significance of staying on topic. Though if some members feel they have the need to question or challenge my thoughts I see no problem with that as long as they are debating in a mature fashion.

[BPT]

Just updated to latest Fidelizer 5. Quite a bit of sonic improvement and highly recommended over previous versions.
Chris H.

[tortugaranger]

I've been a big fan of JRiver for several years now and actually sold off my Squeezebox gear after trying JRiver for a while. It was roughly $20 when I first bought JR and noticed it's up to $50 now but still a great bit of software.

My hardware configuration looks something like: Full Blown PC Desktop Workstation (w/ JR19) -> Wireless Router - > Dedicated Bare Bones Dell Laptop (w/ JR19) in another room - > USB -> DAC - > AMP.

All the music is on the PC Desktop which is also a heavily used engineering workstation. The Dell  streams its audio source from the PC Desktop wirelessly. I control the JR19 running on the Dell Laptop wirelessly using JRemote on an iPad. BTW, JRemote is impressive app for controlling JR - highly recommended.

My question is are any of these alternative players (either alone or in combination) capable of coordinated audio server operation over wireless similar to what JR offers?

Lastly, FWIW, I thought the testing described in Computer Audiophile (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/jriver-vs-jplay-test-results-156/) is about as definitive as anything ever gets in audio. Hard to get more perfect than bit-perfect at least in the digital domain.

Cheers, 
Morten

[adydula]

I have JRiver version 18 and have been using it for a few years. I went threw several players but always went back to Jriver. Its really nice in a HT and audio setup. I play flacks to a external dac on a real powerhouse SLI system as well. From the dac to an amp etc.... and headphones.

Also have it on a HTPC with a 60" plasma that I can see across the rome or use jRemote with is really a nice interface as well.

I have downloaded jplay several times and have done blind ab testing etc and I have never heard any real world differences with it.

I agree about the bitperfect statement you made...

All the best
Alex