JPLAY best sound out of a windows Vista or 7 PC

kyrill · « **on:** 10 Jul 2011, 04:22 pm »

Well
I am finally getting to "end" my search for best sound. Not that it will ever happen ( I suppose) but it may happen as I never had this idea/feeling ever before that I can stop searching for better gear.

It all started with My heavily modded DEQX digital preamp with build in active tri amp x-overs and digital room correction. SO now I can build my own speakers, choose the "best"drivers forums can supply and build cross overs on the fly, phase aligned, no errors in time domain, over 60dB/oct and make the ( OB) speakers ruler flat in freq. within 0,1 db. (speakers, not including room, measurements in open space like outdoors)

Then the amps, in my case heavily modded Jadis tube amps, even paid DHL 780 € (!) only to ship them form Holland to AU and back ( Joe Rasmussen triode mods) ( servo bass amps are from GR research)

So I have my "perfect" pre amp*, amps and speakers.
My perfect source is not LPs anymore but a laptop (PC) John Kenny's MK2 USB/S/PDIF converter.

That source sounds so good it 90% crosses the threshold of "high end fidelity" that my brain needs to make me belief with the right music I listen to real human performers/singers/acoustic instruments in space to the point I i have tears in my eyes.

* This summer I will buy 3 Audio Burson ( or will it be W4S? erghh choices choices) stand alone dacs ( they will be released this month 25 juli) to bypass the already good DEQX internal dacs but with an all ic opamps I/V and analogue stage solution. I belief in Ebaen's conclusion that discrete analogue is the way to go over opamps, so I am really convinced that the Burson is a much more natural sounding dac than the Dacs inside DEQX

=so that was all an introduction how serious i am about listening to music like the rest of you

However i play Foobar and only yesterday i learned that Foobar with asio4all, sound much more controlled/crispier in a natural way than the more modern foobar KS bitperfect dll . I read somewhere that windows is responsible for that. I didn't believe it, so I never tried. Until last night.. I play on windows 7 32 bit

So I learned ( in windows at least) software wise there is still room to make the source better sounding. And that is the reason for this post
I encountered a software and did a search for it here on Audiocircles but got zero results (!):

"introduces a number of world's-first features for the ultimate computer audio music playback:
• full memory-based playback - most other memory-based players dynamically load tracks into memory during playback. In contrast we pre-load complete playlists into RAM guaranteeing no disk activity during playback (zero disk I/O).
• large page memory - superior memory management provides minimal CPU latencies.
• maximum system timer - reduces operating system latency by making Windows switch tasks faster. (0.5ms instead of default 15.6ms).
• maximal priority scheduling - ensures uninterrupted flow of music data by running music playback at highest possible priority.
• hibernation mode - cancels OS ‘noise’ by eliminating dozens of jitter-inducing processes and hundreds of threads.
"JPlay was built with only one goal in mind: optimal music reproduction. And that means no music management features, no eye-catching graphical user interface - only a fanatical focus on providing the best possible sound quality. Our stripped-down bare-bones playback engine fits entirely inside CPU cache and can be used as stand-alone player or together with popular 3rd party audio players such as JRiver Media Center, iTunes, foobar2000, mp3toys etc.

"JPlay is the first and presently only audio player that can totally take control over Windows such that nothing else is allowed to run during playback - no processes, threads or services limiting sound quality. In hibernation mode JPlay uses all the CPU cores to provide not only bit-perfect but more importantly 'time-perfect' streaming. The player supports both 16-bit and hi-rez audio files in various lossless codecs; FLAC, WAV, AIFF. JPlay supports all Windows versions, either 32-bit or 64-bit. A single license costs €99."" http://jplay.eu/forum/jplay/jplay-v3.2-released/#p198

thx Ted

Aleg · « **Reply #1 on:** 10 Jul 2011, 05:27 pm »

Did yo try Pureplayer with wasapi mode?
http://www.purediy.gr/downloads/pureplayer.zip

kyrill · « **Reply #2 on:** 10 Jul 2011, 11:33 pm »

its late in Holland now, 01.18 hr

I bought the Jplay, it is that good for my system. I hear things on my flac files I did not hear before Pureplayer didn't do it for me. I heard an improvement?, maybe not. Jplay goes much much further than only bringing the music into RAM memory. I use an Intel SSD boot disk, so the difference with RAM is not that big

Warning: Just as I encountered with J. Kenny's MK2 USB to S/PDIF converter (much) less highs in the beginning, but then discovering it is not missing highs but less but "electronic glare emphasizement", the same happened again wit JPlay. You do not loose any micro details, instead you hear (much) more, it is just, it sounds so "like common sounds" ehh normal.
Another step ( at least in my setup) to "normality" as oppose to electric playback
I use Foobar KS and in Jplay set file cache to 8 samples ( did not try 4 yet)

Arizona Dan · « **Reply #3 on:** 11 Jul 2011, 02:35 am »

I have been using the demo copy of Jplay for about two weeks. It sounds fantastic. I thought Microsoft Media player was O.K., but Jplay is much better. It is much quieter and much more detailed. I never thought Microsoft Media player was noisy, but there is more detail and a more natural sound using Jplay.

Dan

Aleg · « **Reply #4 on:** 11 Jul 2011, 05:39 am »

Pureplayer also does more than just play from memory. There is definitely an audible difference between JRiver playing from memory using WASAPI and Pureplayer playing from memory using WASAPI. The winner being pureplayer.

What JPlay does to the windows environment can IMHO also be achieved using Fidelizer or a good manual analysis of unnecessary windows processes and services like is done for CAPS v 2.0 (have a look over there at CA).

I find the price of € 99 excessive compared to the likes of JRiver (about US$ 50) and Pureplayer and Fidelizer (both free).

kyrill · « **Reply #5 on:** 11 Jul 2011, 09:57 am »

yes the price seems to be expensive until you discover that for the quality difference it gives you have to pay 3-10+x as much in hardware.
I did not find in pureplayer the many tweak possibilities that Jplays has alongside to play for instance in hibernate mode and
and going manual through all the windows process is a PIA and you have to do it every time you have a new listening session when you need to shut down the laptop

BTW 1 in asio4all (2.7) I cannot go lower than 65 samples while in Jplay I can get to 4 samples in KS mode ( with Kenny's MK2 M2Tech) this parameter makes a big impact on the quality of the sound
BTW 2 AQVOX ASIO sounds better than free asio4all and "only" costs 79 euro..
BTW 3 The proof is in eating the pudding. Download the free driver, read the guidelines and try it out. I really belief you owe it to yourself when you have spend years and years and many dollars in your equipment in order for your "soul" to be in touch with music.

firedog · « **Reply #6 on:** 11 Jul 2011, 12:13 pm »

Hi-
Tried JPlay. Compared files running on a regular windows desktop to same files running on my dedicated music server running Vortexbox (Linux) and through dedicated hardware player.

How does it sound? Good! Different. Music sounded like it came from a blacker background, with nothing around it. Sort of stark sounding. I could hear some background instruments like cymbals more clearly. Never had the sound as good as this from this Windows machine. But I'm not sure it's "better" or "more accurate" or "more natural" sounding than what I usually listen to.

But based on SQ only, I'd be interested in auditioning it more and trying to decide which sound I like best. However, from a POV of convenience, picking tracks to play, switching selections, etc. - it just doesn't cut it. Part of the fun of CA for me is the ability to do just those things. Without that user interface part of the enjoyment of listening is lost. And it's not made up for by a (possible) small improvement in SQ.

But the ideas here are clearly worth developing for Windows and other machines. Most minimal processes possible on PC - better sound.

firedog · « **Reply #7 on:** 11 Jul 2011, 12:16 pm »

Quote

This summer I will buy 3 Audio Burson ( or will it be W4S? erghh choices choices) stand alone dacs

Kyrill-

The Burson DAC is on my short list of DACs to buy. But can't hear them where I live - no dealers. Be interested to hear what you think if you get them.

kyrill · « **Reply #8 on:** 11 Jul 2011, 01:01 pm »

Hi Firedog

My problem as well
My best friend has bought The Burson headphone-Dac on my recommendation, but I cannot evaluate it in my system as I need 3 to do that. I favor however as my number one priority "raw reality". I do not want extra space, refinement and so on so it becomes hardware bliss. I want "Live" as Live sounds 90% of the hours I am awake. All the sounds around me ( not before my stereo setup), but talking with friends, my wife and family hearing birds and cars outside and the singers and fiddlers at my dining table in the restaurant and all everything else I hear, I hear the most perfect audio equipment. In fact I told my guests at the table when those singers ( happened in Istanbul last week with Turkish singers singing with Mandolin, violin and drum, going from table to table) appeared at our table, "Be aware, you are listening now to a supreme high end stereo setup of approximate 250.000 dollars if there is one so pure and life like".
What is missing then? All studio gimmicks, over emphasizing detail and micro detail, no edginess, not the slightest suggestion. It is organic in a "soft" way. It does not sound at all "expensive" It is so natural and common, most naive ppl will be very disappointed to hear exactly that, coming from a stereo in some expensive shop. No HiFi, No high end, just boring normal ( ehh ok I exaggerate a bit) And above all, all sounds even high pitch ones are in strange way grounded. It is not angelic but "earthly". This is what I also read in between the lines of Ebaen's review of the Burson audio HA-160D and it is also the reason I cannot live with electrostatics anymore ( I had the 6 feet tall Martin Logan's Quest for 6 years, before I sold them)
Jplay gives me more of this normality then i ever heard from CD or computer and I felt the first 10 minutes a bit frustrated I was loosing my taken for granted high-endishness of the sound and at the same time, more blackness, a much better bass, more details, embedded voices became separated from the lead singer, more extra tone fluctuations within a tone, it all opened up.

I will post my findings of the Buron's But I can only buy them in September, must save a few months to buy 3

charmerci · « **Reply #9 on:** 11 Jul 2011, 05:28 pm »

I assume the above doesn't matter (using JPlayer, etc.) if you are just sending the digital signal out to a DAC.

srb · « **Reply #10 on:** 11 Jul 2011, 06:14 pm »

Quote from: charmerci on 11 Jul 2011, 05:28 pm

I assume the above doesn't matter (using JPlayer, etc.) if you are just sending the digital signal out to a DAC.

Sure, it applies whether using an internal soundcard or digital out via S/PDIF, USB or FireWire to a DAC. Different software music players do have different sound qualities, and the sound can often be even further improved by taking advantage of some player's features like playback from RAM or (on the Windows platform) the ability to select Windows mixer-bypassing drivers like WASAPI or ASIO.

Steve

Arizona Dan · « **Reply #11 on:** 12 Jul 2011, 03:12 am »

I downloaded Pureplayer and compared it to Jplay. They both sound terrific. I only listed to two songs, and I am not sure if I could pass a blind test of picking between the two. Both are very good.

I do need some education on the topic though - shouldn't it be an easy task for the player to feed the ones and zero to the dac without altering anything. Aren't we asking the player to do basically nothing - just give us the data. Maybe there is more to it. I do not have a software background.

Dan

P.S. Thanks for the suggestion on PurePlayer.

earplay · « **Reply #12 on:** 12 Jul 2011, 08:53 pm »

Quote from: firedog on 11 Jul 2011, 12:13 pm

Hi-
Tried JPlay....

How does it sound? Good! Different. Music sounded like it came from a blacker background, with nothing around it. Sort of stark sounding. I could hear some background instruments like cymbals more clearly. Never had the sound as good as this from this Windows machine. But I'm not sure it's "better" or "more accurate" or "more natural" sounding than what I usually listen to.

But based on SQ only, I'd be interested in auditioning it more and trying to decide which sound I like best. However, from a POV of convenience, picking tracks to play, switching selections, etc. - it just doesn't cut it. Part of the fun of CA for me is the ability to do just those things. Without that user interface part of the enjoyment of listening is lost. And it's not made up for by a (possible) small improvement in SQ.

But the ideas here are clearly worth developing for Windows and other machines. Most minimal processes possible on PC - better sound.

Completely agree. It is obvious that JPlay was developed by audiophiles. It sounds great. These audiophiles must also be computer geeks. The "kludginess" of JPlay offsets the convenience factor of CA.

What are those commands again? Where did they go? Oh, if I just scroll up. OOOPS! No go.

And those messages that are cut off by the window width and the inability to scroll over. JPlay looks and behaves like a college project. Sounds great, but not worth 99e to me until it overcomes basic interface issues.

And what the heck is an "unrecognized AIFF format"?

Still, it sounds so good that I'll keep my eye and ear on it. When it exhibits the fundamental convenience values that attracted me to CA, I'll definitely buy.

kyrill · « **Reply #13 on:** 13 Jul 2011, 12:53 pm »

Hi

I am bit closer to some understanding
I took out my laptop one floor upstairs to my HT room, with a normal NAD dolby receiver which I feed from a blue ray player inputting a JVC HD 1 projector. I am very content about PQ.

Anyway, out of curiosity i tested the spdif in of the receiver just to find ot how a "perfect" source would sound on my NAD and my KEF speakers.

Very very nice but much less than in my "serious " music installation.
Then I played with Pureplayer and could not really hear a difference, they sounded both splendid, although a bit more depth and bass from the Jplay, but not worth the price difference between free and costs. Then I took the line conditioner out of the system which cleaned the wall socket current and....
I was shocked how normal, fuzzy flat and electrolytic the sound became. Now I could not hear the difference between any FM radio broadcasting, Jplay, Pureplayer or just Foobar without any of them

Josef · « **Reply #14 on:** 13 Jul 2011, 01:42 pm »

hi earplay - i'm the author of jplay (together with my friend marcin)

i'd love to have a look at that aiff file - we tested with iTunes on windows only so perhaps it's coming from mac?

we appreciate all feedback and are especially responsive to any issues both from customers and 'evaluators' but please either post on jplay.eu/forum or contact us directly at support@jplay.eu - we do not want to misuse this forum for what could be misconstrued as an attempt at free marketing so before i get a warning from admin let me just address your other points and i'd stop posting here....

tnx for your kind words regarding jplay's superior sound quality: as you correctly surmised we're both fanatical audiophiles (well, marcin probably even more than me, lol) and i happen to have decades of software engineering experience but i don't do that anymore as i've gotten sick of programming - however, my love of music and my frustration with sound quality from existing pc players compelled me to code again after many years just to be able to enjoy music from pc as a source...

that's why we don't care much for gui - it's a lot of work to build a really good gui and i don't want to make something that looks inferior - worse, it does not contribute to sound quality in fact it is detrimental so it's no fun at all...

we understand that some people demand a gui and maybe we'll build something some day - but not before we're satisfied that we've gotten the most out of pc as a digital transport which is our number #1 #2 & #3 goal...
we also clearly state on our web site faq that only people whose number #1 #2 & #3 priority is sound quality should try jplay and we give a free 'try before you buy' fully functioning version so people can listen and make up their own mind...jplay simply ain't for everyone and that is ok with us...

we both have day jobs and this is just a hobby - we do believe though that what we made is quite unique in its own right (e.g. Hibernate mode with Overdrive) so we've decided to share it with others and hopefully learn from experiences on much wider range of both low-end and especially high-end equipment so ultimately we can selfishly increase our own enjoyment of music

...that's all there is to it...

hope to see you post that aiff file somewhere (it's enough to just cut & send first MB or two) so we can investigate and make jplay better!

cheers,
Josef

Aleg · « **Reply #15 on:** 13 Jul 2011, 02:34 pm »

Quote from: kyrill on 13 Jul 2011, 12:53 pm

...Then I took the line conditioner out of the system which cleaned the wall socket current and....
I was shocked how normal, fuzzy flat and electrolytic the sound became. Now I could not hear the difference between any FM radio broadcasting, Jplay, Pureplayer or just Foobar without any of them

Man, have you got dirty mains.
I would emigrate for that

-
aleg

earplay · « **Reply #16 on:** 13 Jul 2011, 02:39 pm »

Josef,

Thank you for JPlay! When I wrote my earlier message I was very irritated by events completely unrelated to Jplay, but some of that irritation spilled over into my comments.

After I posted my comments here yesterday, I decided that the trial version of JPlay is now my main music player, even though it lacks the convenience of a gui interface and even though it stops playback regularly. JPlay is so natural sounding that I won't go back to iTunes, despite iTunes convenience. (And you can quote me on that.)

I'll send you the .aiff file that JPlay didn't recognize. Also, I'll send along my comments on your forum. I think there are a couple of things you can do to improve the interface without going gui, but I am unfamiliar with technical limitations of computer programming.

Thank you for your thoughtful and kind reply. I'm coming to the view that JPlay is worth 99e for the sound quality. What other audio system change can yield so much improvement for so little money?

Best wishes,
earplay

kyrill · « **Reply #17 on:** 13 Jul 2011, 03:06 pm »

Hi Josef Welcome on this rich forum
========
I cannot help it

I am so enthusiastic
I tried last night for the first time HD content 96/24 and wow now the program even more distanced itself from not using it. Chick Corea "Light as a feather" sounds so much more "present" albeit as a studio recording
Ah well I will stop now

It is that good I want to relisten all my redbook and HD again
I met a lot of problems in the beginning with Karspersky Anti virus without knowing it was Kaspersky. After I "killed" Kaspersky, all problems were gone.

earplay · « **Reply #18 on:** 14 Jul 2011, 02:03 am »

Aleg,

I tried Pureplayer, but found it didn't play .aiff files. My entire music library is in .aiff format, so Pureplayer is not suitable for me.

The reason I use .aiff files is because they place less processing demands on the system. There is no need for the system to un-compress the files.

In addition, I just read somewhere, I think on AC, that some people hear a difference between .aiff files and non-lossy compressed files, such as flac, Apple Lossless, etc. The .aiff files being superior and more natural sounding.

Since disk space is so cheap, I don't see any reason to compress for my main music library. By the way, I use a Mercury drive. After researching computer geekdom, that brand of drive was generally considered most reliable, despite published mtbf claims.

Best wishes, earplay

Aleg · « **Reply #19 on:** 14 Jul 2011, 02:53 pm »

Quote from: earplay on 14 Jul 2011, 02:03 am

Aleg,

I tried Pureplayer, but found it didn't play .aiff files. My entire music library is in .aiff format, so Pureplayer is not suitable for me.

The reason I use .aiff files is because they place less processing demands on the system. There is no need for the system to un-compress the files.

In addition, I just read somewhere, I think on AC, that some people hear a difference between .aiff files and non-lossy compressed files, such as flac, Apple Lossless, etc. The .aiff files being superior and more natural sounding.

Since disk space is so cheap, I don't see any reason to compress for my main music library. By the way, I use a Mercury drive. After researching computer geekdom, that brand of drive was generally considered most reliable, despite published mtbf claims.

Best wishes, earplay

Hi Earplay

I support your viewpoint that non-compressed lossless may sound better.

If want to try PurePlayer you could, for a try-out, convert a few of your aiff to wav or uncompressed flac. The latter is just plain pcm in a flac container without any compression. dBPoweramp could do both conversions for you while keeping any tags, you might have, in both formats.

And if you really like it better dBPoweramp could do a batch convert of your whole library without any assistance from your side

-
Aleg