I'm not endorsing anything, but I don't see the "shoddy programming" angle. I would expect a plugin that claims to enhance sound quality to work exactly as it does. If it didn't bypass the audio sections of fb2k2(or iTunes or JRiver any other player that it integrates with) then it couldn't make that claim even if it wanted to.
* Pure Music handles all music playback* iTunes acts as database, playlist organizer, etc. but doesn't play the music
I'm not endorsing anything, but I don't see the "shoddy programming" angle.
There are a number of similar programs that exist for the Mac that work similarly with iTunes. Pure Music is just one of them.Quote* Pure Music handles all music playback* iTunes acts as database, playlist organizer, etc. but doesn't play the musicjplay appears to work the same as these, except on the Windows platform with several of the popular Windows audio players. I haven't used Pure Music or jplay and I don't care to. I'm just saying that it's not a new concept.
Ooops! JimH, I did not mean to exclude you from what I (and no doubt many others) consider to be applications of the highest quiality that seem to be exploited by jplay. Glad to see you defending your IP. It appears the jplay splash page has been changed to remove logos, but replaced with text referencing Foobar2000 and JRiver, so both applications continue to be mocked and exploited.Perhaps more substantially, there are several significant claims made on the jplay website claiming "integration" with Foobar2000 and JRiver and providing capabilities to overcome claimed deficiencies. To the extent use of any terms or claims are defined in any SDK or licensing terms (I'm not an attorney or software developer), I would find it very hard to believe that jplay would meet a reasonable standard for true integration given what it does and does not.In thinking about trends, I think computer-based media mangement and playback will only increase, and I would expect others to also exploit the Foobar2000 and JRiver brands to make a fast buck in a manner that will hurt the Foobar2000 and JRiver brands. I hope both Foobar2000 and JRiver have or acquire the ability to claim meaningful control over components or plug-ins to your applications and retain the right to essentially ban crapware tie-ins. Again, I'm no attorney, but I've been involved in enough business disputes in the U.S. that involve IP that under certain conditions IP rights not defended can be lost, and I'd hate to see that happen to Foobar2000 or JRiver. From my experience, I'd look closely at leveraging the concept of "derivative works" in evaluating jplay and similar and your rights. I'm also aware of the risk that if those in your positions give too much attention to marginal operations like jplay you could inadvertently give crapware providers a boost, so a case-by-case decision process seems prudent.
Indeed - it’s a valid question but I hope you can see why we can’t use that approach: simply because we claim that music played via jplay sounds better!
Sure, you may say that is an ‘extraordinary’ claim and I can understand that it sounds ‘strange’ (to say the least, lol). If bits are untouched, that is, ‘bit-perfect’, just how in the world can they sound ‘better’ when played via software A as opposed to software B? Makes no sense, right?
In fact, I believe this forum specifically prohibits any discussion on sound quality so I hope you’ll understand why I will refrain from opening that topic?
But I had to mention this claim as otherwise I would not be able to address your concerns:Simply put, ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof’: Well, you see, if we claim that software can influence sound quality then the only way to support (or, indeed, refute!) such ‘extraordinary’ claim is to let people play some music and judge for themselves!
And that, in a nutshell, is why we can’t use ‘dsp plugin’ approach: because we do NOT, I repeat, do NOT, modify music bits in any way! In other words, if we had a dsp plugin that simply passes same bits back to Foobar then THAT would be a scam indeed!
And does it ‘violate’ sdk license? No freaking way….
Jim, we do no such thing: as mentioned above the bits are ‘left alone’ because that’s how I like them, thank you very much.
Look, no wonder you (and others) are sceptical – Let me assure you, I was _extremely_ sceptical of this myself! I happen to have several decades of software development experience too (yes, I’m that old, lol): to me ‘bits are bits’ was as much a tautology before jplay (actually before XXHighEnd, to give credit where credit’s due) as it is to you now so I do know where you’re coming from and I sympathize…
All I say is listen for yourself: I trust you are intelligent enough to form your own opinion: I have no wish to convince you of anything – In fact, I don’t care if you don’t use it or don’t like it or don’t hear the difference at all – I even wouldn’t care if nobody bought it and I’d have to close website tomorrow: it’s not my day job, it’s just a passion…
we claim that music played via jplay sounds better![...]In fact, I believe this forum specifically prohibits any discussion on sound quality so I hope you’ll understand why I will refrain from opening that topic?
But I had to mention this claim
So, what do you say: Are things a bit clearer now and can we have a civilized discussion and exchange arguments pro et contra in a respectful manner?Or is it too late and lynching mentality has completely taken over this forum?
(I'd rather address you by name but it's ok if you want to hide it)
Db1989 – Why such aggressive, condescending and mocking tone?
Do you honestly believe that it contributes to discussion?
If 1989 is year of your birth I could be your father, for Christ’s sakes…
Not sure what you mean: If I said to you that thousands of people have downloaded fully functional free trial, tested it (blind or not I have no way of knowing) and hundreds decided to buy would that qualify as ‘proffer’?
Or are you suggesting that hundreds of people from all over the world are all foolish idiots?
> Passing the same bits merely by another method. in contrast, is definitely worth 99 EUR.Come on - That is really uncalled for…I see now you never even tried it yet for some reason you bash it so passionately – go figure...Because if you did you would see that there are quite a few options that affect what is going on in pc during playback.
If you are suggesting that those options are some sort of ‘fake cover’ please provide evidence or stop embarrassing yourself with such ill-advised mockery.
> I think that should be left to the developers of said SDK to decide.Wrong.SDK license is a written document supplied with SDK – You can’t ‘decide’ what you want! You need to abide by what is written!BTW Have you actually read it?
>Users are free to listen for themselves, perhaps double-blind if they’re concerned about falling victim to the placebo effect. I wonder what they’d conclude?That is all I’m saying: listen and make up your own mind.[. . .]I’ll be awaiting your findings with great interest!
ok - i see you really don't want to try it yourself at all yet demand 'evidence'...
but now please help me i am really curious (and i really am not trying to be condescending) - can you elaborate what specifically do you mean by 'evidence' and how do you envision it presented to you?
sorry couldn't resist - never mind that
By the way, the fact that people suffer from placebo does not make them idiots
There is a perfectly simple method for establishing that claims of subjectively experienced sound quality improvement are repeatable and based on real differences in the stimulus: it's known as double-blind testing. Reputable vendors use it to test their products.
But ok, ‘measurements’: What would you say if I told you that some people used spectral analyser which did, indeed produce obviously different images between different players playing identical bitstream?
What would you say
Bug80: yes, of course, sounds interesting – what kind of scientific method do you have in mind?