Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: J River Vs. Foobar (Read 27311 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

J River Vs. Foobar

There are a lot of folks who think J River($45) has superior sound to any other program out there. If you check out Computer Audiophiles's opinion, they certainly do. However I've closely compared the two programs and I cannot detect any difference in sound quality between J River($45) and Foobar(free). I don't have the top of the line external DAC (HeadRoom Micro DAC), but it is a good one. You can download J River's full program for free to audition for 30 days. Then you gotta pay up. I was wondering if anyone else has tried this. J River has lots of bells and whistles, but I cannot justify paying for a program that has no improvement in audio quality. After J River's free trial is over, I will be deleting it.
Thanks,
Chris

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #1 –
I'd check out their/his opinion if it had any merit, and by merit I mean:
8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

Now maybe there is something worth $45 in the program for some people, but "superior sound" will never be realized.

FWIW, I would also consider taking the same approach regarding the notion of what constitutes a top of the line DAC in terms of audible sound quality.

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #2 –
Quote from: ChrisMini on
There are a lot of folks who think J River($45) has superior sound to any other program out there.


The world is full of people who believe all sorts of crazy things.

Quote
If you check out Computer Audiophiles's opinion, they certainly do.


Talk about the world being full of people who believe all sorts of crazy things. There is a gigantic pile of what seems to be exactly that.

Most of this weirdness is due to badly designed and run listening evaluations.

Quote
However I've closely compared the two programs and I cannot detect any difference in sound quality between J River($45) and Foobar(free).


How did you do your comparison?


Quote
I don't have the top of the line external DAC (HeadRoom Micro DAC), but it is a good one.


Where does it say in JRiver's documentation that only a select few DACs are suitable for use with it?


Quote
You can download J River's full program for free to audition for 30 days. Then you gotta pay up. I was wondering if anyone else has tried this. J River has lots of bells and whistles, but I cannot justify paying for a program that has no improvement in audio quality. After J River's free trial is over, I will be deleting it.


The 30 day trial is IME  a common ruse to get people to placebo themselves into expensive toys.

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #3 –
Money-saving tip - the Pono desktop software is, at heart, JRiver, only with a few differences like integration with the Pono Store. And it's free.

I installed it a few weeks ago, partly just to play with it, but also because I like a second media player with a more graphic interface than Foobar. I find myself selecting different music when I'm browsing by image. I used to do it with WMP, but it doesn't do FLAC and has been playing up for a while now anyway.

It is slower to read my library folders than Foobar, but then isn't pretty much anything?

Lots of options for personalisation and it comes with a few skins preloaded too. The standard skin is very black and some of the alternatives are more legible. I haven't explored all of its capabilities (ripping/converting etc.), but as a media player, it is pretty good.

I only have FLAC, WMA Lossless and MP3 files in my library, so I can't say if it works perfectly with every format. As for sound, I don't expect any difference, as both Pono and Foobar are set up to output the same way to my DAC.

But as it is free, why pay for JRiver?

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #4 –
"The Pono Music World software is a special, limited version of JRiver Media Center.  Unlike JRiver Media Center, it includes just audio, and some features have been removed." ©

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #5 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
"The Pono Music World software is a special, limited version of JRiver Media Center.  Unlike JRiver Media Center, it includes just audio, and some features have been removed." ©

Well I use VLC for video replay, so I didn't spot that Pono doesn't do video. I didn't think to add my video folder to the library.

As for the other removed features, I wonder what they are, as it seems a pretty complete player from what I can see.

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #6 –
JRiver MC is good in that it has some pretty advanced options, for instance it does audio resampling like ReClock does. ReClock is free itself, but there's something to be said about an all-in-one media center with such advanced options. That feature is for video though. I think it also uses LAV filters, its developer works or worked with them, and he's great. It's a shame that they muddy the waters by catering to audiophoolia as well.

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #7 –
Quote from: JabbaThePrawn on
But as it is free, why pay for JRiver?


Is it?
I downloaded it and the software says it expires on 1 sept 2015 so I expect one has to buy something at Pono.
TheWellTemperedComputer.com

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #9 –
I personally cannot hear a difference between the JRiver media center and foobar2000 core outputs.  That does not mean I regret purchasing JRMC.  JRMC is far more full featured than foobar2000.  Foobar2000 is perfectly good if you're counting your nickles.  However, since so few people actually donate money to support foobar2000, its support forums are a mere shadow of JRMC's.  Foobar2000's software feels positively disjointed compared to JRMC.  While some people may applaud the type of business model followed by foobar2000, in reality the customers of that type of business tend to treat the businesses with contempt.  On the other hand, by requiring people to actually pay something for their product, JRMC is able to keep evolving and refining their product.

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Thirsty on
While some people may applaud the type of business model followed by foobar2000, in reality the customers of that type of business tend to treat the businesses with contempt.

Really?  I can assure you that no one on this forum treats foobar2000 or anyone involved with it with contempt.

You can't hear a difference because there isn't one.  Use JRMC because you like it; no other reason is needed.

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Thirsty on
While some people may applaud the type of business model followed by foobar2000, in reality the customers of that type of business tend to treat the businesses with contempt.


The only one who seems to be treating Foobar2000 or it's community with any sort of contempt is you.

I find it to be rather elegant in its design, yet powerful in the hands of a dedicated user. Quod Libet, my player of choice on Linux, is similar in this regard. Both are incredibly powerful for managing a collection of music, if you take the time to learn the settings. You obviously prefer a different user experience and development model.

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Thirsty on
I personally cannot hear a difference between the JRiver media center and foobar2000 core outputs.  That does not mean I regret purchasing JRMC.  JRMC is far more full featured than foobar2000.



As foobar2000 is vastly user-configurable, I find your claim hard to believe.  But I've never used JRiver; from what I've seen written about it, it's surrounded by a cloud of audiophile bullsh*t.


Quote
Foobar2000 is perfectly good if you're counting your nickles.  However, since so few people actually donate money to support foobar2000, its support forums are a mere shadow of JRMC's.  Foobar2000's software feels positively disjointed compared to JRMC.  While some people may applaud the type of business model followed by foobar2000, in reality the customers of that type of business tend to treat the businesses with contempt.  On the other hand, by requiring people to actually pay something for their product, JRMC is able to keep evolving and refining their product.



And yet foobar2k  has gone through how many versions now?


Foobar2k support forums here are active and have been useful to a great many, me included.

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #13 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Thirsty on
I personally cannot hear a difference between the JRiver media center and foobar2000 core outputs.  That does not mean I regret purchasing JRMC.  JRMC is far more full featured than foobar2000.



As foobar2000 is vastly user-configurable, I find your claim hard to believe.  But I've never used JRiver; from what I've seen written about it, it's surrounded by a cloud of audiophile bullsh*t.


Quote
Foobar2000 is perfectly good if you're counting your nickles.  However, since so few people actually donate money to support foobar2000, its support forums are a mere shadow of JRMC's.  Foobar2000's software feels positively disjointed compared to JRMC.  While some people may applaud the type of business model followed by foobar2000, in reality the customers of that type of business tend to treat the businesses with contempt.  On the other hand, by requiring people to actually pay something for their product, JRMC is able to keep evolving and refining their product.



And yet foobar2k  has gone through how many versions now?


Foobar2k support forums here are active and have been useful to a great many, me included.


They're not really direct competitors.  Jriver is a commercial media center package with an iTunes-like interface, DVD/Blu-ray ripping and cataloging, DVR, DLNA, library streaming, and so on...  It does have very full-featured audio support, with built-in DSP's, room correction, EQ, PEQ, VST support, etc.  The interface is probably a lot easier for most people to grasp, but I doubt it can do anything on the audio side that Foobar2k can't do with plugins.

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #14 –
Quote from: theriverlethe on
They're not really direct competitors.  Jriver is a commercial media center package with an iTunes-like interface, DVD/Blu-ray ripping and cataloging, DVR, DLNA, library streaming, and so on...  It does have very full-featured audio support, with built-in DSP's, room correction, EQ, PEQ, VST support, etc.  The interface is probably a lot easier for most people to grasp, but I doubt it can do anything on the audio side that Foobar2k can't do with plugins.



So, JRiver prepackages features an f2k user can simply and optionally build into f2k via plugins.  And it charges for that service.


f2K plays *everything* I throw at it --  lossy, lossless, 2 channel, multichannel, PCM, DSD -- and via the WASAPI plugin it's bit-perfect digital audio out to my AVR. Plus I can configure how it looks and what information it shows me. All 'for free'. 

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Thirsty on
I personally cannot hear a difference between the JRiver media center and foobar2000 core outputs.  That does not mean I regret purchasing JRMC.  JRMC is far more full featured than foobar2000.  Foobar2000 is perfectly good if you're counting your nickles.  However, since so few people actually donate money to support foobar2000, its support forums are a mere shadow of JRMC's.  Foobar2000's software feels positively disjointed compared to JRMC.  While some people may applaud the type of business model followed by foobar2000, in reality the customers of that type of business tend to treat the businesses with contempt.  On the other hand, by requiring people to actually pay something for their product, JRMC is able to keep evolving and refining their product.


The phrase "Jriver fanboy" keep running through my mind.

Both products seem to be evolving.

For some strange reason the ABX Comparator in FB2K gets a lot of use by me.

Jriver has no such thing, right?

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #16 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: theriverlethe on
They're not really direct competitors.  Jriver is a commercial media center package with an iTunes-like interface, DVD/Blu-ray ripping and cataloging, DVR, DLNA, library streaming, and so on...  It does have very full-featured audio support, with built-in DSP's, room correction, EQ, PEQ, VST support, etc.  The interface is probably a lot easier for most people to grasp, but I doubt it can do anything on the audio side that Foobar2k can't do with plugins.
  So, JRiver prepackages features an f2k user can simply and optionally build into f2k via plugins.  And it charges for that service.  f2K plays *everything* I throw at it --  lossy, lossless, 2 channel, multichannel, PCM, DSD -- and via the WASAPI plugin it's bit-perfect digital audio out to my AVR. Plus I can configure how it looks and what information it shows me. All 'for free'.


I like it better when features are native. When user has to customize software through 3rd party plug-ins there's always chance for problems. Couple examples of poblems I have to deal with:

- WASAPI output component crashes fb2k in certain situations, WASAPI process stays active even after closing fb2k ... still maintained component?

- foo_vst component crashes fb2k when loading certain plug-ins ... still maintained component?

I don't use JRMC but do have use for foobar2000 to play FLAC files (probably not in W10 anymore).

My output path goes through virtual audio cable which is either VB-Audio's Voicemeeter Banana or DDMF's VAS if I need VST support. Among all other nice features, Banana has build in multichannel PEQ and allows to use ASIO output. DDMF VAS is simplier vac but the bundle includes EffectRack (VST rack) software (+ recorder) which I find very useful (DDMF also have a VST plug-in host called "Metaplugin" I use quite often (similar hosts are Mutools MUX and Image-Line Minihost Modular)).




J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Thirsty on
I personally cannot hear a difference between the JRiver media center and foobar2000 core outputs.  That does not mean I regret purchasing JRMC.  JRMC is far more full featured than foobar2000.  Foobar2000 is perfectly good if you're counting your nickles.  However, since so few people actually donate money to support foobar2000, its support forums are a mere shadow of JRMC's.  Foobar2000's software feels positively disjointed compared to JRMC.  While some people may applaud the type of business model followed by foobar2000, in reality the customers of that type of business tend to treat the businesses with contempt.  On the other hand, by requiring people to actually pay something for their product, JRMC is able to keep evolving and refining their product.


The phrase "Jriver fanboy" keep running through my mind.

Both products seem to be evolving.

For some strange reason the ABX Comparator in FB2K gets a lot of use by me.

Jriver has no such thing, right?


I haven't found one, though I'm not aware of any technical reason preventing a plugin from being written.

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #18 –
Quote from: Roseval on
Quote from: JabbaThePrawn on
But as it is free, why pay for JRiver?


Is it?
I downloaded it and the software says it expires on 1 sept 2015 so I expect one has to buy something at Pono.

Just resurrecting this thread to say I've got an email (with download links) reminding me that the current version is about to expire. I'll post again if they try to charge for it. If the new version is still free, it is worth trying out.

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #19 –
JRiver has some interesting tweaks that can be done to it.  I like the stereo imaging, but realistically, there's no difference between foobar and JRiver if you choose to use none of their plugins.  JRiver gives you a free trial to play around with their plugins so you know if they're right for you.  I've supported them in the past, but they are not my go-to player.
foobar2000, FLAC, and qAAC -V90
It just works people!

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #20 –
Quote from: Meeko on
JRiver has some interesting tweaks that can be done to it.  I like the stereo imaging, but realistically, there's no difference between foobar and JRiver if you choose to use none of their plugins.  JRiver gives you a free trial to play around with their plugins so you know if they're right for you.  I've supported them in the past, but they are not my go-to player.


What do you mean by "stereo imaging?"  Are you talking about the crossfeed plugins?

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #21 –
Quote from: Meeko on
JRiver has some interesting tweaks that can be done to it.  I like the stereo imaging, but realistically, there's no difference between foobar and JRiver if you choose to use none of their plugins.  JRiver gives you a free trial to play around with their plugins so you know if they're right for you.  I've supported them in the past, but they are not my go-to player.


You know that f2k has an extensive array of DSP plugins too, right? And that there's no difference in 'stereo imaging' in the two apps unless you are altering it in one of them?

J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #22 –
That stereo imaging one was like a widener effect on jriver (you have to enable it)--works decently on headphones on some albums.  I think it was like "medium stereo enhancement" or whatever.  I've been using foobar for years and know that they've got good plugins too but I've not always had success in configuring plugins to get the sound I like (Dolby headphone for example) whereas I just click a button with some others and the effect is to my liking.  Guess it depends totally on my mood--do I want to tinker around under the hood today or do I just want to click and go?  That would also be a consideration when choosing players.
foobar2000, FLAC, and qAAC -V90
It just works people!

Re: J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #23 –
I used foobar for a very, very long time.

when i found jriver i never looked back.  it makes fb2k look like a toy.  really it does. and now with the MCUtils, the tagging , playlists, all video and audio file, pictures, documents.. very well designed room correction/eq, vst hosting.  really. fb2k isn't even in the same galaxy.

im not married to any app. ill drop em like a bad habit when something better comes along. right now jriver is best of the best
No.

Re: J River Vs. Foobar

Reply #24 –
Quote from: theoctavist on
when i found jriver i never looked back.  it makes fb2k look like a toy.  really it does. and now with the MCUtils, the tagging , playlists, all video and audio file, pictures, documents.. very well designed room correction/eq, vst hosting.  really. fb2k isn't even in the same galaxy.
But, does it read mail? foobar2000 was never intended to be a program which does everything.

Quote from: theoctavist on
im not married to any app. ill drop em like a bad habit when something better comes along. right now jriver is best of the best
Fine. everyone as he pleases. :D
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.