JPLAY - Hi-end audio player for Windows

[alfie2902]

For the last couple of weeks or so, I've been trying out the trial version of a memory based audio player for the Windows 7(or vista) platform, called JPLAY. So far I'm pretty impressed with the sound quality it's a step up on Foobar IMO.

The idea behind JPLAY is ultimate sound quality & it's certainly very good, but to get the extra quality it's a very minimal player at only 250KB & has no GUI, File management or playlist support! Its stripped-down, bare-bones playback engine fits completely inside CPU cache & will allow you to pick tracks from Foobar, JRiver etc by copy & paste method. JPLAY then pre-loads the complete chosen tracks into the PC's RAM guaranteeing zero disk operation during playback. There's a few options to choose from & it's pretty easy to get up & running. One of it's main features is 'hibernation' mode, Your PC is used for audio playback only, this kills all unneeded processes from running in the background during the hibernation. A drawback to this is your PC is locked into hibernation until the chosen tracks have been played i.e no browsing or nothing. Hibernation is an option, so you can choose a little less sound quality to be able to use your PC during playback, but this does kind of defeat the point. You can use the player from a USB memory stick & removing the stick will stop the hibernation if needed.

Here's a link to the website for more info & it's full features. There's 32 & 64bit downloadable trials, it does drop out for a couple of secs every 2 or 3 mins or so but it's good enough to see what it's about! It does though cost 99Euro for a single license of the full version.

JPLAY claims
Full memory-based playback: most other memory-based players dynamically load tracks into memory during playback. In contrast, JPLAY pre-loads complete playlist into RAM guaranteeing no disk activity during playback.
Large Page Memory: superior memory management provides minimal CPU latencies.
Maximum System Timer: reduce operating system latency by making Windows switch tasks faster. (0.5ms instead of default 15.6ms)
Maximal Priority Scheduling: ensure uninterrupted flow of music data by running music playback at highest possible priority.
Hibernation Mode: cancel OS ‘noise’ by eliminating dozens of jitter-inducing processes and hundreds of threads.

http://jplay.eu/

Review here http://www.digitalaudioreview.net.au/index.php/news-blog-and-showcase/audio-news/item/258-jplay-a-digital-audiophile-player-for-windows
It does seem to lift a veil & offers improved low end performance & better separation over what I'm hearing with Foobar, infact as good as I've heard in a player, but at some expense, in cost & ease of use in file management.

Well worth a trial if you use a Windows 7 PC set-up IMO.

[HighFidelityGuy]

Thanks Alfie, I'll give this a try. :thumbsup:

[oldson]

seems a lot of money for very little .
i dont hear any interference whatsoever from my pc.
playback sounds identical to my cdp.

maybe my ears are goosed!?! :)

[Tim]

Thanks Alfie, will give this a try when I have time.

Just for info your link seems broken, so I have found it here:

JPLAY - a digital audiophile player for Windows (http://www.digitalaudioreview.net.au/index.php/news-blog-and-showcase/audio-news/item/258-jplay-a-digital-audiophile-player-for-windows) ;)

[alfie2902]

seems a lot of money for very little .
i dont hear any interference whatsoever from my pc.
playback sounds identical to my cdp.

maybe my ears are goosed!?! :)

I think it works out at £86 or thereabouts.

The trial is free though & there's a 32 & 64 bit version.

I didn't hear any interference or noise with Foobar either Simon, until I took it away using JPLAY! With some recordings the difference is very noticeable there seems to be a much blacker quieter background. The quiet parts seem more delicate which brings a better dymanic swing :)

It's easy to setup & have a play & the trial version as I say is free

[alfie2902]

Thanks Alfie, will give this a try when I have time.

Just for info your link seems broken, so I have found it here:

JPLAY - a digital audiophile player for Windows (http://www.digitalaudioreview.net.au/index.php/news-blog-and-showcase/audio-news/item/258-jplay-a-digital-audiophile-player-for-windows) ;)

Thanks Tim :) I've repaired the link in the OP now.

[jmudrick]

I've switched over from J.River to Jplay. Sound quality is worth the $ and the minor inconveniences. One happy camper here.

[alfie2902]

I've switched over from J.River to Jplay. Sound quality is worth the $ and the minor inconveniences. One happy camper here.

Hi Jeff.

Do you use J.River's file system & just use Jplay as the player over the top?

I've just found out by email that there's a new 3.3a version of Jplay, that's suposed to be another improvement. I've also got some setup tips that i'll post up to if you're interested?

I slightly prefered J.River to Foobar when I had the 30day trial, but didn't think the difference was $50 worth. What improvement do you notice with Jplay over J.River?

[oldson]

I think it works out at £86 or thereabouts.

The trial is free though & there's a 32 & 64 bit version.

I didn't hear any interference or noise with Foobar either Simon, until I took it away using JPLAY! With some recordings the difference is very noticeable there seems to be a much blacker quieter background. The quiet parts seem more delicate which brings a better dymanic swing :)

It's easy to setup & have a play & the trial version as I say is free

i take your point.
but i hear no difference between using my pc or cdp as transport.

i guess i have nothing to lose by trialling it, though.
just hope it is easy to use, as i am not the best on the pc.:scratch:

[John]

Tried to download the trial version but no luck The site pretty poor around resolving such issues

[Alex_UK]

I'm now using jriver Media Jukebox (free, very impressed) - that has an option to play direct from memory. Haven't decided if it makes much difference yet.

[alfie2902]

Tried to download the trial version but no luck The site pretty poor around resolving such issues

I've not had any problems downloading the software, John! It's so small it's an instant download.

What problems are you having?

[alfie2902]

I'm now using jriver Media Jukebox (free, very impressed) - that has an option to play direct from memory. Haven't decided if it makes much difference yet.

Hi Alex,

Try Jplay!, if you like it you can set up an autohotkey (yet to try this) & it will load your selections from J.River into Jplay's playback engine. Could well be the best of both worlds!

[Tim]

Tried to download the trial version but no luck The site pretty poor around resolving such issues
Have you tried downloading the zip file John as it may be your anti-virus? The program is tiny, takes around a second or two to download. Try the links below?

32bit zip file (http://www.jplay.eu/trial/32/jplay.zip)

64bit zip file (http://www.jplay.eu/trial/64/jplay.zip)

I have included both links, depending on your O/S

[Tim]

Been playing around with this tonight and I have to be honest, I cannot hear a difference between my music server using Foobar/WASAPI and the JPlay player. Having said that, my music server is not a normal Windows PC, as it's trimmed down with as many services as possible switched off and it doesn't have a mouse, keyboard or screen or anything else running, like A/V or other software - no fans either and a hard drive which is as good as silent. I would have bought JPlay if there had been an improvement, but for me it didn't change a thing SQ wise and with it's clunky interface it's not a winner compared to what I have already.

I expect other peoples results will differ, especially if they have a standard PC with all the usual bell's and whistles running, which definitely can impact SQ, as I have experienced this myself especially on laptops. However, I reckon for a dedicated music server built and configured for nothing else, it could be redundant. To be honest if you have enough RAM available, all you have to do is run the portable version of Foobar from a RAM drive and you should have the same thing? With Foobar being free, it would be hard for me to justify it's cost under those circumstances. I will play around some more though with hibernation mode and such like, as it would be more power efficient to use JPlay with the PC virtually shutdown, but then you lose the convenience of something like Foobar and playing music for me would become a faff again.

Having said all that, I didn't notice a difference between having an SSD in my server against a mechanical hard drive, so maybe I just have cloth ears :scratch:

What is encouraging though is that software like this is being developed, which can only be a good thing for file based audio. What we need is a free or low cost bare bones Linux distro, which boots a PC and does nothing but play music from RAM with a user friendly interface - only a matter of time and no doubt out there in some form already, waiting to be discovered by the masses? Maybe some on this forum have something similar already ;)

:cool:

[John]

I just get unable to excute lock memory try right clicking on jplay exe and select run as adminstrator
I cammot see how to do this when i do right click I do not see that as a option

[Tim]

I just get unable to excute lock memory try right clicking on jplay exe and select run as adminstrator
I cammot see how to do this when i do right click I do not see that as a option
John, after you got these errors did you try rebooting your PC - also what operating system are you using?

[barry-potter]

a free memory player is cplay but you need to do a bit of 'stripping out' of windows

[colinB]

Tried running this but was told i dont have windows privilege. Maybe i need windows 7 premium.

[Vincent Kars]

Right click on the .EXE and choose Run as Administrator

[John]

I have windows 7

[Ammonite Audio]

What is the technical difference between playing from memory in JRiver Media Center and doing the same in JPlay?

[alfie2902]

Been playing around with this tonight and I have to be honest, I cannot hear a difference between my music server using Foobar/WASAPI and the JPlay player. Having said that, my music server is not a normal Windows PC, as it's trimmed down with as many services as possible switched off and it doesn't have a mouse, keyboard or screen or anything else running, like A/V or other software - no fans either and a hard drive which is as good as silent. I would have bought JPlay if there had been an improvement, but for me it didn't change a thing SQ wise and with it's clunky interface it's not a winner compared to what I have already.

I expect other peoples results will differ, especially if they have a standard PC with all the usual bell's and whistles running, which definitely can impact SQ, as I have experienced this myself especially on laptops. However, I reckon for a dedicated music server built and configured for nothing else, it could be redundant. To be honest if you have enough RAM available, all you have to do is run the portable version of Foobar from a RAM drive and you should have the same thing? With Foobar being free, it would be hard for me to justify it's cost under those circumstances. I will play around some more though with hibernation mode and such like, as it would be more power efficient to use JPlay with the PC virtually shutdown, but then you lose the convenience of something like Foobar and playing music for me would become a faff again.

Having said all that, I didn't notice a difference between having an SSD in my server against a mechanical hard drive, so maybe I just have cloth ears :scratch:

What is encouraging though is that software like this is being developed, which can only be a good thing for file based audio. What we need is a free or low cost bare bones Linux distro, which boots a PC and does nothing but play music from RAM with a user friendly interface - only a matter of time and no doubt out there in some form already, waiting to be discovered by the masses? Maybe some on this forum have something similar already ;)

:cool:

Hi Tim,

Your findings are quite Interesting mate, I suspect your trimmed down windows OS on your music server is already doing some of the things Jplay does!

Did you try the two different playback engines 'Beach' & 'River' by toggling the 'e' key? If so could you detect any difference?

Seems there's already a few similar pieces of software, cMP & cPlay, StealthAudioPlayer & Signalyst HQPlayer. Also there's Fidelizer, an optimisation program for Windows but not a player. I suspect if your server is nicely sorted then perhaps these may not add much, but may be worth a play.

[Tim]

Hi Tim,

Your findings are quite Interesting mate, I suspect your trimmed down windows OS on your music server is already doing some of the things Jplay does!

Did you try the two different playback engines 'Beach' & 'River' by toggling the 'e' key? If so could you detect any difference?

Seems there's already a few similar pieces of software, cMP & cPlay, StealthAudioPlayer & Signalyst HQPlayer. Also there's Fidelizer, an optimisation program for Windows but not a player. I suspect if your server is nicely sorted then perhaps these may not add much, but may be worth a play.
Yes, I think you are right Alfie I'm probably achieving the same result as JPlay anyway. Foobar will play from memory as well if you set the file buffering and I have played with that, but there is a slight delay when it loads the tracks (like JPLay) and as there was no perceived benefit I don't bother anymore. I suspect pretty much all of my file play is handled direct from RAM anyway, without me having to do anything. I have shut down the pagefile and just about everything else too, so nothing gets written back to disc anyway. My server has 4GB RAM and a 64bit O/S and when running only uses around 700MB and that's with an integrated Nvidea ION GPU. Compared to my desktop PC with 8GB of RAM which has 2.5GB in use when I'm just browsing and playing music, so quite a difference and the desktop has it's own 1GB graphics card too. Just looking at the Processes running in Windows Task Manager in normal use, around 30 on the server, 77 on the desktop PC. I also have a Western Digital (EADS) green drive which are suited for low task silent operation and have a different firmware optimisation from general purpose hard drives. These show excellent results with sustained reads but are not so good at random access as they are 5400RPM - it has an onboard 32MB cache buffer as well which I believe reads ahead. I have also partitioned my hard drive, so the music library shouldn't become defragmented and reads remain consistent. The WD EADS drives are very low powered and run cool, mines around 35 degrees C and that's without any fans in the case.

I intended to try some more configurations but to be honest I'm so happy with the results at the moment that I'm more inclined to listen to music that fart around with the O/S anymore.

I have been playing around with JRiver too using WASAPI output and playing from RAM - very good results and with all the benefits JRiver has as a usable media player, it does really make you question the price of JPlay? I opened it up in Notepad++ and had a look, only 1800 lines of code and a portion of those are just plain text instructions for displaying to the end user. At today's exchange rate JPlay is £86.00, JRiver Media Center £30.00 and foobar is free :scratch: I spent yesterday listening to those three players and cannot with my system (and cloth ears) make out any discernable difference in sound quality - they all sounded the same to me. I did have a look at JRiver Jukebox, which does play from RAM but there is no inbuilt WASAPI playback and it didn't sound as good as the other players to me. I didn't try the options for Beach & River, missed that to be honest so will have to try those too - did you notice a difference?

However, playing from RAM with the computer in hibernation is a compelling feature of JPlay, but I don't like the fact that once the music starts you are locked into hibernation until it stops - this would be a major annoyance for me. Also, the fact that people here have tried it and struggled to make it work is likely to be a major drawback for the average computer user and could be a hindrance if people download the trial and have problems. What would be good is a right click Play in JPlay function like foobar and other players have like below;

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w63/greatgig/jplay.png

You select the files, right click them, send them to JPlay where it plays them and automatically enters Hibernation mode - that would be good and worth around $10.00 at the very most as a program. But what I think won't appeal to most people who use file based audio, is the software's inability to browse through your music library and play random selections easily - I think folk like doing that, especially younger music fans. I personally don't think the developer really understands their potential target market and is trying to cash in by tagging it a high-end audio player - snake oil and exploitive IMO, which is symptomatic of the audio market. Its a very simple program and no doubt somebody will dissect it and produce something open-source soon and there are others around as you have discovered. A cynic may say the developer realises this and has priced it accordingly to make a quick buck, before the program becomes superseded by other lower priced or free alternatives.

I like the simplicity but its overpriced (hugely), not very user friendly, a bit too basic and with other cheaper alternatives available I think it could struggle to become popular. I so wanted to like JPlay, but its not a complete product IMO and no better than what's already available. However, my findings are not entirely representative as my player is not an off the shelf product and this would very likely be an improvement for somebody using a laptop. I rather think though that if you have a dedicated music server, it really has no benefit over the other programs mentioned, but the only way to find out is to try it and see - if it makes an £86.00 sound improvement then good, if not buy some more music.

I'm sticking with foobar2000/WASAPI playback for now, but I'll try those others out too when I get a mo :)


Yesterday's listening tests:
Windows7 Pro 64bit
D525 1.8 GHz Intel Atom CPU
4GB RAM
Rega DAC & Beresford Caiman (GATOR)
Mark Grant G1000HD
Albarry PP1/Harbeth SHL5
Matrix M-Stage headamp/Sennheiser HD650

JRiver Media Center/WASAPI played from RAM
foobar2000/WASAPI
JPlay

Music: (a selection from the below albums, all FLAC 16bit/44.1kHz)
Alison Moorer - Miss Fortune
Beethoven Sonatas - Emil Gilels
Eric Bibb - Diamond Days
Jennifer Warnes - The Hunter
Tord Gustavsen Trio - The Ground
Nick Drake - Pink Moon
Alison Krauss & Union Station - Paper Airplane
Peter Gabriel - Security
Van Morrison - Poetic Champions Compose
AC/DC - Black Ice
Mahler 5 - BPO, Simon Rattle
Otis Taylor - Clovis People Vol. 3

[Welder]

Dontcha just love Notepad++. ;)

[Tim]

Dontcha just love Notepad++. ;)
It's a little cracker John :)

[Chippy_boy]

I might be missing something here, but please can someone have a go at trying to explain why on earth streaming a load of bits from disk, into memory all in one go has any remote chance of sounding even a tiny bit different to loading them into memory progressively and streaming them from memory?

To say this is bonkers is an understatement.

[Tim]

I might be missing something here, but please can someone have a go at trying to explain why on earth streaming a load of bits from disk, into memory all in one go has any remote chance of sounding even a tiny bit different to loading them into memory progressively and streaming them from memory?

To say this is bonkers is an understatement.
I think you may have missed the point, it's not so much to do with what you have described above, but more to do with how a typical Windows PC can affect sound quality and trying to isolate as much as that away from the playback of a digital file. It does make a difference, more so on some systems than others - the ideal is to have no processes active at all, other than the music player sending data to a DAC. The simplest way to achieve this is direct from RAM, which is solid state and with no moving parts. It's pretty much an accepted ideal in FBA, which is why programmers are developing this area.

(unless of course I'm missing something too?)

[jmudrick]

What I would say about Jplay is this. If you don't hear a difference, however you run it, don't buy it! That's why they have a trial.

I would guess the observations above about who is mostly likely to get the most out of it are correct. If you've a dedicated server and have already minimized unnecessary services then you may not hear a difference, particularly in non-hibernation mode. I don't have a dedicated server, I just use my HP notebook. With Fidelizer and J.River is sounded quite good. Hibernation mode (with the additional tweaks recommended on the Jplay forum) with Jplay is where I hear a positive difference in clarity, soundstage stability, the usual good stuff you get when you tweak an already good system. It is an extremely simple system to use, and, admittedly enforces a different listening discipline having to listen to your entire queue.I simply copy album tracks using Windows Explorer. I don't mind, I actually find it more relaxing just to put an album on and listening to the whole thing, the way we did with an LP side.

[Chippy_boy]

I think you may have missed the point, it's not so much to do with what you have described above, but more to do with how a typical Windows PC can affect sound quality and trying to isolate as much as that away from the playback of a digital file. It does make a difference, more so on some systems than others - the ideal is to have no processes active at all, other than the music player sending data to a DAC. The simplest way to achieve this is direct from RAM, which is solid state and with no moving parts. It's pretty much an accepted ideal in FBA, which is why programmers are developing this area.

(unless of course I'm missing something too?)

I think you are.

You say, "it's not so much to do with what you have described above, but more to do with how a typical Windows PC can affect sound quality and trying to isolate as much as that away from the playback of a digital file"

The 64,000 dollar question is why or how can background processes or anything else for that matter change the sound of an identical stream of bits. It's illogical, unbelievable and frankly, impossible.

I can see how different digital audio solutions can sound different if for example the word lengths are different, or if sample rate conversion is going on, or something like that. But other than that, on the same PC (with the same digital output and the same oscillators) the same stream of bits into the same dac and amplication and speakers will sound the same. Not only that, it MUST sound the same. The only way it can sound different is if the bits are changed, and there's no way that can be influenced by playing from ram or playing from disk. It is impossible.

I brace myself for the "I know what my ears tell me" brigade to wade in. But I will say in advance, if anyone thinks they can hear such a difference, they are in my opinion deluded. The sound is a function of the digits and jitter and neither of those is influenced one iota by what processes are or are not running on the PC. Nor whether it's read from ram all at once or progressively transferred from disk to ram.

[Welder]

What I suggest Ian is you try out a stripped out laptop against one with all bells and whistles running and see if you can hear any difference.

Not only can I hear a difference between my server and my laptop running the same music player, I think I might even be able to pick one from the other in a blind test and that’s coming from someone with serious objectivist leanings.

[Tim]

Sorry Ian, I'm not going to argue the point with you, we shall have to agree to disagree, but you really are missing the point. The data is the same agreed, it's the playback sound quality that varies as the computer, it's hardware and operating system can (and does) affect the end product. You need to try it for yourself?


The 64,000 dollar question is why or how can background processes or anything else for that matter change the sound of an identical stream of bits. It's illogical, unbelievable and frankly, impossible.
Really..... OK then, you're right of course, it's impossible and I'm very happy to remain a deluded subjectivist.

[Ken Moreland]

Here's today's review in highfidelity.pl http://www.highfidelity.pl/@main-972&lang= . Read it in the original or use Google translate.

KM

[Vincent Kars]

The 64,000 dollar question is why or how can background processes or anything else for that matter change the sound of an identical stream of bits. It's illogical, unbelievable and frankly, impossible.


Bits are bits.
But PCM audio is not only bits but also a time step (sample rate).
This is a matter of a clock driving the sound card or the SPDIF out.
Perfect playback is bit perfect and timing perfect.

http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Pictures/Software/util/RMAA_THD.JPG
This is my laptop running on AC

http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Pictures/Software/util/RMAA_THD_Battery.JPG
This is the same laptop running on DC.
When running on DC the power saving kicks in.
In both cases the same bits are send but the timing is obvious influenced by the hardware

A bit more about PCM: http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/BitPerfectJitter.htm

[Gints]

Does this one can be an alternative to a computer with specialized audio player? Noiseless and small, not too expensive. Not sure about software. Any thoughts or info about it?
http://www.hllyhifi.com/aune-mini-wav-ape-flac-player-24bit-192k-dac-p-283.html

[Stratmangler]

Does this one can be an alternative to a computer with specialized audio player? Noiseless and small, not too expensive. Not sure about software. Any thoughts or info about it?
http://www.hllyhifi.com/aune-mini-wav-ape-flac-player-24bit-192k-dac-p-283.html

Can't see that it does anything a Squeezebox Touch can do.
A Squeezebox Touch is less expensive too.

[Spur07]

I was sorely tempted by the Touch when it first arrived but I've read it still doesn't quite stand comparison with a computer based transport.

Have you ever had the chance to compare the two chris?

[Stratmangler]

I was sorely tempted by the Touch when it first arrived but I've read it still doesn't quite stand comparison with a computer based transport.

Have you ever had the chance to compare the two chris?

I was running a SB3 before Touch came out - it's now in my son's bedroom.
I have had none of the problems with the Touch that others have posted. There again I could have been classed as an old hand regarding Squeezebox streaming.

As far as comparing the Touch with a dedicated computer transport, well, I have a laptop, and it has USB connections.
I have a Caiman with a USB input.
Do things sound better using Foobar on the laptop than they do using the Touch/Caiman ?
No.
There again, the connection can only be 16/48 maximum.

I've also used Foobar with my EMU0202 USB, and that will run at 24/192 (proprietory drivers).
And I have a couple of DVD-Audio discs that have 24/192 content.
Does that sound any better than the Touch/Caiman ?
No.

The Squeezebox route works very well here, and for 2 locations in the house.

If you want to know what it's like from another member's prespective, and he is a total newbie with Squeezebox Touch, ask Dave the Bass. I think he is a member here, although he doesn't post much.

[Chippy_boy]

Bits are bits.
But PCM audio is not only bits but also a time step (sample rate).
This is a matter of a clock driving the sound card or the SPDIF out.
Perfect playback is bit perfect and timing perfect.

http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Pictures/Software/util/RMAA_THD.JPG
This is my laptop running on AC

http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Pictures/Software/util/RMAA_THD_Battery.JPG
This is the same laptop running on DC.
When running on DC the power saving kicks in.
In both cases the same bits are send but the timing is obvious influenced by the hardware

A bit more about PCM: http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/BitPerfectJitter.htm

I don't know what we are looking at there mate, unless it's analogue output from your laptop.

If you are suggesting it's the THD plot derived from a digital output, I'd better not say anything else for the risk of causing offence.

[Gints]

Can't see that it does anything a Squeezebox Touch can do.
A Squeezebox Touch is less expensive too.

A Squeezebox Touch looks for me more like a gadget, not a piece of audio equipment, but you are right, it cost about the same and do the same. And they are not only ones. That is why not cleary understand JPLAY and for what are they charging. 100 euro is not a little money. It is like a buying a hundreds pound worth audio cable. Is it better just because of software? So, there is nothing to do with actual computer hardware, good or not so good? Then Touch and similar things must be better than any computer because they already running minimal necessary processes and playing from memory. If JPLAY is so good software, they should look for a partner to make a good dedicated piece of audio. Personally I still looking what can replace my computer for playing audio files. A dedicated computer for audio it is like going to opera in a truck.

[Stratmangler]

A Squeezebox Touch looks for me more like a gadget, not a piece of audio equipment

I don't listen with my eyes, and badges don't impress me much either.


That is why not cleary understand JPLAY and for what are they charging. 100 euro is not a little money. It is like a buying a hundreds pound worth audio cable.Is it better just because of software?

Is it actually better at all ?

[alfie2902]

The SB Touch is a great bit of kit no doubt & infact sounds better into my Young Dac than my Laptop running Foobar into my Young Dac which I didn't expect & this is why I experimented with Jplay in the first place. The laptop running Jplay sounds quite a bit better than my SB Touch IMO, enough so that the Touch is now in my bedroom set-up!

[Spur07]

That's what put me off the Touch, the fact that there still seemed to be some way to go with computer based transport - people keep eeking more and more out of it with various software interfaces and spdif converters, eliminating issues of jitter, etc. For me there just seems to be a bit more versatility in computer based set ups at the moment, it gives you the option of adopting a sort of wait and see approach. Although I'm aware there is a lot of scope with regards to modding the SB.

[Stratmangler]

That's what put me off the Touch, the fact that there still seemed to be some way to go with computer based transport - people keep eeking more and more out of it with various software interfaces and spdif converters, eliminating issues of jitter, etc. For me there just seems to be a bit more versatility in computer based set ups at the moment, it gives you the option of adopting a sort of wait and see approach. Although I'm aware there is a lot of scope with regards to modding the SB.

You could view some of the software mods for what they are - DSP, or in other words sophisticated tone controls.
And then ask the question "what degree of manipulation does it take to make the music sound better than the original ?".
That's what some of the software mods are doing with the Squeezebox, and it could well be true for software players too.

[alfie2902]

You could view some of the software mods for what they are - DSP, or in other words sophisticated tone controls.
And then ask the question "what degree of manipulation does it take to make the music sound better than the original ?".
That's what some of the software mods are doing with the Squeezebox, and it could well be true for software players too.

I'm quite interested in this Chris!

Are you on about mods for both the SB & PC's?
Which ones are you specifically referring to? Which have you tried? How did you prove that they were infact DSP software?

I've played around with Audio Diffmaker a little but have know idea about measuring timing issues.

[Stratmangler]

I'm really referring to the Squeezebox Touch mods.
Phrases like "adjust until you think it sounds right" keep cropping up, which straight away has got me thinking that subtle eq might well be being applied.

Doesn't mean that something similar is not happening with PC software either :eyebrows:

[Spur07]

You could view some of the software mods for what they are - DSP, or in other words sophisticated tone controls.
And then ask the question "what degree of manipulation does it take to make the music sound better than the original ?".
That's what some of the software mods are doing with the Squeezebox, and it could well be true for software players too.

Yes, I'm not sure about these different software audio players, although as the owner of an Apple G5 PowerPC I'm blocked from running Snow Leopard and therefore unable to try all the latest software offerings. However, I did try 'Cog' when it originally came out and in comparison to itunes it seemed to me it was nothing more than messing about with an EQ.

The spdif converters however I suspect are a different matter altogether in what they achieve - from what I've read it seems a decent async usb converter can take computer audio on to a completely different level.

[Ken Moreland]

The combination of the JKMk2 Hiface and Jplay is truly excellent, so much so that I purchased a new 64bit W7 PC to get the best sound I could. Jplay emailed the 64bit version immediately on request.
KM

[ZebuTheOxen]

Jplay does little that free plugins for Foobar don't.

If you are using Windows XP, use:
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_out_ks

Drop the file into your Foobar2000/Components folder.
Then load up Foobar, go to File -> Preferences -> Output.
Select 'KS: <Name of your soundcard>' and click OK. You can fiddle with the buffer length and Output Data Format afterwards.

If you are using Windows Vista or 7, use:
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_out_wasapi

Much the same, it's the lowest level of access to audio a program can have on a Windows system.

Anything touching the sound at this point is physical, where YMMV depending on your kit :)

[ChrisB]

However, playing from RAM with the computer in hibernation is a compelling feature of JPlay, but I don't like the fact that once the music starts you are locked into hibernation until it stops - this would be a major annoyance for me.

[/SIZE]

Hi Tim,

When running in hibernate mode if you run JPlay.exe from a USB Flash Drive you can exit Hibernate (and terminate the playback) by unplugging the USB drive. It definitely does suit album play where you're playing the whole album from start to finish though.

Chris

[Themis]

A thought crosses my mind:

If memory-only player (such as JPlay) is considered as "high-end" per se, then a SB Touch is a "high-end" player, as it has no HD, right ? :scratch:

[Ken Moreland]

Jplay recommend using KS (kernel streaming) rather than Wasapi in Windows 7.
IMHO the key settings are buffer to a minimum , DirectLink preferable and Hibernate/Overdrive. If you're running Jplay it's essential to secure as much RAM as possible as soon as the PC starts up so you need to run Jplay.exe immediately otherwise Windows awill fill up the RAM with all sorts.
KM

[Tim]

Hi Tim,

When running in hibernate mode if you run JPlay.exe from a USB Flash Drive you can exit Hibernate (and terminate the playback) by unplugging the USB drive. It definitely does suit album play where you're playing the whole album from start to finish though.

Chris
Not really any use for my purposes, I'm totally file based so would have to copy the album to a flash drive, plug it in, go through the pa-lava of getting it playing, then unplug it to stop it - if I was going to do that, then I would rather buy a turntable and play an LP! Not the simplest of solutions at all and for me, far too much fuss without any gain.

[Ken Moreland]

You don't need to copy the album to a flash drive , you just need to copy it into ram. This means selecting the track or tracks you want to play and hit copy. Running the program from a usb drive means you can stop the program running by plugging it out. It's sometimes useful if you running something you wish you hadn't and you don't want to wait an hour for it to stop.
KM

[Welder]

It's sometimes useful if you running something you wish you hadn't and you don't want to wait an hour for it to stop.
KM

In that one sentence you've completely lost any interest i might have had in Jplay.

Think about it :doh:

[Ken Moreland]

I hope I didn't give the impression that Jplay is tiresome or awkward. The program is easy to set up and use and the sound quality is brilliant. Well worth a free try.
KM

[Tim]

I hope I didn't give the impression that Jplay is tiresome or awkward.
But unfortunately for someone who has a well sorted file based system, that is exactly what it is! (IMO)

[ChrisB]

I have been using the JPlay software for a couple of months now on a nearly daily basis in the office and at home. I haven't been using it as my sole music player as I also use Foobar. I use Foobar probably more than JPlay but use JPlay for critical listening. I'm not sure if JPlay will ever replace Foobar completely for me.

There has been a lot of talk about the price of the product. I agree that it does initially look expensive. One thing which hasn't been mentioned is that fact that you are paying for unlimited number of licences for personal use. This makes sense for me as I have three music PCs. It may not make a difference to some people.

Also, you are paying not just for the current version but for each subsequent release "forever". No cost of upgrading the software, ever.

Also, the guys Marcin and Josef may bespoke the software for you at no additional charge. For example they implemented lossless volume attenutation for me. Something I don't think is possible in Foobar (although there may be a plugin for it).

Chris

[Toby]

I would like to see any claims backed up with some technical measurements, unless some things cannot be measured I dont know.

As they have a trial version it might be worth having a go, shame they dont support anything lower than Windows 7 though.

[Ken Moreland]

Jplay will work on Vista as well as Windows 7 and I believe it's better again on Windows 8 which is downloadable as a trial version from buildwindows.com and as a normal release in late 2012.

KM

[Toby]

Yes I meant even further back :), I am still using Windows XP, I never liked Vista, 7 was ok but I think I might wait until version 8 before upgrading.

[Gints]

Maybe you should not wait :)

http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l563/bildites/Winversions.jpg

[Reid Malenfant]

Maybe you should not wait :)

http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l563/bildites/Winversions.jpg
Hmmm, oddly there appears to be a bit of truth in that :eyebrows:

Hi "Gints", would you mind adding your proper first name to your profile rather than "I'm Gints", unless of course that is your proper name :eyebrows:

Cheers :)

[Gints]

Yes, it is my proper name. In this digital age and place you can't hide it anyway :)

[Patoufrench]

Hello

Who uses Jplay? I love it. Super sound, bass is clear and clean!

[Tim]

Just thought I would update this thread as JPLAY has evolved quite a bit since myself and others trialed it, so a lot of the information in this thread is now out of date. This should be borne in mind before thinking about JPLAY and perhaps giving it a miss as that would be unfair to the product as it does so much more now.

Updates for the current version (v4.1) allow integration into JRiver, iTunes and Foobar. In view of this I would recommend downloading the latest version and giving it a go?

http://jplay.eu/

[John]

Yes it really is worth a go IMO it seems to be one of those softwares that is still developing

[Chunky70]

I've just tried JPLAY today on trial. WOW!
Using it with JRiver as a front end, and the improvment in quality is astonishing!
I thought my system was sounding good but JPLAY has just removed another layer to reveal an amazing amount of detail in a recording,i'm stunned.
Listening to Taste-Live at Isle of Wight as i type, it was always a muddy recording but JPLAY has it sounding like i've never heard.:)
I'm buying this as soon as funds allow. It's only £86, a lot of people don't baulk at that price for cables!
Very impressed.

[Maximum]

Don't forget XXHighend too people, although there can be a lot of fiddling. I just tried the latest JPLAY, it seems better than the first version and sounds very good. I still think XXHE sounds a little more organic with better dynamics, that's if you can put up with the obsessive tweaking you can do with it.

[Tim]

Don't forget XXHighend too people
Have you looked at what those guys advocate? They recommend computers that wouldn't be out of place at a LAN party, apart from the GPU ....they are even talking about over-clocking and running complex RAID servers for storing your music. I'm a bit dumbstruck to be honest :scratch:

This guy has put together his 'ideal' system for running XXHighEnd and no one has shot him down for it - quite the contrary, other's are linking to it as a recommendation! £1,500 and then the DAC on top . . . :stalks:
Not to take anything away from the bloke, as he's put together a very good and well thought out computer - but for file based audio?

Operating System Windows 7 Ultimate x64 - £137
Processor: Intel i7-970 - £486
Mother board: Asus Sabertooth X58 - £149
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-U12P SE2 - £56
Memory: Corsair Vengeance PC3-12800 DDR3 1600 12GB 3x4Gb - £50
HDD for OS and XXHighEndd: WD VelociRaptor 300GB - £190
HDD for data: WD Caviar Green 2TB - £130
Graphics Card: Gigabyte Radeon GV-R577SL-1GD - £69
PSU: Corsair AX750 750W Modular - £115
Optical Storage: LG GH22NS50 DVD Sata 22X - £14
Case: SilverStone Fortress FT02 B/R Window - £190
DAC: Phasure NOS1 - €3,320 ex VAT + Shipping

Source (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1673.0;all)

I think you can safely say that XXHighEnd is not for me and I doubt my server would run it successfully anyway, but hey each to their own.

XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w63/greatgig/XXHEFeautures01.png

Still glad I popped over, as I found a great Smilie http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w63/greatgig/woofer.gif

[Maximum]

Take that with a pinch of salt. A low powered machine or say an Atom based computer may struggle but it should be fine on anything above that. Mines got an E6400 CPU clocked upto 2.66GHz and doesn't struggle, which is easily beaten by a 50 quid CPU now.

[John]

One of the issues with Jplay not all drivers from DACS and other interface devices will work in full hibernation mode on Jplay, which is where I think the player performs at its best
In Jplayer mini its worth paying attention to how the controls on your keyboard effect parimeters on the player I am still experimenting with this at present trying to figure out how it effects the sound

[Tim]

Take that with a pinch of salt. A low powered machine or say an Atom based computer may struggle but it should be fine on anything above that. Mines got an E6400 CPU clocked upto 2.66GHz and doesn't struggle, which is easily beaten by a 50 quid CPU now.
Thanks for the heads up Robert, but I goes completely against the grain for me, which is low power and totally silent. My next server (already in the pipeline) has to be a small footprint, about the same size as a Rega DAC, even lower powered, low heat and with no moving parts. It's Atom based again so XXHE wouldn't run on it and TBH it's not something I would want anyway. I'm an advocate of less is more when it comes to file based audio.

:cool:

[Welder]

Ah, Mr Peter Street (XXHighEnd), a man after my own heart; moar power!;)

He is a very interesting guy with some very interesting ideas. He also produces a rather interesting but very expensive Dac. :stalks:

I'm not convinced this low power trend for file based audio is necessarily the right way to go.
One of the downfalls of the Touch for example is it's underpowered; great for a few files, but hang a 2000+ album data base on the end and it wobbles.

Cplay did much the same as Jplay for Win XP. I'm not keen on Win7 as an OS for a file based music player; way too much going on that has nothing to do with getting the data from drive to Dac; hence Jplay....
The main struggle seems to be getting the OS to not interfere with the data recovery process and Linux still has the edge for this imo; you just need a few months of therapy to get to grips with it.

[Tim]

I'm not convinced this low power trend for file based audio is necessarily the right way to go.
Me neither actually, but I don't have the time to test it all out. Right now I'm taking the green route but I anticipate this will be something I tinker with for some time - never say never ;) (apart from one of Mr Street's DAC and an energy burning gamer PC!).

[DaveK]

John, your statement, "One of the downfalls of the Touch for example is it's underpowered; great for a few files, but hang a 2000+ album data base on the end and it wobbles." - I have a free-standing USB HDD holding over 10,000 FLAC files of mixed resolution hung on to the end of my Touch (via ethernet connection to PC) and I can't say I've noticed any wobbles.
Dave.

[Ali Tait]

Dave, do you have artwork on any of the files?

[DaveK]

Dave, do you have artwork on any of the files?

Hi Ali,
Happy Hogmanay (if this is still appropriate on 2nd Jan :) ) to you and yours.
I have artwork on almost all of em - I generally use dbPowerAmp (paid version) to rip them and artwork is collected automatically but I usually only take the front cover.
Cheers,
Dave.

[wobbleu]

I use a dual-core Atom server based around the Intel 525 board with 4gb of ram and a 120 watt psu and find it perfectly adequate for my music collection which is 2tb+. CPU usage rarely goes above 25%.

SB Touch copes with a library of 6.5k albums/2.3k artists without too many issues - I limit the artwork to no bigger than 500x500 pixels and connection is over ethernet. I get an occasional 'break' in playback which I've put down to ipeng - if I use the logitech ipad app it doesn't happen.

My only real annoyance is the 'blip' from the Rega DAC as it switches between bitrates if I program 16 and 24 bit tracks in the same playlist - but I can live with it/work round it.

I'm quite keen to stick to low power devices where possible (quite fancy having a go at a vinyl playback system which would run off solar charged batteries - it'll have to be a 'retirement project' though...)

[alfie2902]

JPlay software has evolved somewhat this year the latest V4 & then very soon after V4.1 now offer integration with Foobar & iTunes with 4.1 adding JRiver too. It also still offers the original JPlay with no front end as the JPlaymini player. There is also a GUI panel now instead of the DOS looking panel of old, it makes changing setting easier just with a mouse click or two. JPlay now works as a Windows service which greatly helps it to grab hold of unfragmented memory to use & works far better now with my Laptop. Also now got a digital volume control for anyone without a preamp. Two Hibernation modes 'FulllScale' & 'TurboCore'.

Here's some blurb....
DirectLink:
For the first time CD material is guaranteed to work with lowest latency of 1 sample on most PCI or USB audio interfaces!

Large Page Memory:
Decrease CPU latencies with superior memory management techniques.

JPLAY as a Windows Service:
JPLAY is the first and only audio player that operates as a Windows Service. By leveraging ‘Session 0 Isolation’ JPLAY can get to non-fragmented memory sooner than with current approach of manually tweaking loading order of Startup programs. No user intervention is required as Windows guarantees JPLAY will be started at earliest possible moment for best results.

Maximum System Timer:
Reduce OS latency by making Windows switch tasks faster.

64-bit Support:
JPLAY makes use of both 32-bit and 64-bit CPU-s’ architecture.

High Resolution:
Jplay supports 16-bit Red Book and High-rez 24-bit files in WAV, AIFF, ALAC or FLAC formats – we say no to lossy codecs.

A free trial version is still downloadable, but the break in playback does now seem more frequent & seems to last for longer (10 - 12 secs).

http://jplay.eu/

http://jplay.eu/computer-audio/jplay-beginners-guide/

It still sounds better to my ears than any other digital front end I've tried into the Young Dac, I might have a play around with the SBT mods yet though.

[Welder]

Right, I accept that Jplay helps to sort out Win7. I gave the trial version a whirl and yes it improves Win7 audio.

But, someone please explain this to me.

You spend £100 (?) on the all singing all dancing Win7 then you go and spend £90 (?) on Jplay to stop Win7 from singing and dancing.

Nah, sorry, just doesn't make sense.:mental:
Better to spend nothing on an OS that doesn't sing or dance in the first place.

[Clive]

Right, I accept that Jplay helps to sort out Win7. I gave the trial version a whirl and yes it improves Win7 audio.

But, someone please explain this to me.

You spend £100 (?) on the all singing all dancing Win7 then you go and spend £90 (?) on Jplay to stop Win7 from singing and dancing.

Nah, sorry, just doesn't make sense.:mental:
Better to spend nothing on an OS that doesn't sing or dance in the first place.
It's more like £70 for the OEM version of W7. The point is that it's easy.....

[Krisbee]

I mostly use Limux, but I do have 64bit Win7 on my system with Foobar + WASAPI. Thought I'd give the Jplay trail a whirl and used the Jplay mini on a 24/96 test file ( a nine minuite extract from a Mozart violin concerto).

On my system and with my ears I couldn't realy detect a difference between straight Foobar + WASAPI and using Jplay mini, even in hybernation mode. In fact the idea it's only going to give of its best when using hybernation seems a bit odd to me. But I suppose there might be times when I 'd be happy to let audio playback take over my general purpose PC...


You spend £100 (?) on the all singing all dancing Win7 then you go and spend £90 (?) on Jplay to stop Win7 from singing and dancing.

I can see why John would question this. It's more work, but if I were a windows user I 'd be more inclined to dual boot between say a standard Win7 install with foobar, jriver or whatever and a dedicated audio only configuration which would of course be based on a bare bones Linux setup.

As to the XXhighend server spec ... well that just seems barmy to me. Surely the lowest powered computer you can get away with is the target for a file based audio player? People have succesfully run Linux audio servers on NSLUG2, sheevaplug, pogoplug and even routers. The squeezebox touch, warts and all, shows what can be done with low powered embedded system, and that's using old technology. The next wave of embedded devices are ARM based and it's astonishing what can be packed into a small space.

See the Cubox ar solid run - http://www.solid-run.com/

Yes folks, it's a 2cm cube with a SOC which has all this:

Specs:

Supports Android, Ubuntu, XMBC, similar
800 MHz dual issue ARM PJ4 processor with 512KB L2 cache, VFPv3, wmmx SIMD
1080p Video Decode Engine
OpenGL|ES 2.0 graphic engine
HDMI 1080p Output
1GByte DDR3 @ 800MHz
Gigabit Ethernet, SPDIF (optical audio), eSata 3Gbps, 2xUSB 2.0, micro-SD, micro-USB (console)
Infra-red receiver

Raspberry Pi, eat your heart out ... Mind you it's still only a development device and prices around £99. Wait a mintue, that's only a few quid more than Jplay.

[John]

John most of us buy a computer for use in everyday life so generally get windows as this is the package that most computers come with, we then try computer audio and find it handy and with a good DAC it will out perform a lot of CD players. Now then something like Jplay comes along and chages the whole ball park suddenly windows can be a really good medium to play windows, everything is still easy to use, there are no crashes I do not have to learn new skills and because I (we) already have windows it works out very reasonable considering the performance upgrade.
If I had more time to learn a new system and I was not scared my system would crash I would consider the Linux as a possible solution.
When comes to computers I want a reasonable easy trouble free life.
I am still looking forward to you coming round and showing to me another way

[John]

On my system and with my ears I couldn't realy detect a difference between straight Foobar + WASAPI and using Jplay mini, even in hybernation mode. In fact the idea it's only going to give of its best when using hybernation seems a bit odd to me. But I suppose there might be times when I 'd be happy to let audio playback take over my general purpose PC...


For me the difference is huge but I do have a different system to most people and as I mentioned before I tend to suspect my speaker arrangement of getting the best out of digital ( no real evidence just experience of other systems)

[Welder]

I accept everything you've written John as the way it is for many, and Clive's point that Jplay is easy.

But, it comes apart a bit here imo
.

When comes to computers I want a reasonable easy trouble free life.

It's always the same problem, despite one audiophile after another writing on this forum and many others, that the audio they are getting from their file based system sounds better than CD, and often better than their record decks and considering there is very little reluctance it seems to spend hours researching which capacitor or resistor sounds better, or how to set up their record decks, or spend substantial amounts of money on this arm or cartridge; the list just goes on, when it comes to some fairly simple computer related tasks that often cost nothing, don't require any soldering or assembly skills the traditional audiophile goes into a blind funk.

We all had to learn how to set up our Hi Fi. How many hours have you spent building speakers John, or upgrading components in other areas of your Hi Fi?

My view is you have to stop thinking “computer” and start thinking Hi Fi. This is just one of the reasons I call computer based audio, file based audio, its just another medium.

You either do, or you don't want to take advantage of file as a medium. If you do then you'll have to learn a bit about it, just as you did with record decks and speakers etc, or take your chances with pre built and configured file based players.

Fact is John, and anybody else who is reading, you don't need to wait for someone to bring round their set up to demonstrate; you can do it yourself.

I've posted a guide for a very easy set up (Ubuntu 10.04 and DeaDBeef), where the hardest is probably changing your computers BIOS, everything else is just typing!

If you can burn an ISO image to a CD you could have this up and running in a couple of hours max.
You just have to stick a cork in your arse and have a go.

If the instructions aren't clear then let me know and I'll try to make them clearer. In fact, I'll probably type up a version without my attempts at witty chat.
Seriously mate, it's easy and once you've done it you'll have made that all important first step into the world of modding file based audio and the best bit is it needn't' cost a penny!

[John]

your guide scares me John
fact I do not research every capacitors and have a pretty stable system
Easy for you to say but changing HD etc does not inspire confidence nor does reading about system crashes
The way I learn is through careful experience if you do not like it tough

[Welder]

You've gone and got all offended now John. :(

Yes, I crashed quite a few times but I'm reckless :eyebrows::D
The point of the guide is if you follow it you shouldn't crash. I've done the crashing for you. ;)
Even if you do crash, what's the worst that can happen? May be spend a couple of hours transferring your back up files?

I don't want to upset anybody but until the people who are interested in file audio have a go themselves and stop quaking in front of their computers they are bait for every bit of overpriced software and sales bullshit out there.

Who's the boss in your house, you or the computer?

[John]

I have a open mind John and perhaps if you were a bit less rude I would not get offended
I like to hear things for myself without taking a huge risk....nought wrong with that

[Welder]

I can't see where I've been rude John, but if I have, you have my apologies.

The thing is John, I know you're curious about all this and until you have a go you wont know.

If the guide seems scary, I'll re-write it.

I spent hours doing it. I didn't write it for me, I've already got a music server that sounds excellent and a laptop sounding very decent as well.
The guide was for people like you.

[John]

Cheers for the apology John
Yes I am curious because I think you have some good points
I know you put a lot of work into what you written
Perhaps a nice youtube link showing how simple this all is might inspire otherwise sorry not sure how we going to work around my fears

[Tim]

I think the problem is (and I'm guilty of it too) that folk comfortable around computers do kind of take their knowledge for granted and often become a little bemused at other people's reluctance to explore further and learn like I/we did. It drives me nuts at times, repeatedly fixing computers for my mates, especially when they keep making the same mistakes :doh: But computers do seem to be a block for many people and if they are using a computer as a multi-purpose machine, they are even more reluctant to risk crashing it as getting it fixed can be time consuming and often expensive. So it's easy to think 'why the feck don't people listen and just have a go', as that's just one step too far for many people, so something like JPLAY is a compromise. I personally wouldn't go near it, but then I don't need to and I certainly wouldn't go near anything that sounded no better than what I already have.

A big issue is time and I don't know what you do John (W), but you do seem to have a lot more time than even me and I'm single - people with wives, girlfriends and children have even less time to spend tinkering with computers.

Don't take this the wrong way John, but your often forthright way of expressing yourself can be misconstrued. When I first joined AoS you used to upset me frequently, but I know better now and rarely ever take offence, in fact I enjoy reading your lively posts and as I have said before, I have learned a lot too :)

:grouphug:

[Clive]

I've over 30 years in the IT industry, I used to write device drivers etc but I've not got the time to get that involved any more. 2 hours for a play is one thing but the reality it that it months of hell getting to know this stuff. Life has to be worth living too.

[Welder]

Don't take this the wrong way John, but your often forthright way of expressing yourself can be misconstrued. When I first joined AoS you used to upset me frequently, but I know better know and rarely take offence, in fact I enjoy reading your lively posts and as I have said before, I have learned a lot too :)

:grouphug:

But (splutter) but....I'm really well behaved here Tim :eek::D

Yes, I have quite a lot of time compared to some. I'm a bit like Marco, semi retired, but without Marco's income. :lol:

I tutor Maths and Physics.

[purite audio]

I rather like JPlay I think it may sound a little better than standard JRiver, and the 'hibernate' mode is cool!
Keith.

[Tim]

But (splutter) but....I'm really well behaved here Tim :eek::D :lol: fair enough.

Regarding JPLAY, here's something I hadn't really considered before. I have tried JPLAY (and JPLAYmini) on my server and cannot detect any improvement over what I already have, but when you take into account all the time, effort and money I have invested in my server and the fact that JPLAY is no better but certainly no slouch either, then that's surely a positive?

For someone who wants a very simple way of achieving good quality playback from a computer, JPLAY certainly seems to fit the bill and should definitely be considered IMO. However, I also think as John (W) does, that a dedicated music player/server is the best option, be it a MAC, Linux or Windows based player, but that's easy for me to say as I'm very comfortable building and configuring my own. But I also agree with John again (lol, I'm agreeing with John a lot today!), when he says it isn't that hard to do. All it needs is a little patience, commitment to learning something new and being prepared to step outside your 'computer' comfort zone. Again, easy to say but 12 months ago I had never considered building my own. His Linux guide is excellent and all you need really is some time and the willingness to give it a go, as the software is free and John's already ironed out the rough spots. I certainly intend to at some point, but at the moment I don't have the free time.

I find the whole 'file based audio' concept really interesting and it's come on leaps and bounds in the last couple of years, so I'm pretty chuffed there are people out there developing software like JPLAY, as finally many of the sceptics are realising it is possible for a computer based player to produce very good audio :)

[Clive]

:lol: fair enough.

Regarding JPLAY, here's something I hadn't really considered before. I have tried JPLAY (and JPLAYmini) on my server and cannot detect any improvement over what I already have, but when you take into account all the time, effort and money I have invested in my server and the fact that JPLAY is no better but certainly no slouch either, then that's surely a positive?

For someone who wants a very simple way of achieving good quality playback from a computer, JPLAY certainly seems to fit the bill and should definitely be considered IMO. However, I also think as John (W) does, that a dedicated music player/server is the best option, be it a MAC, Linux or Windows based player, but that's easy for me to say as I'm very comfortable building and configuring my own. But I also agree with John again (lol, I'm agreeing with John a lot today!), when he says it isn't that hard to do. All it needs is a little patience, commitment to learning something new and being prepared to step outside your 'computer' comfort zone. Again, easy to say but 12 months ago I had never considered building my own. His Linux guide is excellent and all you need really is some time and the willingness to give it a go, as the software is free and John's already ironed out the rough spots. I certainly intend to at some point, but at the moment I don't have the free time.

I find the whole 'file based audio' concept really interesting and it's come on leaps and bounds in the last couple of years, so I'm pretty chuffed there are people out there developing software like JPLAY, as finally many of the sceptics are realising it is possible for a computer based player to produce very good audio :)
I expect there will be code similar to JPLAY out there for free or lower cost soon....

Overall though it's great to have a choice! Someone needing to buy specific hardware for a music server will be more expensive than buying JPLAY. OK, you can setup a dual boot system on an existing machine but that steps into a area wheremost people don't want to go.

For those comfortable and with the time to invest in really getting to know how to build a server then that's a great route for them. Let's face it though, it'll take a lot more than 2 hours! JPLAY (or something similar in the future) is really easy though the downside is that you get a hairshirt UI and you need a lot of RAM for 24/192, something like 8GB to 12GB.

This is remarkably like a discussion about the merits of DD over Idler!

[John]

I see a lot of options and I now see why some of your guys go to so much trouble building you own
I hope Clive is right that in time there will be cheaper options or even free options
For myself I am very happy with the digital playback I get now.

[bobbasrah]

This is remarkably like a discussion about the merits of DD over Idler!

So DD=Dolby Digital
Idler=? Intrrrupted Digital Lacks Even Response ? :scratch:

[Clive]

So DD=Dolby Digital
Idler=? Intrrrupted Digital Lacks Even Response ? :scratch:
:lol:

[Clive]

I was thinking - always dangerous.....there are 3 of us (John, myself and a joint friend) who find JPLAYmini a huge improvement over Foobar/ASIO & Jriver etc. We all have something in common, aside from possibly being delusional :) Our speakers excel big time on imaging, soundstage and bass (all are OBs). I think the imaging and soundstage in particular show a massive improvement with JPLAYmini. It could it be that our setups are ideal for demonstrating the improvement due to JPLAYmini.

[John]

Yes I have similar thoughts Clive

[Patoufrench]

Hi,
What do you think Jplay4? Have you noticed any differences?
Especially with hibernation.

[RichardArthur]

Hi there
I also have tried JPLAYmini and have found it a huge improvement over Foobar/ASIO & Jriver...
Richard

[Clive]

Hi there
I also have tried JPLAYmini and have found it a huge improvement over Foobar/ASIO & Jriver...
Richard
I'm finding using the Beach engine with Throttle ON in Hibernation mode (naturally) has helped further. Which settings are you using?

[Welder]

YaY! JPlay for Linux. :D

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/8183d679dafb1433107774219e2c540fdd9a1a05c570d02b14 ed9b8a75c4efdd4g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?thumb=5&quickkey=23bb2roxb147art)

+


http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/7d6730f33b6aa18314b95802293a6797f920f28b0e058d6c73 296c95e7a77ebc4g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?thumb=5&quickkey=mu8x0odi4kl384s)

[Clive]

Surely this is part of your "how to learn Linux kit". ;)


YaY! JPlay for Linux. :D

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/8183d679dafb1433107774219e2c540fdd9a1a05c570d02b14 ed9b8a75c4efdd4g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?thumb=5&quickkey=23bb2roxb147art)

+


http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/7d6730f33b6aa18314b95802293a6797f920f28b0e058d6c73 296c95e7a77ebc4g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?thumb=5&quickkey=mu8x0odi4kl384s)

[RichardArthur]

Hi Clive
I like 'River' for most 'flowing' types of music, and 'Beach' is good for detailed music such as period classical chamber music, and electronic music...
Hibernate mode improves things quite a bit.
I'm using a small Atom powered netbook so it hasn't got much speed, I wonder if anyone is using a powerful computer and has compared the sound to a less powerful computer, and if processor speed helps the latency of the USB feed? (or whatever it is that seems to make a difference!)

[Clive]

I've come to the conclusion that in my system Beach is a little "dry" whereas the River is "wet" (more fruity really). Where I need to dig into the detail then Beach is good but overall River works better for me.

[John]

I perfer River its more flowing lol

[Clive]

I perfer River its more flowing lol
Beach should be more grainy but just find it dry. :)

[John]

:)

[Patoufrench]

Hello,

Those who hear a difference is how to see?

thank you

[nat8808]

I'm quite keen to stick to low power devices where possible (quite fancy having a go at a vinyl playback system which would run off solar charged batteries - it'll have to be a 'retirement project' though...)

Can do this with "off the shelf" products already.. Get a Pink Triangle Anniversary, any battery phono stage and a T-amp and run them off the same 12V lead acid battery charged by a solar panel.

[nat8808]

I'm not convinced this low power trend for file based audio is necessarily the right way to go.
One of the downfalls of the Touch for example is it's underpowered; great for a few files, but hang a 2000+ album data base on the end and it wobbles.


I've been reading about computer based audio for about 15 years, but for home studio use.

Even a beige Mac G3 was happily able to simultaneously record and play back many tracks at once with maybe the odd plug-in running in real time, all natively and running multiple midi tracks too.

All of these DAWs (Digital Audio Workstations) are basically databases, pulling up multiple audio clips in order, in time from all over the hard drive.

They ran smoothly then 15 years ago, got loads better when dual processors came out in the early 2000s so that the OS could run its background processes on one CPU, leaving the software to do its thing and by then people were starting to record in 24/96 too..

If you could do all this 10 or more years ago with tens of tracks at once, why would anyone need high power in today's technology?

The only reason I can think of is simply to handle over-blown operating systems and over-blown playback software..

[Clive]

I can understand why products are developed with puny processors as every pound saved is margin. What I don't understand is why anyone using a laptop server or building a server wouldn't spend a little extra for a powerful CPU.

It's rather like buying a performance car for it's speed and but not selecting the most powerful engine for it - just to see if it is still enjoyable.

[northwest]

I can understand why products are developed with puny processors as every pound saved is margin. What I don't understand is why anyone using a laptop server or building a server wouldn't spend a little extra for a powerful CPU.

It's rather like buying a performance car for it's speed and but not selecting the most powerful engine for it - just to see if it is still enjoyable.

Clive, it is all about balance. I built my music server from a NetBook (Samsung) that has served me well for a couple of years. I needed to trim down my 'portable' kit and this was the easiest most cost effective route as I replaced the net book with an iPad.
This worked for me!

[nat8808]

It's rather like buying a performance car for its speed and but not selecting the most powerful engine for it - just to see if it is still enjoyable.

I don't think you'd need up to date speed for a media server..

So it would be more like buying a car that has enough power to negotiate motorways well enough, overtaking etc. You don't need a Lamboughini to do that - they're capability is wasted in normal usage.

I think people just spend 'to be certain' that it will cope when actually they don't realise that could probably do it all on a P4 very easily and for free (ignoring looks and silent cooling...).

Back in the day I was happily using a P2 400Mhz to run .wav play lists which is essentially all that an audio server does..

[Clive]

I don't think you'd need up to date speed for a media server..

So it would be more like buying a car that has enough power to negotiate motorways well enough, overtaking etc. You don't need a Lamboughini to do that - they're capability is wasted in normal usage.

I think people just spend 'to be certain' that it will cope when actually they don't realise that could probably do it all on a P4 very easily and for free (ignoring looks and silent cooling...).

Back in the day I was happily using a P2 400Mhz to run .wav play lists which is essentially all that an audio server does..
If you want to use some types of windows players you need a reasonably powerful processor. This isn't due to windows as such, it more to do with the performance - ie greatly reducing latency. In-memory players such as JPLAY and xxhighend are processor hungry. So this is like having an incredibly responsive engine with loads of torque.

Of course if you want to use Foobar or Jriver etc on windows then use a low speed cpu as the sound is far from optimal anyway.

[Clive]

Maybe I should explain some more about what JPLAY and other in-memory players strive to do. The re-clocked buffer on most dacs fixes all data timing problems don't....no it does not! They may re-clock but it seems they can only cope with VERY small levels of timing errors. In-memory players deliver or make available data within very precise time windows. Playlists and GUIs for the likes of JPLAY are very hairshirt, actually there's no GUI with JPLAYmini.

[Welder]

Maybe I should explain some more about what JPLAY and other in-memory players strive to do. The re-clocked buffer on most dacs fixes all data timing problems don't....no it does not! They may re-clock but it seems they can only cope with VERY small levels of timing errors. In-memory players deliver or make available data within very precise time windows. Playlists and GUIs for the likes of JPLAY are very hairshirt, actually there's no GUI with JPLAYmini.

I dont think JPlay or any other memory player can alter the clock frequency or its accuracy so whether the data is assembled, or collected on demand, one might assume the timing errors will be the same.
My understanding is that if there is an advantage to memory players it's that bus activity is reduced.

[Clive]

I dont think JPlay or any other memory player can alter the clock frequency or its accuracy so whether the data is assembled, or collected on demand, one might assume the timing errors will be the same.
My understanding is that if there is an advantage to memory players it's that bus activity is reduced.
Of course it can (but it's not altering clock freq, I didn't say that). Ensuring priority for JPLAY is high, stopping or reducing priority for unnecessary processes, running in Hibernation mode. This all goes a long way to making Windows look more like an RTOS. Yes the bus is a big part of this but believe me, if you don't have enough CPU it doesn't work, you have to start adding buffers, which doesn't sound as good. You should discuss with the developers on their forum.

Timing errors are what JPLAY seeks to minimize big time......so don't assume it doesn't do this. Maybe the developers found something they aren't telling us but I don't think so.

[Welder]

Of course it can (but it's not altering clock freq, I didn't say that). Ensuring priority for JPLAY is high, stopping or reducing priority for unnecessary processes, running in Hibernation mode. This all goes a long way to making Windows look more like an RTOS. Yes the bus is a big part of this but believe me, if you don't have enough CPU it doesn't work, you have to start adding buffers, which doesn't sound as good. You should discuss with the developers on their forum.

Timing errors are what JPLAY seeks to minimize big time......so don't assume it doesn't do this. Maybe the developers found something they aren't telling us but I don't think so.

Of course it can what?
I wouldn't argue about the more processor power side, it's something I considered a long time ago, but possibly for differnt reasons.
I've easily maxed out a slow single core playing 24/192 with some DSP.

Increasing priority I'm all for. But, data is loaded into RAM anyway and on the computer side of things, the clock accuracy isn't changed just because data is held in RAM.

[Clive]

Of course it can what?
I wouldn't argue about the more processor power side, it's something I considered a long time ago, but possibly for differnt reasons.
I've easily maxed out a slow single core playing 24/192 with some DSP.

Increasing priority I'm all for. But, data is loaded into RAM anyway and on the computer side of things, the clock accuracy isn't changed just because data is held in RAM.
I'm not sure why you're talking about clock accuracy. The point is that data packets go to the DAC at exactly the right time, whether a clock is accurate or not isn't the point, the process needs its timeslot just when it needs it. The system needs to be able respond in a consistently timely manner. Data does not get written into large buffers, they call this Directlink, ie no buffer or a buffer the size of one packet. Think RTOS - which it approaches, no queueing or buffering (or very little), the whole thing is in lock-step. In the highest quality mode the beta of 4.2 takes 30 secs to respond to the keyboard due to the high priority JPLAY has.

Like I say, contact the developers, they are quite open to reasonable people.

[nat8808]

I must admit I'm not up to speed on modern software..

So.. JPLAY loads a large part of the music data into memory (I presume that it is continuously loading up the rest as it plays - and that it can't claim to load a whole track as it could be hours long). It then sends that data to the audio output via the soundcard driver, err accurately.

I might be missing something but I don't see how music data can be output via s/pdif without being accurately timed. Or are we saying it is super-accurate within jitter-level picosecond timing?

How does this take up lots of processing power? 24/192 is still only 1.125Mb/s in stereo. Is it having to work overtime to work out the timings of everything to cope with packeted data and other processes?

That does sound plausable to me.. coping with timings mucked up by computer busses and their packeted data protocols.

Still though, my first paid-for sound card back in the 90s, a Gravis Ultra, had 8Mb of memory on board so surely this would have been on the other side of the packeted protocols and could have been used to buffer data and pass out to s/pdif reclocked on board? i.e the soundcard would handle a lot of this..

[nat8808]

OK, I've read some of the JPLAY FAQs (before I finished the above post)..

It does load as much into memory as possible and is ok for just loading one track at a time into memory so doesn't need that much RAM really.

It also talks about shutting processes down..

Back in the day, setting up pcs for your home studio meant fiddling around with the OS settings (win 2000/NT 4 was good for this, much of it done during the install - in fact some real pro hardware and software wouldn't even work with Win 98 because it was too homogenous, untweakable yet now everything has gone that way) and shutting down a lot of processes yourself and fiddling with the BIOS and also setting the OS to run completely on it's own processor in a multi-processor machine so that no background processes including hard-drive access would interfere with the multi-track audio... That also worked both ways so loads of DSP wouldn't interefere with the operating system slowing down user interface responsiveness.

Having read a little about JPLAY, it seems to be doing all the things that people did over 10 years ago of their own accord by delving into the workings of windows and using proper, well conceived audio hardware but now it is applying those principles without the user needing any knowledge nor specialist hardware whilst coping with the newer many-times overblown operating systems....

Sounds like we've taken many steps backwards and then forwards again to get back to where we were at 10 years ago... but now available for everyone on off the shelf hardware. Hence my confusion over why you'd need anything too modern.

It's an odd world.

[Welder]

OK, I've read some of the JPLAY FAQs (before I finished the above post)..

It does load as much into memory as possible and is ok for just loading one track at a time into memory so doesn't need that much RAM really.

It also talks about shutting processes down..

Back in the day, setting up pcs for your home studio meant fiddling around with the OS settings (win 2000/NT 4 was good for this, much of it done during the install - in fact some real pro hardware and software wouldn't even work with Win 98 because it was too homogenous, untweakable yet now everything has gone that way) and shutting down a lot of processes yourself and fiddling with the BIOS and also setting the OS to run completely on it's own processor in a multi-processor machine so that no background processes including hard-drive access would interfere with the multi-track audio... That also worked both ways so loads of DSP wouldn't interefere with the operating system slowing down user interface responsiveness.

Having read a little about JPLAY, it seems to be doing all the things that people did over 10 years ago of their own accord by delving into the workings of windows and using proper, well conceived audio hardware but now it is applying those principles without the user needing any knowledge nor specialist hardware whilst coping with the newer many-times overblown operating systems....

Sounds like we've taken many steps backwards and then forwards again to get back to where we were at 10 years ago... but now available for everyone on off the shelf hardware. Hence my confusion over why you'd need anything too modern.

It's an odd world.


Ssssshhh. ;)

[Clive]

It does load as much into memory as possible and is ok for just loading one track at a time into memory so doesn't need that much RAM really.

........

Sounds like we've taken many steps backwards and then forwards again to get back to where we were at 10 years ago... but now available for everyone on off the shelf hardware. Hence my confusion over why you'd need anything too modern.

It's an odd world.
One of the developers prefers to run with 250MB of RAM allocated to tracks. This can be tight for some hi res music, especially classical. 250MB is ok though as you only have a short delay between tracks as they load. Tracks that blend into each other don't any more.....

Steps backwards and forwards - it is the way of the world, We start out with something new, specialised and expensive and end up with a product which is commoditised, low-cost and often less specialised. The home studio PCs + software 10 years ago - what did they cost vs a £350 laptop + 99€ for JPLAY today?

[nat8808]

One of the developers prefers to run with 250MB of RAM allocated to tracks. This can be tight for some hi res music, especially classical. 250MB is ok though as you only have a short delay between tracks as they load. Tracks that blend into each other don't any more.....

Steps backwards and forwards - it is the way of the world, We start out with something new, specialised and expensive and end up with a product which is commoditised, low-cost and often less specialised. The home studio PCs + software 10 years ago - what did they cost vs a £350 laptop + 99€ for JPLAY today?

You're right, I do agree.. now you can do it on a PC from PC World with a €99 bit of software.

Or.. you can get someone's (or your own) old studio music PC complete with 'obsolete' hardware and do it for much less than the new PC but it won't be very pretty and won't be good for much else.

I prefer the latter because I'm still excited about the idea of having two seperate CPUs! :lol: I found a Dell server a few months ago with 2 x Xeon 3.5 Ghz... it's been thrown out because it's obsolete (works fine) but I'm stuck in the mind set of my dreaming about home studio days and got all excited about the possibilities..

Something that was being talked about back in the day when I was reading Sound on Sound magazine (around 2004 I stopped I think) were linux based DAWs that ran using common pro/semi pro soundcards like RME HDSP and the drivers etc had direct access to all the hardware, no layers of OS in between. Might have to examine that again.. software was all open source and free and becoming quite powerful and fast on the hardware available back then.

Or - another option I have available - you can go the DSP hardware route like Pro Tools. There's a system called Pyramix out there that's becoming quite popular (certainly used for Radio 3 live broadcasts - seen it myself when they've had the doors open on the truck at Barbican). The system runs on DSP on the soundcards and these soundcards can be picked up for about £99 if you're canny - they were also produced OEM for Avid and others so can be found in production studio clearouts (usually US eBay). Merging (company that makes Pyramix) has been developing and is about to release some audiophile media server software based on their cards and DAW... audiophile people who have already been using the pro DAW software as a kind of media server are very impressed with the sound. Again, £99 soundcard and can run on an old machine like a P4 nicely in the older versions of the DAW software which they give out free if you ask..

[John]

A few updates on JPLAY I know its not for everyone but it has gone through a number of changes that has further improved SQ
The first change was moving to Windows 8 This is like a major DAC upgrade and heard the difference between a laptop with Windows 7 and 8, needless to say my friend upgraded to 8 straight away.
Jplay is now version 5b which is a big improvement over all the variations of Jplay 4. Its now using 64bit and you can use it with 2 pcs one acting as a streamer the other a Audio player. Yet again this adds a further step up in SQ.
I have been very impressed by all the improvements in SQ

[Clive]

I've been running some of the various beta versions of JPLAY v5 and have been running the official versions as soon as they where released. I'm only using a single PC version currently but I have treated JPLAY to a nice new i5 8GB laptop. I must say the sound is astounding, people seem to be able to find the sound the prefer by selecting from the 3 "engines". Xtream is best for me, River is good too and Beach I just don't get on with but some swear by it.

When my ethernet crossover cable arrives I'll have a play with a 2 PC setup.

If I'd had this sound a few years ago I question whether I would have gone back to vinyl.

[John]

The 2pc route is another step up in detail. Like you Clive I enjoy River and Extreme

[Clive]

I've been listening to jplay 5.0b all day. I've not heard any CD player sound this good, so much substance and rhythm. This really is good, very good.

[AlexM]

Jplay is now version 5b which is a big improvement over all the variations of Jplay 4. Its now using 64bit and you can use it with 2 pcs one acting as a streamer the other a Audio player. Yet again this adds a further step up in SQ.
I have been very impressed by all the improvements in SQ

John,

That is interesting - this changes the play-out architecture to something more akin to the Squeezebox model. If the player is using an integrated sound card then it is much more like a Squeezebox. The client server model is probably the way forward, so let's hope that we get more decent quality streamers now that the Squeezebox is gone. Does JPLAY support multiple renderers?.

On another note, I find it surprising and inexplicable that an embedded SoC running Linux can do all of this but it is such a struggle with Windows. What is it about the PC's software architecture that makes servicing a <5mbps steam of USB frames with relative timing precision so difficult?. I'm also not sure also what the influence of accurate USB frame timing is as no DAC will play out without buffering the data first (as was commonplace when SPDIF/Toslink where the only interfaces used).

Very confusing..

Alex

[Clive]

JPLAY v5 works with any ASIO compliant player, Jriver, Foobar, QoBuz. Squeezebox Touch can be used if Squeezelite is incorporated.

JPLAY is still very much an in-memory player. The reason for the option to run with a Streamer PC is that the Audio PC can then be set to do nothing but feed the DAC, preferably in hibernation mode.

The Streamer / Audio PC separation is there for SQ reasons rather than multi-room capability. Maybe JPLAY will become multi-room next....

[Andrei]

Go to http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_ramdisk

and you can download the ramdisk component. Probably a good idea if you have a older machine or a laptop. Using the ramdisk does involve a couple of extra clicks.

I custom built my machine & installed the latest i7 chip and generally don't notice the difference. Some times on a high quality 24 bit 192 khz or 96 khz file such as Tea for the Tillerman you can hear the difference.

[Clive]

I've finally got around to setting up the 2 PC version of JPLAY using JPLAYmini to stream the music to the Audio PC. Both machines are Windows 8. Installation was a cinch, I ensured Telnet was running on both and it worked first time.

First off, I prefer River in 2 PC vs Xtream, this is the other way around to my single PC preference.

So how does the 2 PC config sound? Using River (strong preference here) there's a Vinyl-like depth to the image, this is the one area that used to be weak with my digital replay vs vinyl. The sound is very controlled vs slightly forced detail with 1 PC (only noticeable in comparison). It's like a big V8 vs a lesser engine. Great timing too.

With the 2 PC setup we get full hibernation mode vs the 1 PC USB hibernation mode. With JPLAYmini or Foobar running in 1 PC mode the PC isn't dedicated to JPLAY so it can't run in full hibernation so with the 2 PC setup we get the best mode of hibernation.

I'm loving the sound even more than before!

[John]

Glad you finally gone down the 2pc route Clive. I also use it in River. The soundstage is awesome and the guidelines are quite clear to follow

[Clive]

I'm told that for Windows 8 there's another sq upgrade on the cards. It would be interesting to compare sq vs a custom server with Jriver...

[John]

Bloody hell Its hard to imagine how it can get much better. Jplay has gone through so many developments in the last few months Its great I get to hear my system improve without having to buy different gear

[Clive]

Yes, just imagine how much you'd have to spend to improve sq by these levels with system upgrades! Actually it wouldn't be possble without an excellent source.

[John]

I tried Jplay with wireless and Ethernet cable much prefer the Ethernet cable via a hub at present in 2PC set up, going wireless seems to add something to the treble

[Clive]

If there's still a slight treble issue have you tried setting PacketSize lower in regedit? Default is 2; 3 and 4 can be harsher, 0 and 1 smoother. Or maybe it's the other way around!

[John]

I give that a go Clive its a lot better now using the Ethernet cables cheers

[Clive]

I've recently change the ethernet cable linking my two laptops. They are simply connected P2P. Going from CAT5e to CAT6 has improved the bass and smoothed the treble. This is worrying and I know some will say it's impossible but I'm not alone on this. CAT7 is supposed to be better still. At £4 to £8 per patch cable it's not expensive to try. Presumably the improvement is due to better plugs and better shielding.

I see an AudioQuest cable for £500.....that would need to be really good.

One new JPLAY observation. In dual PC mode I find that the Beach engine sounds good, it's now a viable alternative to River.

[purite audio]

It is impossible, did you have someone change the cables for you?
Keith.

[Clive]

It is impossible, did you have someone change the cables for you?
Keith.
I can direct you to the skeptics thread on PFM if you wish. We're rather more open minded here.

[Stratmangler]

I've recently change the ethernet cable linking my two laptops. They are simply connected P2P. Going from CAT5e to CAT6 has improved the bass and smoothed the treble. This is worrying and I know some will say it's impossible but I'm not alone on this. CAT7 is supposed to be better still. At £4 to £8 per patch cable it's not expensive to try. Presumably the improvement is due to better plugs and better shielding.

I see an AudioQuest cable for £500.....that would need to be really good.

One new JPLAY observation. In dual PC mode I find that the Beach engine sounds good, it's now a viable alternative to River.

Here we go on the audiophile numbers game again :rolleyes:

If the shielding isn't grounded, which it won't be if you don't have special network cards fitted, then the cable is just as likely to act as an aerial and pull RFI into the system, causing problems with data transmission.

You're better off with standard UTP patch leads - that rules Cat7 out straight away

[Clive]

Here we go on the audiophile numbers game again :rolleyes:

If the shielding isn't grounded, which it won't be if you don't special network cards fitted, then the cable is just as likely to act as an aerial and pull RFI into the system, causing problems with data transmission.

You're better off with standard UTP patch leads - that rules Cat7 out straight away
I'll find out re CAT7 when my £4 patch lead arrives, rather than theorize I prefer to actually try it. I agree though that this is most likely all about noise.

The £500 AudioQuest cable is not something I was considering, I mentioned it in passing. :doh: I'd be daft not to try a 2 or 3 cables given their very low price.

There's no doubt in my mind that the CAT6 delivers a better sound than CAT5e, for whatever reason.

[NRG]

Clive, what is the ethernet connection speed between the two computers?

[Stratmangler]

I'll find out re CAT7 when my £4 patch lead arrives, rather than theorize I prefer to actually try it. I agree though that this is most likely all about noise.

The £500 AudioQuest cable is not something I was considering, I mentioned it in passing. :doh: I'd be daft not to try a 2 or 3 cables given their very low price.

There's no doubt in my mind that the CAT6 delivers a better than CAT5e, for whatever reason.

Cat6 has better RFI rejection due to the cable construction.
The pairs are separated from other, minimising crosstalk, and each pair has a different twist ratio per metre.

[Clive]

Clive, what is the ethernet connection speed between the two computers?
Way under what Cat5e supports I'm sure. Just checked: 3.6Mbps.

[NRG]

Eh? it should be 10/100Mbit or 1Gbit... Try setting the connection to 10Mbit, its fast enough for redbook audio and compare the cables again...

[Clive]

Eh? it should be 10/100Mbit or 1Gbit... Try setting the connection to 10Mbit, its fast enough for redbook audio and compare the cables again...
I looked at the network speed in Task Mgr. Presumably this means throughput.

I'll have a play with network speeds later to see if that makes a difference.

[John]

I can hear a bit of difference between CAT5 and 6 I prefer 6 but not huge on my system I will also try 7 as might as well they being so cheap. As for paying £500 for a Ethernet cables I leave that for those that can afford such luxeries

[John]

I just put CAT 7 is a big difference from CAT 5 and 6. A lot more bass and texture, also detail has improved a bit too, a bit more up front

[AlexM]

I'm not getting this. What is the link between the type of ethernet cable and the sound produced? Jittter isn't a issue with this topology and neither is the bandwidth supported by the cabling. If the ethenet cable is changing the sound then I think something else is broken - perhaps electrical noise from a motherboard NIC without pulse transformer or something!. Has anyone tested different NICs or driver versions?. It Is much more likely that the network stack of the os will be doing 'something' than the PHY layer.

Alex (boggling network engineer!)

[John]

I no idea
All I can say is what I am hearing and I am not the only one with a 2pc set up hearing this

[Clive]

I no idea
All I can say is what I am hearing and I am not the only one with a 2pc set up hearing this
Absolutely John! I hear a more upfront sound, deeper into the mix yet the sound if anything is richer. CAT5 is nowhere neat, CAT6 a little laid back. CAT7 rules. I kept quiet as people get weird about this.

I've seen debate about the protocols used to transport the data. It's unclear how much error checking is done. What I know is that ethernet cables make a difference, the challenge is to work out why. Then again some refuse to believe the low latency of JPLAY can be heard.

[Clive]

I believe Telnet is used. I have a simple P2P connection with a patch cable.

[NRG]

Err, probably not more like TCP or UDP. I'm with Alex here I cant correlate what you guys say you here with a change of Ethernet cable unless there's something wrong or out of spec with the cables you where originally using IE: Near End Crosstalk. I've tested different cables in my system and there is simply no difference between them in my system...I suggested early up thread to lower the the negotiated link rate and try the cables again it would be a good test and I would also suggest to try it blind if possible.

[Clive]

Agreed re tcp/udp, what I know is that if telnet is not enabled then jplay doesn't work.

I'll try to get around to some testing but there are some many other higher priority things I have.

[AlexM]

Absolutely John! I hear a more upfront sound, deeper into the mix yet the sound if anything is richer. CAT5 is nowhere neat, CAT6 a little laid back. CAT7 rules. I kept quiet as people get weird about this.

I've seen debate about the protocols used to transport the data. It's unclear how much error checking is done. What I know is that ethernet cables make a difference, the challenge is to work out why. Then again some refuse to believe the low latency of JPLAY can be heard.

At the Ethernet level, all frames are checksumed regardless of application protocol, so errors will be visible if you look at the ethernet card stats if there is an issue. An unhealthy ethernet Nic or cabling becomes apparent quite readily.

Accepting the statements about SQ at face value (and I do as I have no personal experience), I am wondering if a galvanic network isolator between the two machines would make a change. There is a possibility of spurious voltages going between the machines if there is a difference in ground potential. It wouldn't affect data transmission unless it is really bad as 1000 Base T uses signalling that has a degree of immunity. This is why the standard requires galvanic isolation to 1200v but not all NICs do those with a pulse transformer.

Something worth trying?.

Regards,
Alex

[Clive]

I've read that a galv isolator on one end of the cable makes a bigger difference than the cable. Some people use medical ones though there are some audiofoo ones too. Btw, I notice that my CAT7 cable uses metal plugs, not plastic. Maybe this has a bearing?

[AlexM]

Clive,

Yes, a medically compliant isolator will work perfectly in this application - would love to know if this makes a difference for you.

Regards,
A.

P.s. the cables should all be utp, not stp. Your cat 7 plug jacks are possibly metal gg45 types that look like rj45 connectors.

[John]

Clive keep me informed about the Galvanic isolator. I am using a Ethernet hub rather than crossover cables
Be good to understand why I am hearing such a big difference in sound
Just to confirm my connectors on CAT7 are gg45

[John]

Neal and Alex if either of you two want to hear and play around with this let me know I love to be figure out what going on
I can either come to you or you can visit I have CAT 5 and 6 cables to play around with
It has to be something more than poor cables as I know a few people reporting similar results if it was just me I could see it being one duff cable

[Clive]

Clive keep me informed about the Galvanic isolator. I am using a Ethernet hub rather than crossover cables
Be good to understand why I am hearing such a big difference in sound
Just to confirm my connectors on CAT7 are gg45

As an aside John, I'm not using crossover cables any more. My new laptop auto configures to compensate. Are you using a hub so you can connect to arouter for internet access?

I'll start looking for cost effective isolators.

[John]

I am just using a BT home hub
I tried wireless as well but found it added something to the treble so prefer going through the cable route I also remove the Ethernet cable going into the hub whilst listening as this also effects the treble means I cannot use the internet with present set up whilst playback but that where the best sounds are

[Clive]

Just looked at isolators, they start at $150 :(

[John]

bloody heck

[John]

I am now using Ultra (its the latest engine that you can use in Windows 8 and managed to just use one Ethernet cable without the need for a hub. Bloody heck......The impact and attack is amazing, plus open soundstage and detail
Like always I am left with where can it go now

[Clive]

Hi John, I've installed the released version but can't listen until tomorrow. What US value are you finding works vs RC 15, is it different as Josef suggests?

[John]

I will play around with it today had it set at 1750 as was using that in last set up but not sure what sounds best yet Its sounding pretty balanced no harshness in the treble but as you know, altering the size can have a big effect

[John]

I prefer the higher settings in Ultra not a lot of difference but opens out a bit more in the higher settings

[Clive]

Hi John, I'm not in a position critically listen currently but I can tell that low UltraSize settings sound ok, whether in my system higher settings sound better will have to wait for tomorrow. BTW the lowest setting that plays music with the JKDAC32 is 169; for the iFi iDAC with its XMOS receiver the min is the Jplay min of 20.

[John]

The differences in my system are not much Clive

[aliuab]

Try out Lubuntu + Latency Kernel + Deadbeef, I kind of think this would be a better solution than Jplay.

[John]

Perhaps but 2pc set up in Jplay is very impressive. The only way to be sure is to compare.

[Clive]

Try out Lubuntu + Latency Kernel + Deadbeef, I kind of think this would be a better solution than Jplay.
It might well be but the 2 PC version of Jplay in hibernation mode devotes the entire pc connected to the DAC to a single purpose, all ling as you turn off a few windows features. The DAC-connected pc does not do any flac conversion, or processing of wavs as a player so it's arguably more dedicated than a single pc unbuntu solution. A 2 pc unbuntu solution though could well be an improvement.

The sweet spot for Jplay are windows users who a do some mild tweaking and who can't be bothered with twin boot setups or don't want to get involved with ubuntu and all the tweaks needed with it. Likewise people who don't want to fiddle at all are better buying a server from Gazam, Linn Naim etc. So each has it's place.