RE: player for windows computer - Archimago 22:29:31 04/11/14 (5)
 It was explained to some like yourself, many times, what.... - carcass93 15:13:07 04/12/14 (0)
 I can't explain how/why in technical terms, but I hear distinct differences. My preference is... - willkayakforfood 14:21:43 04/12/14 (0)

...

Show full thread outline!

 RE: player for windows computer - Archimago 22:29:31 04/11/14 (5)
 It was explained to some like yourself, many times, what.... - carcass93 15:13:07 04/12/14 (0)
 I can't explain how/why in technical terms, but I hear distinct differences. My preference is... - willkayakforfood 14:21:43 04/12/14 (0)
 RE: player for windows computer - Tony Lauck 08:10:35 04/12/14 (2)
 RE: player for windows computer - Archimago 10:01:22 04/12/14 (1)
 RE: player for windows computer - Tony Lauck 10:49:27 04/12/14 (0)
 RE: player for windows computer - John Elison 13:50:35 04/07/14 (0)
 Tell us - JeffH 13:20:04 04/07/14 (0)
 Whatever you use has to be setup properly. - StephenJK 12:52:30 04/07/14 (12)
 Jeez folks - JeffH 13:23:09 04/07/14 (10)
 I thought I was being helpful.... - StephenJK 13:38:30 04/07/14 (2)
 RE: I thought I was being helpful.... - JeffH 16:11:26 04/07/14 (1)
 No problem, Jeff. - StephenJK 18:14:26 04/07/14 (0)
 RE: Jeez folks - bertucciandy@yahoo.com 13:38:11 04/07/14 (6)
 RE: Jeez folks - Roseval 14:06:11 04/07/14 (1)
 Yes, ASUS supports ASIO - drivers are fine (was a problem several years ago). N/T - carcass93 14:08:14 04/07/14 (0)
 Important: what output options in JRiver have you tried... - carcass93 13:49:13 04/07/14 (0)
 Are you - JeffH 13:47:00 04/07/14 (2)
 RE: Are you - bertucciandy@yahoo.com 13:52:02 04/07/14 (1)
 RE: Are you - JeffH 14:48:19 04/07/14 (0)
 "JRiver.... is purpose built for bit perfect playback" - what does that tell us? - carcass93 13:14:27 04/07/14 (0)

• http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/436-jriver-media-c

However, there's no argument from me that JRiver, used with one of its bit-perfect output options (ASIO, WASAPI, don't remember whether it supports KS) should sound better than WMP - even on non-optimized PC.

If OP uses it via DirectSound, then there's a good chance that the differences are impossible to hear.

Personally, I dig JRiver, but not just for the sound. There are a bunch of players with their share of followers.

• http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Driver.htm

Others beat me to it, but WASAPI or ASIO will beat directsound every time if supported.

That's all nice and good but just words and theoretical possibilities at best. So what?

Show us something to demonstrate that either there are plausible differences of some kind in the analogue output from a good DAC or controlled tests to show that people can pick out the differences among software players. Please also include description of the computer used (CPU, RAM, motherboard...), OS version, driver. Because I can't; and I've spent hours looking and listening to this. Until then, I advise the OP to try out a few players for himself and think of what his needs are.

Enjoy some music along the way of course. And I'd love to hear what the OP ultimately decides on.

-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

Favorite: PlayPcmWin

This doesn't have some of the interface conveniences I enjoyed with Foobar, but I do feel it sounds better, and I'll live, quite happily, with its little inconveniences.

Former favorite: Foobar 2000

Still not a terrible compromise, if greater convenience of interface features is someone's preference. Not only does it wipe the floor with JRiver in terms of sound quality, but I also much prefer the utility of its interface over the bloated, total "style before substance" of JRiver. Whenever I switched from JRiver to Foobar, the feeling was always one of relief. That says something. Something important. That feeling of relief was even a bit more pronounced when switching from JRiver to PlayPcmWin.

Least favorite: JRiver

I really dislike this one. With so many people using JRiver, I thought I'd give it another try, just to figure out why it seemed so popular (was even stupid enough to pay for it). With its under water, synthesizer-like sound (more on settings for the comparisons a bit later), I found it, always, very annoying (and no, as someone assumed during a private conversation about this, my JRiver is not malfunctioning -- it's just crap).

When it comes to choosing music to play, I don't care about album art, fancy graphics, links to commercial sites (I keep my dedicated music computer disconnected from the Internet while playing local music files), etc., and I don't want an all-in-one "media center" that wants to grab every sort of media file on the computer for itself (not really an issue with my dedicated music computer, as all it has is music files, but why have all that unnecessary bloat, anyway?). I also found JRiver's playlist creation quite clumsy compared to Foobar's. Of course, none of that was much of a concern of mine once I spent some time (too much time) listening to JRiver. It just doesn't sound good to me.

Honestly, it doesn't take much time at all to distinguish differences, and to form preferences. It's either doing something right, or it's not. Beyond that, it's matters of degree -- also easy to distinguish.

My comparisons here aren't just about three players "against each other". Instead, my reference is always live, acoustic music, which is convenient for me, as it's what I've spent my entire life doing -- both performing and listening to others. That said, while no stereo system has yet been able to fool me into believing that there are musicians playing in the room rather than a stereo system (and I don't expect to ever be fooled by this, so it's not my first concern), I also don't expect "perfection" from any software music players. Both Foobar and PlayPcmWin offer a distinct advantage over JRiver in terms of getting closer to instrumental, vocal, and acoustic venue timbral accuracy (at least on the stereo systems available to me at the moment -- see my profile for details). While comparing, I even used recordings of individual players/instruments, and vocalists with whom I'm intimately familiar (friends and colleagues, and even some of my own recordings -- with and without those particular friends and colleagues).

I don't know why so-called claimed "bit perfect" transmission of a digital signal from computer to external DAC can sound so different between various software players, but there it is -- distinct differences in final sound do exist. I'm not enough of a geek to spend much time wondering about the technical hows and whys. I just want to listen to music, and I'll choose the methods that sound best to me. I'm glad there are geeks working on these issues, as many of us certainly do benefit from their efforts (in some cases, anyway).

The basic settings in all three players were as similar as I could manage, according to the specific options offered by each...

WASAPI event style, no upsampling, no DSP, memory play.

Most of my music files are WAV, ripped from my CD collection, along with a few downloaded 24/96 recordings.

I'm of the opinion that if a stereo system can do a "decent enough" job of reproducing recorded acoustic instruments and/or voices in acoustic performance venues without eliciting too much annoyance, it will likely also do a decent enough job of reproducing music that is originally produced using electric instruments, sound reinforced instruments and vocals, etc.

I've tested all three of these software players on all my stereo systems (two complete amp/speaker systems, headphone system with variations, and three different external DACS -- again, see system details in my profile). Every time, the results were the same -- no question.

Now, a bit about how the free, open source PlayPcmWin became not only my favorite player, but also my most expensive one! :) ...

Until my recent discovery of PlayPcmWin, I was getting away with using a little 32 bit (Win 7) netbook computer as my music server. With PlayPcmWin's memory play method of putting the entire current playlist into memory before playing, I found that while the maximum allowed 2 GB of RAM on the little machine was enough to handle a full album of WAV files at once, when it came to albums of 24/96 files, I had to split them up into two playlists, with all the rather clumsy "changing of the guard" in-between, breaking up the performance. I couldn't have that, so I had to get a computer that could handle more RAM (I already have two other laptops that each have 8 GB RAM, but I still needed a dedicated music computer).

On the local Craigslist, I found a computer identical to the one I use for most traveling (12" ASUS 1215B-PU17), so I knew that with 8 GB RAM, it could handle my music server needs. Got it all set up (Windows 7 reasonably optimized, unnecessary programs removed, unneeded services stopped, etc.), and $250 later, it's working wonderfully, and sounding very good with PlayPcmWin.

Some basic conclusions:

I don't know why, but music players do make a clear difference.

I don't understand why anyone would prefer JRiver, if sound quality is the primary concern.

I will happily endure a bit of interface inconvenience if the sound quality is better (I prefer Foobar's interface, but PlayPcmWin sounds better).

I didn't mind spending an unexpected $250 to enjoy the benefits of the free, open source, and somewhat interface-convenience-challenged PlayPcmWin. Music is sounding quite good through my stereo systems with this setup, and I'm enjoying it.