|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.181.188.112
In Reply to: RE: I double-dog-dare you to post this over on computeraudiophile.com! nt posted by Beetlemania on February 22, 2015 at 09:29:29
I don't get involved in CA politics. Isn't it logical to assume that if JPlay degrades the sound and performance of JRiver, that this unnatural and unholy alliance of products would conversely degrade JPlay?
I really take no issue with what JRiver has done. It's their business model and plenty of options exist for JPlay users.
Follow Ups:
"I really take no issue with what JRiver has done. It's their business model and plenty of options exist for JPlay users."
Steve,
What about the PUBLIC hoax page?
regards
Bob
It is what a bunch of folk think. Now that does not include anything new that jplay might come out with. There is no true loyalty to JRiver, if JPlay comes out with a player/manager that has all the functionality of JRiver, but sounded substantially better then you would see the tide turn.
A fundamental goal of a good computer based music player should be an excellent and intuitive library manager. I think JRiver is outstanding in this regard. Lacking that, it wouldn't matter much if a stripped down player sounded marginally better to a couple golden ears. For me it's about the system as a whole, the conveniences and features that make it a pleasure to use, along with excellent sound.
There is often a conflict between user interface issues and sound quality. This may come about for sound technical reasons (hardware and/or software related) or because the people who can produce one tend to lack the interest and skills to produce the other.
Put me down on the side of sound quality, not bling.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Not to mention a third category; the ones who know how to market a product :)
The Well Tempered Computer
I wouldn't call good library management "Bling" but a fundamental requirement of a music server for anyone who has thousands of music files.
I don't believe that good library management and quality sound have to be mutually exclusive. If this were the case, we should all give up on computers for managing our music and go back to the inconveniences of storing and spinning vinyl.
As with any engineering endeavor there are trade-offs and decisions that are made based on the end goal and there are weightings placed on the components and features that get you there. Bling is not one of them but a good library manager is very important to many people in this very forum.
Library management is certainly important for me. No point to computer audio without it.
Recorded music in any form is a convenience relative to live music. As far as I'm concerned, continued improvements in convenience without noticeable reduction in sound quality are welcome.
my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/
Well put!
Even the idle rich of the past had less musical access than today's teenager with an iPhone.
It's like electricity. Who want's to go back to wood stoves and kerosene lamps? Well, some do and they still can, but Reddy Kilowatt was my childhood hero...
While I do enjoy the symphony it isn't really the sound quality that's better, it's the visuals and the acoustic field. A few more channels, big-screen video and a machine that sucks on Hall's cough drops while rustling a program and I'm virtually there!
Rick
Convenience is only a minor point. Of inestimably greater value is the preservation of the performance art of musicians who are no longer with us.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
it isn't really the sound quality that's better, it's the visuals and the acoustic field . . .
But, as much as anything, it's the occasion . You look forward to a concert for days; you travel to the venue; there's that atmosphere that only an eager crowd can provide; the lights dim, there's a hush of anticipation; the famous conductor, soloist, whoever walks on, usually with a touch of theatre. Raised baton . . . wham!
Beat that with antsy-fancy DACs and record decks, "Library Management" and the rest. You don't hear the exiting audience muttering, "Wow, I haven't had such a thrill since I froze my power cords."
D
"the famous conductor, soloist, whoever walks on..."
Can't argue with that Dave. Being a "first time" can make many experiences extra special!
In the early 80's our area opened a decent performance venue and we got to see (and hear) many performers that we previously only knew from recordings or TV. Having them there "in the flesh" does pique expectations. And they always delivered. And we got to see it in "real-time". Of course TV used to be real-time also before video recorders existed. And I think it was better. More "live".
Maybe that's more important than physical presence? When I was in high school our homeroom had a telephonic interview with George Burns and it was great even though he was over a thousand miles away. I'm not sure that it would really have been any better if he had been in the room. But it was happening in "real-time...
Human perception is tricky, am I real or an automaton?
Responder Rick
> Who want's to go back to wood stoves and kerosene lamps?
> Well, some do and they still can,
Sounds pretty audiophile to me. The fire crackling away would fit with pops and clicks from LPs and the light from Kerosene lamps would be like vacuum tubes glowing. And no EMI.
Going out to the wood pile to get more wood is like getting up to flip the LP. Pretty high end.
> but Reddy Kilowatt was my childhood hero...
I remember Reddy.
> A few more channels, big-screen video and a machine that sucks on Hall's
> cough drops while rustling a program and I'm virtually there!
Don't forget coughs, sneezes and various germs from those people.
my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/
You can have both, it just depends... A general more used friendly interface for more casual listening and something more basic, akin to placing an LP on a table for more critical listening... Would not be that hard. I do it all the time.
It DOES sound substantially better, right now - for those who can discern, and care about, such things.
If the sound is "substantially" better, why does it require a "discerning" listener to notice it? Shouldn't the improvement be apparent to all?
JE
Hey Bob,
I think the Hoax thing has been discussed many times. I want to move on.
"I think the Hoax thing has been discussed many times. I want to move on."
I seems to me it was a bit ill advised on your part to mention JRiver in your original post.
There are a lot of companies that market products to audiophiles. There is no reason to be do business with those with questionable business practices. The Music Lovers / Audiophiles remain free to steer people away from unethical businesses and will continue to do so. Those involved in the trade should probably stay away from such matters, otherwise they put themselves at risk of being labeled as unethical. Just saying.... But I will continue to trust Lucy's ethics no matter what.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony,
We discussed the Hoax thing to death here and also an article was posted at AudioStream.
I couldn't resist mentioning JRiver since they made such a stink about JPlay. Given that JPlay is offering streaming alternatives and there are other players, JPlay users shouldn't feel too bad.
Lucy appreciates your continued confidence in her work.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: