Which Is the Best Sounding Media Player?

[slwiser]

JRiver Media Player here on my home computer and my Dell Mini9, works great and has everything I want in a player including sound quality and when I want DSP that is very good as well.

[jelosno]

Ah well, it seems I am just not flexible enough. I still stick with my old stuff...

1-ripper => EAC

2-converter => dbPoweramp to FLAC via batch converting

3-tagger => MP3tag

4-playlist generator => ahemm, I don't use playlist as yet ;D not even on my portable devices

5-manager => that would be me

6-album art downloader => I like the idea but since I use devices
with very small resolution, old one 640x480, new one 1026x600 it seems not such a good idea

7-burner => hardly burn any music but MP3 for the CDP in the MINI, Nero full version is fine for that.

I have thought about running my miniPC with a somewhat regular size 15" wide monitor. Then this cover art feature would be really nice.

as for playlists and manager I am stilll fine with the sort function in Foobar. Strange, huh?

[rickcr42]

6-album art downloader => I like the idea but since I use deviceswith very small resolution, old one 640x480, new one 1026x600 it seems not such a good idea

screen size or resolution does not matter since it is just the album cover is typically sized about x3 the avatars here though it can be increased if wanted.I find the "click the cover and play the entire album" method of song selection to be the most intuitive because that is how I listen unless the session is one where I want a "mix" which is where the "playlist" feature comes in because I can load a sh*tload of favorite single songs then play that list,for me personally a way better method than the old "scroll and select" mode of computer audio song selection and for cookouts/parties/entertaining means I can concentrate on the event and not the songs (why before computer as source I LOVED my 50 Disc CD Player )


As for rips,I too have EAC but only use it for the difficult to copy CD's since it has been my experience after reading up on the topic then doing the eval) all this "one ripper is better than another" stuff is just bull crap if the disc is in good shape and the same pretty much goes for the burners-all work pretty much as well as the others until you get to the bottom feeders.

Syncing to a portable is also much easier with these all-in-one programs than it is having a dedicated program just to load songs that day

Nope.I'm done with stripped down minimalist players because the advances in software players has caught up with the Foobars and WinAmps which just don't have what I need for EZ/No Brainer music playback where not only myself but even the complete computer illiterate can make out how to play a selected song.

Choices man,a good thing

[Deleted]

As for rips,I too have EAC but only use it for the difficult to copy CD's since it has been my experience after reading up on the topic then doing the eval) all this "one ripper is better than another" stuff is just bull crap if the disc is in good shape and the same pretty much goes for the burners-all work pretty much as well as the others until you get to the bottom feeders.

Rick
If you ever get the opportunity, try ripping a high quality CD using EAC with a LG GGW-H20L BluRay writer, then burn a good quality CD-R from this with the same writer, and compare with the original. You just may be surprised at the perceived improvement when played back on a typical affordable player.
I suspect that the optical block, although it uses a standard laser for reading CDs , may have far better jitter rejection due to the need for tighter control with the much shorter wavelength BluRay discs. Surprisingly, the HDD copy made by this method sounds better than the same rip by a typical DVD writer, when played back from the HDD using a media player such as Creative Media Source Player, if the playback side is of sufficient resolution.(NOT Analogue OUT from Soundcard) This is despite the checksums being identical.
The owner of the XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player Forum has now been able to prove that Bit perfect does not necessarily mean that the contents are absolutely identical. This arose from further research into his new high end player, and may also help explain why not all bit perfect players sound the same.
Alex

www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.msg6133;topicseen#msg6133

P.S.
The track shown in this example is an uploaded BluRay ripped comparison track by RG member JeffC

[toad]

May 2, 2009 19:50:51 GMT rickcr42 said:

As for rips,I too have EAC but only use it for the difficult to copy CD's since it has been my experience after reading up on the topic then doing the eval) all this "one ripper is better than another" stuff is just bull crap if the disc is in good shape and the same pretty much goes for the burners-all work pretty much as well as the others until you get to the bottom feeders.

Having not read up on it much but using the tried and tested ears stuck to the side of my head I can honestly say that EAC "seems" to sound better to me. Is it my imagination? who knows but EAC does it for me

[rickcr42]

RickIf you ever get the opportunity, try ripping a high quality CD using EAC with a LG GGW-H20L BluRay writer, then burn a good quality CD-R from this with the same writer, and compare with the original. You just may be surprised at the perceived improvement when played back on a typical affordable player.I suspect that the optical block, although it uses a standard laser for reading CDs , may have far better jitter rejection due to the need for tighter control with the much shorter wavelength BluRay discs. Surprisingly, the HDD copy made by this method sounds better than the same rip by a typical DVD writer, when played back from the HDD using a media player such as Creative Media Source Player, if the playback side is of sufficient resolution.(NOT Analogue OUT from Soundcard) This is despite the checksums being identical.The owner of the XXHighEnd - The Ultra HighEnd Audio Player Forum has now been able to prove that Bit perfect does not necessarily mean that the contents are absolutely identical. This arose from further research into his new high end player, and may also help explain why not all bit perfect players sound the same.Alex

Digital audio is a data stream so unlike analog copying where there are electronics involved at both ends there are no "copy generation" degradations possible each being a direct 1:1 image (bit perfect) of the original so to say one ripper "sounds" better than another is just not plausible since in the raw data stage there IS NO SOUND per se until you actually PLAY the data which means it is the player that will determine what you actually hear and not the ripped raw data unless it is corrupted.

What EAC brings to the table WAS (less so now than it was once upon a time) is the ability to compare and re-rip the data until the copy is the same as the original which if the original is damaged is a huge help even though the rip will take a very long time but if your disc is in pristine condition EAC is no better (or worse) than any other quality program.

As for burning to Blue Ray why ?

I don't copy my discs period.My "ripping" is purely so I can store music in software for either conversion and loading to a portable or for local disc playback/I already OWN the CD so unless the "data" begins life as a downloaded codec that i want a hard copy of I have no reason to purchase another Disc Burner the point being to load my music library to the computer then format converting from wav to FLAC for later playback using the above mentioned all-in-one programs and later whan I decide which way to jump (olive audio,squeezebox,etc.) distribution to music "stations" so all of my efforts are in the playback SQ side of things and not the copying end which is pretty much moot all things being equal since as stated bit perfect copies are just that,an EXACT copy of the original and like with a persons choice in amp/speakers/headphones will be the end of the road players (both hardware and software) not the starting line (the rip) that will have the most audible differences.

When that is considered it then follows that ease of use and truly usable features take precedence once you get the sonics nailed down and if you are one that believes Winamp (with the proper third-party plugins) sounds as good as Foobar 2000,and I am in that camp,then having a better front end-Media Monkey-can only be considered a plus in my opinion because the GUI is that good as is the actual real world ease of use for even the total computer idiot once it is set up and personalized for that mode of use.

Songbird on the other hand takes more work being less intuitive but for soundcard or external PCM DAC play (no ASIO functionality as of yet so USB DACs are off the table for now) sounds damn good,also in my own opinion,and why I keep it around because being an open source program it has great potential and especially so if the user list increases which would push the writing of new codes,a thing beyond my capabilities me having no desire to learn how at my age though a thing I wish I was interested in earlier in life and would have been if my crystal ball had told me the future of audio playback was not only going to all digital but to totally without a hard copy medium-computer as player-which is where we are headed,along with coming government imposed restrictions on sound quality on the hardware side when certain topologies (class-A audio,linear power supplies,good sounding parts) are outlawed in the name of saving the planet


BTW-For those of you living in the US don't breath or you may get a huge bill for CO2 emissions when the "cap and trade" bill passes since even an idiot knows WE and any other creature with a lung are the largest offenders of CO2 emissions on the planet every time we exhale..........................................

[rickcr42]

as for jitter,well from where i sit it seems to be a bout the most misunderstood term in all of audio and not only that,it seems many folks actually LIKE the way it sounds but they don;t realize it is jitter that they are hearing


www.positive-feedback.com/Issue43/jitter.htm

[Deleted]

Digital audio is a data stream so unlike analog copying where there are electronics involved at both ends there are no "copy generation" degradations possible each being a direct 1:1 image (bit perfect) of the original so to say one ripper "sounds" better than another is just not plausible since in the raw data stage there IS NO SOUND per se until you actually PLAY the data which means it is the player that will determine what you actually hear and not the ripped raw data unless it is corrupted.

Rick
A highly predictable answer from you and many others.
There are several other members of this forum that would disagree with you on this,after having heard uploaded comparison tracks which have been confirmed to be bit perfect before uploading, yet these members have been able to clearly hear the same differences that I hear.One other RG member also has a BR writer, and has also uploaded rips which are "Bit Perfect" yet sound different with several different players .Currently one of his uploads features in an examination by the owner of the XXHighEnd Forum, who is now able to verify that there can indeed be differences within Bit Perfect samples, after research into the latest changes to his HighEnd player software.
www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.msg6109;topicseen#msg6109
One Sydney member has heard these differences from my PC - X-DAC V3 into his new SC HA, and reported his findings independently of me in the BluRay thread. Leo is also able to easily identify such differences via his Buffalo DAC with Paul Hynes regulators from the provided downloads. I will add that the differences are glossed (smoothed) over in some well liked players, yet clearly evident using players such as Creative Media Source Player. We can also identify and appreciate the differences between good material that has been ripped to .wav then converted to .flac and reconverted to .wav, when compared with the original .wav on the HDD, DESPITE the check sums saying they are identical. Furthermore, the BR then EAC rips of the new Sony Blu-spec comparison CDs are audibly superior from the HDD, but not quite as obvious as they are when played directly by a typical CD player. The Blu-spec disc is sourced from a Blue Laser burned stamper , whereas the normal included comparison version is created from a conventional stamper.
Sony intends for you to hear the difference, hence the title "Feel the Difference of the Blu-spec CD Rock Selection"
Yes, both versions give the same check sums after ripping to the HDD via EAC and an EAC calibrated drive, whether BluRay drive or normal CD/DVD drive. Yet the audible difference is even more pronounced if the Blu-spec version is ripped by the LG GGW-H20L BluRay writer.

Alex

[rickcr42]

"I hear.One other RG member also has a BR writer, and has also uploaded rips which are "Bit Perfect" yet sound different with several different players ."

you make my point above and didn't even realize you did.

"sounds different with different players"

is exactly what I said yet you argue it is the ripper at fault and not the players having their own sound just like any other device used for audio playback.Raw data if an exact copy can only be what it is,bits,ones and zeroes,so it comes down to how those are manipulated in both the data stream post ripping and then once converted to an analog signal the playback electronics.

Any technical data I have read,all tests from any but a suspect source and the general body of knowledge says it is not the rips but post rip.Of course if a person sets out from the outset to disprove this they would in fact choice the worst examples of both CD/DVD ROM transport AND ripping program to fudge the results and why I dismiss anythying from those with known axes to grind because they never use a "control" and/or repeatable tests when pressed to fact up


You take a copy of ANY recorded medium,LP,Cassette,Mini-Disk,CD,Etc. and it will SOUND different in EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE OF SYSTEM bar none so for instance if you take two systems side by side playing the exact same cut then bounce the music between two non-identical systems you will get two distinct sounds that while recognizable for who and what the performance IS will sound nothing alike on playback.Take that same test to the next level and use two IDENTICAL systems but with the speakers in two different acoustical "zones" of a room and again,two entirely different sounding versions of the same thing


Nope.Until someone can take this to the next level and prove beyond doubt there is a distinct audible or measurable difference between high quality rippers I will continue to concentrate on what follows,getting the data to sound good on playback.

As said before I do have EAC but I rarely use it these past months and if I thought after YEARS of using the program (and my guess is I was doing computer "high quality" audio before any of you) I was taking a step back back do you really think I would not just fire up the program for ripping purposes ?

[Deleted]

May 5, 2009 18:18:08 GMT rickcr42 said:

"I hear.One other RG member also has a BR writer, and has also uploaded rips which are "Bit Perfect" yet sound different with several different players ."

you make my point above and didn't even realize you did.

"sounds different with different players"

is exactly what I said yet you argue it is the ripper at fault and not the players having their own sound just like any other device used for audio playback.Raw data if an exact copy can only be what it is,bits,ones and zeroes,so it comes down to how those are manipulated in both the data stream post ripping and then once converted to an analog signal the playback electronics.

Any technical data I have read,all tests from any but a suspect source and the general body of knowledge says it is not the rips but post rip.Of course if a person sets out from the outset to disprove this they would in fact choice the worst examples of both CD/DVD ROM transport AND ripping program to fudge the results and why I dismiss anythying from those with known axes to grind because they never use a "control" and/or repeatable tests when pressed to fact up


You take a copy of ANY recorded medium,LP,Cassette,Mini-Disk,CD,Etc. and it will SOUND different in EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE OF SYSTEM bar none so for instance if you take two systems side by side playing the exact same cut then bounce the music between two non-identical systems you will get two distinct sounds that while recognizable for who and what the performance IS will sound nothing alike on playback.Take that same test to the next level and use two IDENTICAL systems but with the speakers in two different acoustical "zones" of a room and again,two entirely different sounding versions of the same thing


Nope.Until someone can take this to the next level and prove beyond doubt there is a distinct audible or measurable difference between high quality rippers I will continue to concentrate on what follows,getting the data to sound good on playback.

As said before I do have EAC but I rarely use it these past months and if I thought after YEARS of using the program (and my guess is I was doing computer "high quality" audio before any of you) I was taking a step back back do you really think I would not just fire up the program for ripping purposes ?

Rick
You have misread my post in reply to yours. I wasn't referring to CD players. I was referring to the subject of this thread,Media Players. .
I am talking about playback directly from the HDD using the same software player to play both ripped versions.

Surprisingly, the HDD copy made by this method sounds better than the same rip by a typical DVD writer, when played back from the HDD using a media player such as Creative Media Source Player, if the playback side is of sufficient resolution.(NOT Analogue OUT from Soundcard) This is despite the checksums being identical.

Other people have heard the same differences with their own favourite software players when comparing the same supposedly identical files. Neither am I comparing ripping programs. I always use EAC for all rips. In each case where the files that were subtly audibly different when played back directly from the HDD were compared using ExactFile, the check sums were identical.
I have gone into this in much greater detail in the BluRay thread.
Perhaps you missed most of that discussion/updated reports?
SEE ALSO :
www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=815.msg6083#new

Alex

[rickcr42]

well it seems I must have gone past "I don't get it" straight to "totally baffled" because my reading of the thread was that it was YOU who brought in ripper superiority and blue ray burner superiority then when I went with that tangent came back to the SQ of "hard drive as source" media players,which as my original contention was the two I mentioned as my current preferred programs have the "added" attraction of also being a self contained all-in-one mechanism,and that for me personally were as good on the SQ front as any software aggregate of individual programs to perform the same tasks and with the bare bones "player" as the mechanism for playback of music.

That was my reading of it anyway but being that I am fifty something maybe I have finally reached the stage where killing off all those brain cells during my youth is finally catching up ;D

[Deleted]

Rick
I don't believe that I suggested ripper superiority, as I only use E.A.C. If it appeared that way, it wasn't my intention, so, my apologies.
As far as killing off of brain cells, I think an added 20 years to your age is doing that for me, otherwise I would be keeping these findings of mine to a select group. That way I wouldn't be getting shit on from such a great height by almost everybody that responds in diyAudio. Even one of our members who I class as a friend thinks I am delusional with my claims too. ;D
Alex

P.S.

You may remember a piece you posted some time back about some people with hearing damage having special insights in this area ?
I believe that my Industrial type hearing damage, combined with a benign tumour pressing on my right ear auditory canal, has made me more acutely aware of very small amounts of missing/less precise HF detail, especially where it affects soundstage.

[Will]

I think that at DiyAudio, If a 'big boy/moderator' disagrees with you, or does not want to believe in what you are saying, then they will not hear any improvements - period, regardless of what they are hearing. Others will the follow blindly.

That chuff about compression/distortion in your equipment, Alex, is apparent to everyone who has built the "AK" jaycar amp. Netlist was never going to hear any differences, as he did not want to hear any.


I would think that the majority of people that know you here at the RG respect you enough to take your word if you say you have heard a difference/improvement.

I'm not talking about following blindly here, though!

At least a few people were open-minded enough to try it out, and find the improvements themselves.

I look forward to being able to try it myself, oneday.

[Will]

Well, seeing as Alex was 'right' about the SCHA, I thought that I would give him the benefit of the doubt RE: Creative Media Source (CMS).

I say benefit of the doubt, as I was heavily biased towards foobar, and did not think that the Creative bloatware (as I've come to think of it in the past) could be better than a dedicated piece of software, without any constraints.

I played a few rock and female vocal tracks this morning, from my laptop into my AlienDAC i made myexposition.com/diy/usbdac/overview.html. From the DAC into my AK SCHA/K701.

First I played a few tracks with foobar, using ASIO4ALL to output directly to the AlienDAC. I then listened to the same tracks using CMS, via the AlienDAC.

After about half an hour of to-ing and fro-ing (Foobar with and without ASIO and CMS playback) It turns out that despite by prejudice, CMS is the better player, to my ears.

Cymbals are crisper, with more of a metallic ring to them, and the vocals that bit more cleaner. Upper Bass was better resolved and seemed to have been brought forward in the mix.

Overall, music sounds better with CMS.

The player can be downloaded from Creative support for free, and you do not need to creative hardware to utilise the playback functions.

[rickcr42]

"As far as killing off of brain cells, I think an added 20 years to your age is doing that for me"

Well there is the generic " benign twenty years of general aging" and there is the "balls to the wall self abuse we either melt the walls or die trying" type of aging and I think maybe my life leading up to thirty was one no human should have survived with even a thimbal full of brain matter left (in fact i pretty much have a blank spot for the 70's decade ) so in many ways am older beyond my years in physical/mental wear and tear.

I also suffer a serious amount of hearing loss in one ear that began life as an early childhood ear infection and that was not help in any way having a serious amount of military ordinance go off in close proximity AND my tendency back then to try and make at least one "arena" concert per week with my habit to always be within the first few rows center stage (with one, Metallica being the only one that actually backed me off from the stage off at the time being so loud and another,AC/DC,giving me problems for a week due to the cannon shots in "for those about to rock") so my system MUST have a left/right fine tuning/balancing mechanism if I am to enjoy music plus mild EQ for the one channel.

Because of these problems I like you tend to focus more into the inner details not as much by choice but by habit due to all the years of "unassisted" (left balance and EQ) listening where my brain had to do the processing and where i imagine my head may have actually tilted to the lacking side when listening because we tend to shift our heads/bodies to the direction of acutely focused hearing.


Having said that I still feel it is the software players that have the most sonic impact on ANY digital playback format and that goes for both hard drive and Redbook CD play if it comes from the computer disc player as would in a "hardware only" system be the case with the Transport/DAC system which will determine how everything that follows will sound it being the controlling factor by being the "source" of the signal so I think of the media players as one would a transport and THEN the conversion stage,the DA Converter,and finally the analog electronics which in the end can only be as good as the signal fed in (GIGO: Garbage In/Garbage Out).

At one time it was Foobar 0.8.3 and ASIO that was the cats whiskers but that was until I got WinAmp (my first and still liked media player) to sound first as good and then better-again with an ASIO wrapper and soundcard driver/emulator to a USB port output with the now BETTER (features and user friendliness) GUI of Media Monkey as the front end,the control panel if you need a mental picture,but ONLY for ASIO and USB ported outputs.For a SPDIF stream in MY system it still goes through the Songbird media player engine which gets a lot right (plus is a GREAT front end for internet radio) and if it ever gets ASIO usability may just become my last stop in media player software it being in many ways as good as it gets without being bloated.


So there is no "best" out there just personal system based "best" and personal taste "best" because as it has been PROVEN over and over again even the holy grail of "bit perfect" does not mean "sounds the same" because they do not even though the data stream is IDENTICAL which tells me there is a lot more going on than we know when it comes to HD based music play and why I tend more to usable features these days when there is truly no etched in stone "RIGHT" player out there,just a lot of good choices each that would have you believe is THE ONE with nothing to back up the claim other than users opinions there being not much in the data stream measuring to prove or disprove the claims....even though they DO try................

[Deleted]

May 8, 2009 14:04:31 GMT rickcr42 said:

"As far as killing off of brain cells, I think an added 20 years to your age is doing that for me"

Well there is the generic " benign twenty years of general aging" and there is the "balls to the wall self abuse we either melt the walls or die trying" type of aging and I think maybe my life leading up to thirty was one no human should have survived with even a thimbal full of brain matter left (in fact i pretty much have a blank spot for the 70's decade ) so in many ways am older beyond my years in physical/mental wear and tear.

I also suffer a serious amount of hearing loss in one ear that began life as an early childhood ear infection and that was not help in any way having a serious amount of military ordinance go off in close proximity AND my tendency back then to try and make at least one "arena" concert per week with my habit to always be within the first few rows center stage (with one, Metallica being the only one that actually backed me off from the stage off at the time being so loud and another,AC/DC,giving me problems for a week due to the cannon shots in "for those about to rock") so my system MUST have a left/right fine tuning/balancing mechanism if I am to enjoy music plus mild EQ for the one channel.

Because of these problems I like you tend to focus more into the inner details not as much by choice but by habit due to all the years of "unassisted" (left balance and EQ) listening where my brain had to do the processing and where i imagine my head may have actually tilted to the lacking side when listening because we tend to shift our heads/bodies to the direction of acutely focused hearing.


Having said that I still feel it is the software players that have the most sonic impact on ANY digital playback format and that goes for both hard drive and Redbook CD play if it comes from the computer disc player as would in a "hardware only" system be the case with the Transport/DAC system which will determine how everything that follows will sound it being the controlling factor by being the "source" of the signal so I think of the media players as one would a transport and THEN the conversion stage,the DA Converter,and finally the analog electronics which in the end can only be as good as the signal fed in (GIGO: Garbage In/Garbage Out).

At one time it was Foobar 0.8.3 and ASIO that was the cats whiskers but that was until I got WinAmp (my first and still liked media player) to sound first as good and then better-again with an ASIO wrapper and soundcard driver/emulator to a USB port output with the now BETTER (features and user friendliness) GUI of Media Monkey as the front end,the control panel if you need a mental picture,but ONLY for ASIO and USB ported outputs.For a SPDIF stream in MY system it still goes through the Songbird media player engine which gets a lot right (plus is a GREAT front end for internet radio) and if it ever gets ASIO usability may just become my last stop in media player software it being in many ways as good as it gets without being bloated.


So there is no "best" out there just personal system based "best" and personal taste "best" because as it has been PROVEN over and over again even the holy grail of "bit perfect" does not mean "sounds the same" because they do not even though the data stream is IDENTICAL which tells me there is a lot more going on than we know when it comes to HD based music play and why I tend more to usable features these days when there is truly no etched in stone "RIGHT" player out there,just a lot of good choices each that would have you believe is THE ONE with nothing to back up the claim other than users opinions there being not much in the data stream measuring to prove or disprove the claims....even though they DO try................

Rick
You just made my day ! This time I am in complete agreement with you.
With a little luck, I hope to prove us both right.( Leo and JeffC as well) I could also spectacularly bomb out, so I won't say too much more at the moment. I do hope my BP stays down, though.
Alex

[rickcr42]

www.computeraudiophile.com/Songbird-1.0.0-Released-For-Windows-OSX-Linux

check it out,really is a nice player

[clint]

I'd used foobar for a few years, than i'd tried media monkey and lately i tried songbird but the one who really works for me is JRiver with asio drivers. It's not bit-perfect because i like to add a little eq. mainly because i do not have the perfect listening room.

[rickcr42]

used the J-River music player only software for a while plus did the eval version of the full version and yes,not too shabby,was a tight call between it and media monkey for that type but i still have high hopes for Song Bird which so far for me has the BEST engine for playing to the SPDIF output and if they ever get ASIO capability may just be the best going on SQ if they do it right though I have a feeling ASIO may become passe' since XP is becoming a relic with the current Windows Vista and coming soon Windows 7 OS that have no need of the ASIO interface so this may shake out differently in the coming months

[Spirit]

Update:

Stopped using Audioburst... it was doing things to the sound that I didn't like. In particular, one of the tracks from Touch Yellow lost a LOT of bass detail with it on.
I've since reverted to DirectSound output (default Winamp output).
May well try out some other players over the holidays...