J.River Media Center or Foobar?
Posted by: Graham Russell on 10 January 2010
I'm impressed with CMP memory playback using cPlay and Foobar, but it is a bit "simple" in it's interface.
To stick with the native Windows explorer system the choices seem to be Foobar or J.River Media Center. I've been listening to both via ASIO through my new Juli@ card. Playing back from memory with Media Center has some advantages. Overall the sound seems to flow better and be more musical and engaging.
I'm wondering what is the prefered playback tool of choice? Foobar is obviously free and has a large following, but which sounds best?
Cheers
Graham
Posted on: 10 January 2010 by pcstockton
Graham,
I have never been able to hear a difference between players.
That said, I think Foobar offers the most out there.
-p
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by Graham Russell
quote:
Originally posted by munch:
G,
You dont half make life hard for yourself
Stu
Gotta have some fun to keep me out of trouble
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by SteveH
Foobar sounds better and seems to use less processor cycles
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by Graham Russell
This is so subjective
Last night I thought Media Center sounded better and had tighter imaging.
More listening required I think....
Graham
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by secret gardener
quote:
Last night I thought Media Center sounded better and had tighter imaging.
If by that you mean that there is a tighter image or focus on the strands of the music I agree totally.
Foobar will attract the most praise here, it is more widely used; but I agree that JRiver playing from memory with ASIO drivers is both revealing of the individual strands and compelling in following the music.
More listening is always a good idea and it helps to cut down on the typing.
As you can tell I am a happy JRiver 14 user, who likes both the sound and the feature set.
Paul
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by js
I prefer the sound of Foobar but far prefer the J. River interface. J'River is a wee bit glassy with less good timing for me.
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by Jack
Current preference is for Foobar. Have played around with J River and Media Monkey, not convinced I can definitely hear a difference. Foobar for you gives the most opportunity for customisation from what I know,if you don't want to customise then the basic interface may be a an issue!
Posted on: 11 January 2010 by pcstockton
quote:
Originally posted by js:
I prefer the sound of Foobar but far prefer the J. River interface. J'River is a wee bit glassy with less good timing for me.
How can you have a problem with an interface that can achieve anything? You could EASILY make it work, look and act exactly like JRiver if that whats you want from an interface.
Posted on: 13 January 2010 by pcstockton
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by js
It's horrible with .wav file organization. J.River, MM, WM, and Winamp all do it easily. If I wasn't a .wav guy, I'd be all over Foobar for it's purpose. Are you aware of any way to use foobar as the engine via another program?
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Graham Russell
What issues are you finding with .wav and Foobar?
I have re-ripped with dBpoweramp to Flac, used dBpoweramp command line tools to convert to wav and have lots of tags and embedded images in my .wav files. Great stuff. Foobar now displays wavs the same as flacs.
