EquaRack

JRiver Shell Issue: I am running JRiver 21 with Windows Server 2012 R2. When I select JRiver as my Shell choice in AO, a prompt indicates that JRiver cannot be found and that I must install it in the proper Default Directory. It is installed in the C: (x86) Programs Folder - it's proper default location! And, I can play music with it in GUI and Core Mode so it IS working! How can I solve this problem and create a JRiver Shell? Please provide step-by-step directions.

John: Thanks for the reply John but you may have misunderstood my question. I mapped the NAS while using GUI Mode and I have no problem with it. But I want to know how I can do it in CORE Mode if I have to do it again in the future. How do I find the drive with no GUI?!

Hello: Please tell me how I can interact or access my Synology NAS in Core Mode with no GUI. On occasion, I may need to re-connect or "map" the NAS. Thanks, Joe Ciulla EquaRack

Thanks for the quick answer Thomas! Joe

Hello Phil: I use a wireless mouse to control a monitor to access my music. Will This still work with Windows Server 2012 R2 in Both GUI and Core modes? Thanks, Joe

Hello Chris: Congrats on the new Pipeline! I own a C.A.P.S. Carbon music server with optional SOtm3 USB Card and Red Wine Audio Black Lightning battery power supply, running W8.1 32-bit and JRiver-19. I care ONLY about SQ playing PCM & DSD files with no up-sampling or room correction. Putting all features and capabilities of the new Pipeline aside, do you know for a fact or is it your opinion that Pipeline does or should SOUND BETTER than what I currently have? In addition, why did you choose to use W8.1 Pro 64-bit instead of the (claimed superior) Windows 2012 Server OS? And finally, have you evaluated "Audiophile Optimizer" with Windows 2012 Server or another Windows OS? Many Thanks In Advance!

John Doe: Will you also offer an version for 32-Bit W8-Pro?

Priaptor, once again, I appreciate your enthusiastic and insightful comments! I have many decisions to make but I will buy a Zuma or Carbon with a Black Lightning PSU and the Acoustic Revive RLI-1 because it's easy to compare "with & without" this simple, in-line device. However, substituting different USB cards or internal cables is not part of my plan because I have no conclusive reasons to do so and I am not inclined to "experiment forever" with gear. If I begin to "re-think" every part of the server designs, I'll "go nuts"!

Thanks Priaptor, I appreciate your informed opinion!

I appreciate the speculative responses to my question thus far but going forward, I'd like to get responses ONLY from those people who have DIRECTLY COMPARED Zuma to Carbon for 2-channel audio playback, 44Hz - DSD 128, with the "play from memory" setting in JRiver. I would expect other potential buyers of a CAPS server may also like to have this information.

Has anyone compared the sound quality of these two servers? I want the best sounding server regardless of cost and often, "less is more". I just spoke with Andy at Small Green Computer who explained the physical differences between the two servers. They both use the same SATA and USB cards and they are built with the same quality but different components. Zuma has a faster, more "powerful" processor with more RAM, built to handle ALL the features of JRiver and other player software such as DSP and video, etc. Zuma produces more heat, RFI and EMI - all of which have potentially degrading effects, than does Carbon. It appears that Carbon has the potential to sound better than Zuma! I will use JRiver for 2-channel playback ONLY with no DSP or any other features whatsoever. I will use the "play music from memory" setting but I believe 4GB of RAM will be more than enough. Is there any reason to choose Zuma over Carbon in my case?

Has anyone compared the sound quality of these two servers? I want the best sounding server regardless of cost and often, "less is more". I just spoke with Andy at Small Green Computer who explained the physical differences between the two servers. They both use the same SATA and USB cards and they are built with the same quality but different components. Zuma has a faster, more "powerful" processor with more RAM, built to handle ALL the features of JRiver and other player software such as DSP and video, etc. Zuma produces more heat, RFI and EMI - all of which have potentially degrading effects, than does Carbon. It appears that Carbon has the potential to sound better than Zuma! I will use JRiver for 2-channel playback ONLY with no DSP or any other features whatsoever. I will use the "play music from memory" setting but I believe 4GB of RAM will be more than enough. Is there any reason to choose Zuma over Carbon in my case?

Ok Peter. I supose we'll just leave it at that. Thanks, Joe Ciulla

Peter: I appreciate your efforts to express your opinion and to guide me and others here along but again, your comments contain a contradiction. You start by answering my previous question by saying,"Yes, that is what I am saying.", meaning that CPlay and your software do sound the best and better than Wavelab in your opinion. But then you go on to say, "So, while Wavelab sounded the best, it still was (and is) so that this is by accident." In the latter comment, "(and is)" refers to the present! I don't mean to "grill" you but if we are to have a meaningful discussion, you really must eliminate this contradiction. Many Thanks Again, Joe Ciulla

Peter: Thanks for the quick reply! You said, "because it (Wavelab) has been outbettered by far by, say, consumer software." Are you saying that in your opinion, CPlay and your own current or about to be released software are better than Wavelab and other pro software? Please clarify. Thanks, Joe