JRiver SoX upsampling parameters: call for +1

[Matias]

JRiver has implemented upsampling using the open source SoX codec for a while now, but it is only implemented as a checkbox "on or off" on the local playback.

 

The full parameter set of SoX enables the user to choose between linear o minimal phase, steep or slow roll off options. This is important to upsample in what one can consider a more musical way, improving the sound reproduction (optional!). In the link below I have compiled a few graphs of different hardware implementations.

 

I invite everyone who thinks this is important to post a +1 on their forums for the feature request.

Thanks!

 

https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,113602.0.html

 

 

[FelipeRolim]

Thank you for your request, Matias!

[mourip]

1 hour ago, Matias said:

I invite everyone who thinks this is important to post a +1 on their forums for the feature request.

Thanks!

 

 

Done!

[Matias]

Thanks, anyone else? Please give +1 there.

[Matias]

Edit the first post to direct to a new thread that has been created for this feature request.

Appreciate all the +1s so far.

[Matias]

Oh great now they refuse to listen to requests at all. Deleted my last post below and locked the thread. Isn't that great??

 

Does not matter, here is my post again. I am definitely never buying a license again. Such arrogance! 

 

I totally agree that they implemented far more esoteric features before. They are saying No just because they can say No. There is no logic or consistency in their stance. A shame really...

 

A topic you are watching has been locked by JimH.

View the topic at: https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=113602.new;topicseen#new

Unsubscribe to this topic by using this link: https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?action=notify;topic=113602.0

Regards,
The INTERACT FORUM Team.

[Matias]

Before they delete the topic entirely, here is my post showing how significant this is all over the audio market.

 

All these high end DACs have minimum phase slow roll off, as seen on Stereophile: 

• Ayre QX-5 (saw the PDF I linked above?) https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qx-5-twenty-da-processor-measurements
• Bryston BDA3 https://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-bda-3-da-processor-measurements
• Mytek Manhattan https://www.stereophile.com/content/mytek-hifi-manhattan-ii-da-preamplifier-headphone-amplifier-measurements
• Auralic Altair https://www.stereophile.com/content/auralic-altair-da-processor-measurements
• dCS Rossini https://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-rossini-player-rossini-clock-measurements
• T+A DAC8 https://www.stereophile.com/content/ta-elektroakustik-dac-8-dsd-da-processor-measurements
• BelCanto Black https://www.stereophile.com/content/bel-canto-design-black-amplification-system-measurements
• Meridian Prime https://www.stereophile.com/content/meridian-audio-prime-da-headphone-amplifier-measurements
• Luxman DA06 https://www.stereophile.com/content/luxman-da-06-da-processor-measurements
• MSB Diamond DAC IV https://www.stereophile.com/content/msb-technology-platinum-data-cd-iv-transport-amp-diamond-dac-iv-amp-da-converter-measurement
• AMR DP777 https://www.stereophile.com/content/abbingdon-music-research-dp-777-da-processor-measurements
• Esoteric D-07 https://www.stereophile.com/content/esoteric-d-07-da-processor-measurements
• PS Audio Directstream DAC filter options: http://www.psaudio.com/forum/pwd-topics/filter-setting/

Just to name a few. Plus MQA itself is all about it. And their filters are optional. Do their opinions count too?

As for software upsampling competitors:

• Roon https://kb.roonlabs.com/DSP_Engine:_Sample_Rate_Conversion
• Audirvana https://audirvana.com/?p=4015
• HQPlayer http://www.signalyst.com/consumer.html
• Foobar free plugin https://sourceforge.net/projects/resamplerv/

[Ron Scubadiver]

JRiver seems to have dug their heels in on not providing options for SOX when every other implementation I can think of does.  Their reasoning, that they have limited resources, seems a bit strange in a program offering options for dithering, DSD lowpass filters and playback of obscure wavpak DSD.  I suspect the reason given is not the real reason.

[plissken]

Jim Hillegaas is quite clear in the thread:

 

Making more noise isn't going to change things. 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/37893-jriver-sox-upsampling-parameters-call-for-1/

JRiver's focus is on delivering the original sound as faithfully as possible, and not on providing lots of tools for tinkering with the sound.

Some of the more esoteric tools just lead from one rabbit hole to another.  That's not our thing.

 

He's willing to let the market place sort it all out. If a make or break is a full blown SOX implementation, and it's as confusing as it gets for the non-technical, then they are willing do suffer or benefit accordingly.

 

As a software developer I turn a good 20% of calls away with customers asking for features that is just going to ruin our UI, shallow learning curve, ease of use, and flow.

 

Even if we can compartmentalize those features into it's own window,  now we have to support it also, explain why something doesn't work when the end user doesn't know what they are doing etc... etc... etc...

 

There is a online booking product out there with something like 8 tabs with about 20 options each just to create a calendar of events. It's mind boggling but they've simply implemented every single feature request including all the dumb ones and it shows with a brutally confusing system.

 

 

[Matias]

They did implement features in the past based on popular +1 requests.

 

From their website:

 

Quote

 

Why JRiver?
For the purist 
Because the sound engineered into the CD is the sound you will hear when you play the audio. No changes are made to it by JRiver. Nothing will come between you and the recording. The promise we deliver is fidelity and ease of use.

 

For the person who likes to experiment 
If you need to manipulate the sound, you can use JRiver to modify playback. Upmixing, downmixing, bitdepth, speaker control. Because the audio path is fully 64 bit, any adjustments to volume, bitdepth and sample-rate are mathematically lossless.

 

(...)

 

"earned the respect of many leading audiophile manufacturers and their customers"?

 

 

Again, all major high end DAC manufacturers and most competing software players have minimum phase and slow roll off options, but not JRiver. Because that would be too restrict and complicated? With all the current esoteric features they already support? SoX is already finished code, it is just a matter of creating a GUI and passing on the parameters. Easy. Their decision makes no sense to me.

 

But now I have manually converted offline most of my 44/48 files to 176 using whatever parameters I like and use JRiver for dumb playback only. Lots of wasted space because of that, thanks...

[Matias]

43 minutes ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

I suspect the reason given is not the real reason.

 

I had a good point on every single argument they made. It seems that now they are being stubborn for personal reasons. Perhaps they don't want to admit I am right?

[plissken]

16 minutes ago, Matias said:

They did implement features in the past based on popular +1 requests.

 

From their website:

 

 

Again, all major high end DAC manufacturers and most competing software players have minimum phase and slow roll off options, but not JRiver. Because that would be too restrict and complicated? With all the current esoteric features they already support? SoX is already finished code, it is just a matter of creating a GUI and passing on the parameters. Easy. Their decision makes no sense to me.

 

But now I have manually converted offline most of my 44/48 files to 176 using whatever parameters I like and use JRiver for dumb playback only. Lots of wasted space because of that, thanks...

 

And it's clear this is where they have drawn the line. Either move off the JRiver platform, or better yet learn how to code and make a JRiver killer.

[plissken]

14 minutes ago, Matias said:

 

I had a good point on every single argument they made. It seems that now they are being stubborn for personal reasons. Perhaps they don't want to admit I am right?

 

SoX is already finished code, it is just a matter of creating a GUI and passing on the parameters. Easy. Their decision makes no sense to me.

As a software developer I don't care if you as an individual customer is 'right'. I'm too busy selling the heck out of what I got to stop and pick up a shiny penny.

 

Accept it for what it is and move on. It's what Jim is telling you quite plainly. You aren't getting a full blown SOX implementation.

 

Jim isn't an asshole because of this. He said his piece and he rightfully locked the thread.

 

If, according to you, it's easy, Go kickstarter. Get the $1 million it's going to take to hire non-interested programmers abroad and come out with the solution that you think it should be. I'm sure the market for really robust, pay once, low cost, easy to use, feature rich, full SoX will have you recouping the investment in no time flat.

 

That or you'll gain a very expensive lesson in free markets and capitalism.

[Matias]

I never called Jim names. All I said is that his stance makes no sense to me. Because there is no consistency in their decisions. They did not draw the line now. They "moved the line back" so to say.

 

My "lesson in free markets and capitalism" is that I will no longer upgrade my JRiver version. I have been upgrading versions since 2010! Good luck for them selling JRiver with those new features and ignoring their loyal audiophile customer base. Maybe as a developer you can get a lesson in this too.

[plissken]

15 minutes ago, Matias said:

I never called Jim names. All I said is that his stance makes no sense to me. Because there is no consistency in their decisions. They did not draw the line now. They "moved the line back" so to say.

 

No they provided some convolution/peq and that is where they are comfortable with leaving it at.

 

But here you are throwing what is basically a public tantrum in the cereal isle because you aren't getting the answer you want.

 

Quote

 

My "lesson in free markets and capitalism" is that I will no longer upgrade my JRiver version. I have been upgrading versions since 2010. Good luck for them selling JRiver with those new features and ignoring their loyal audiophile customer base. Maybe you can get a lesson in this too.

 

I'm sure JRiver is completely ok with that. We've gained more customers with our product and not trying to be everything to everyone, than we've lost.

[Ron Scubadiver]

3 hours ago, plissken said:

Jim Hillegaas is quite clear in the thread:

 

Making more noise isn't going to change things. 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/37893-jriver-sox-upsampling-parameters-call-for-1/

JRiver's focus is on delivering the original sound as faithfully as possible, and not on providing lots of tools for tinkering with the sound.

Some of the more esoteric tools just lead from one rabbit hole to another.  That's not our thing.

 

He's willing to let the market place sort it all out. If a make or break is a full blown SOX implementation, and it's as confusing as it gets for the non-technical, then they are willing do suffer or benefit accordingly.

 

As a software developer I turn a good 20% of calls away with customers asking for features that is just going to ruin our UI, shallow learning curve, ease of use, and flow.

 

Even if we can compartmentalize those features into it's own window,  now we have to support it also, explain why something doesn't work when the end user doesn't know what they are doing etc... etc... etc...

 

There is a online booking product out there with something like 8 tabs with about 20 options each just to create a calendar of events. It's mind boggling but they've simply implemented every single feature request including all the dumb ones and it shows with a brutally confusing system.

 

 

Yes and no.  Your general outlook on developing software and the free market is correct, but JRiver is so loaded with features I can't see a really good reason why they are dedicated to fighting this one.  

 

Businesses are not democracies so the 1+ campaign might be annoying them.  There are alternatives like Foobar2000, HQPlayer or getting another DAC.

[WuNgUn]

Doesn't your dac have filter presets? My ESS 9028 processor has 6 or 7. Though I dunno if one of them is the filter you mention. 

[Matias]

7 minutes ago, WuNgUn said:

Doesn't your dac have filter presets? My ESS 9028 processor has 6 or 7. Though I dunno if one of them is the filter you mention. 

Both my dacs are based on ESS 9018 and one has no filter and the other only 50, 60 or 70 kHz low pass filter.

But again I kind of solved this by manually upsampling my files. Wastes more storage but that was the only reasonable option.

[asdf1000]

On 12/13/2017 at 7:49 PM, Matias said:

JRiver has implemented upsampling using the open source SoX codec for a while now, but it is only implemented as a checkbox "on or off" on the local playback.

 

The full parameter set of SoX enables the user to choose between linear o minimal phase, steep or slow roll off options. This is important to upsample in what one can consider a more musical way, improving the sound reproduction (optional!). In the link below I have compiled a few graphs of different hardware implementations.

 

I invite everyone who thinks this is important to post a +1 on their forums for the feature request.

Thanks!

 

https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,113602.0.html

 

 

 

Did this ever get anywhere with JRiver?

[Matias]

1 hour ago, asdf1000 said:

 

Did this ever get anywhere with JRiver?

No, the head boss Jim refused to implement it, and gave some arguments that JRMC is not an audiophile player (!), that I am free to use another software, and that they have other more important things to develop instead of this. As we can see from the new features below, these are highly questionable.

https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=126718.0

 

In my opinion, their lack of focus and the refusal to implement any audio streaming services (Spotify, Tidal, Qobuz, etc) "because they have no future" is a shame and it is holding them back. A pity, since I am a customer since version 15.

[stefano_mbp]

.... but, after 7/8 months, they are announcing  ...

https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,92801.msg891330.html#msg891330

... their first answer was “impossible” ....

it seems they are very slow to change their mind ... but they change it

[Matias]

8 minutes ago, stefano_mbp said:

.... but, after 7/8 months, they are announcing  ...

https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,92801.msg891330.html#msg891330

... their first answer was “impossible” ....

it seems they are very slow to change their mind ... but they change it

Yes, I just saw that. Miracles do happen, huh. Now SoX upsampling parameters would be a plus, and Tidal/Qobuz/Spotify audio streaming would be a huge win. But I am not counting on this really.

[Shanepj]

I know when I’ve tried this option on JRiver, I feel a part of the musical timing is compromised. So I’ve kept it unchecked. In fact I have everything switched off where possible and allow my DAC to work with the signal that is sent. I’ve found it products a far better sound that allowing JRiver to manipulate it. 

[Account Closed]

9 hours ago, Matias said:

No, the head boss Jim refused to implement it, and gave some arguments that JRMC is not an audiophile player (!), that I am free to use another software, and that they have other more important things to develop instead of this. As we can see from the new features below, these are highly questionable.

https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=126718.0

 

In my opinion, their lack of focus and the refusal to implement any audio streaming services (Spotify, Tidal, Qobuz, etc) "because they have no future" is a shame and it is holding them back. A pity, since I am a customer since version 15.

I was a JRiver customer in the early days but I got really tired of their "attitude" and switched to Roon and never looked back.

[plissken]

10 hours ago, Matias said:

in my opinion, their lack of focus and the refusal to implement any audio streaming services (Spotify, Tidal, Qobuz, etc) "because they have no future" is a shame and it is holding them back. A pity, since I am a customer since version 15.

 

JRiver isn't a straight ahead audio app though. Is there TV Tuner support in Roon, HQ Player? Tidal?