JLP Player + Windows Server 2012 R2 + Fidelizer + FREE!!!
本帖最後由 lost1024 於 2014-2-3 17:35 編輯比JPLAY音質還好的CAS軟件: JLP Player
最重要既係: 免費唔使錢!!!!!
以下係教程, 不過我建議另外開個新Partitiong/Hard Disk去裝Windows Server 2012R2免費180日試用版+Fidelizer 4.0,
出黎既效果絕對可以話係脫胎換骨, 令人難以置信~
http://2channelaudio.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/jlp-wdm-ks-player-audiophile.html
我自己建議既Setting, 改Additional Options (Advanced)為: -a 0 -b 260:4000
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3RWoLAo_Luc/Uu4utmndAMI/AAAAAAAAApI/qepDZDpnc3A/s1600/select+your+output+device.JPG
如果有2/4核CPU仲可以用埋以下優化:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3vvH5WBfg8PX1ppR0hkeXZtTEk&usp=sharing#list
Squeezelite_affinityset_2core.exe
Squeezelite_affinityset_4core.exe
作者Blog (有所有Links): http://mqnplayer.blogspot.hk/
JLP Player 討論區: http://www.tirnahifi.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2606&sid=9849df0761241d1ded16889ad3063199 多謝分享 !!! {:6_182:}{:6_182:} 如果這個真的比JPLAY好, 咁真係一大喜訊.
我試下先, 謝謝分享{:1_351:} kenneth_obee 發表於 2014-2-5 09:44 static/image/common/back.gif
如果這個真的比JPLAY好, 咁真係一大喜訊.
我試下先, 謝謝分享
如果你將個window裝係usb 3.0手指度，仲正！！！
我遲d再出個post講點裝{:1_330:}
不過淨係將d歌過落手指，由手指度讀，出黎既分別已經勁大{:1_351:} 昨晚試了, 但我的 "local player" 只可輸出 "default", 不能出 "XMOS (Windows KS)". 一選了XMOS便會"not running". 但"default"又出到聲.
是不是 KS 要裝 driver? 我是在用 Windows 7 64 bit 的.
謝謝.{:1_347:} kenneth_obee 發表於 2014-2-7 09:43 static/image/common/back.gif
昨晚試了, 但我的 "local player" 只可輸出 "default", 不能出 "XMOS (Windows KS)". 一選了XMOS便會"not r ...
請問師兄有無Set你個DAC做"預設裝置"?
喇叭-內容-進階中有無tick獨佔模式?
本帖最後由 darkfrank 於 2014-2-7 23:18 編輯
原來係mqnplayer個作者，佢剛開始呢個project時我都有試過，當時對呢個player既感覺係細節上還是比較弱
經過一年現在再試，大有進步{:1_326:}
細節表現絕對比印象中既jplay好得多
但係恕我直言，依然比唔上極聽
聽同一首歌
用JEP聽，一閉上眼，整個舞台彷如眼前，伸手可觸
用Mqn就俾唔到我同樣既感覺 同raspberry pi比，依個會唔會好聲啲，定係喺同一個level?
(Post76 Android 手機版送出) 本帖最後由 lost1024 於 2014-2-8 16:49 編輯
kelvinhin 發表於 2014-2-7 23:22 static/image/common/back.gif
同raspberry pi比，依個會唔會好聲啲，定係喺同一個level?
(Post76 Android 手機版送出) ...
外國forum話，如果做哂所有windows既tweak/fine tune,
加埋合適既硬件，佢同高級cd機同一level,
而且音質取向最接近母盤{:1_245:}
當然每個人對音質既取向都唔同既{:1_249:} lost1024 發表於 2014-2-8 16:45 static/image/common/back.gif
外國forum話，如果做哂所有windows既tweak/fine tune,
加埋合適既硬件，佢同高級cd機同一level,
而且音 ...
Copy左篇文章, 大意係話所有既CD, 就算係同一條生產線上出黎既, 既聲都會有唔同,
但係如果copy落電腦再出, 反而有最接近母盤既質數...
當然, 呢個純焠係書者個人意見~
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/jlp-music-player-19302/#post295639
I find a very interesting story from Barry Diament on Naim forum. I guess his name is recognized by most of the members here, if not just google it. A lot here matches what Gordon is all about with MQn and JLP, "less is better".
"I've always felt that what is "good", "better" or "best" depends entirely on exactly what one seeks.
The goal might truth to the source or it might be what someone may just like. Personally, I think both are equally valid as I'd never argue with whatever brings anyone their listening pleasure.
But if the goal is truth to the source, my experience has been that well ripped files (in raw PCM format such as .aif or .wav) invariably are truer to the CD master than any CD pressing played back via any transport.
Ever since I created my first CD master, early in 1983, and heard the results that came back from the replication facility, I realized that CDs made at different plants (and often on different lines at the same plant) all sound different from each other and *none* sounds indistinguishable from the master used to make it. The differences, in my experience, range from subtle to not-at-all subtle, with focus and fine detail being lost to varying degrees.
I've always found a slow-burned CD-R to get closer to , if still not indistinguishable from, the CD master. But when any decent pressing is properly extracted to hard drive (in raw PCM format such as .aif or .wav), I've found the differences go away. This is what has me so excited about playback from the computer: for the very first time in my experience, the listener can get the sound of the master, unaltered.
I had a related experience not too long ago when comparing an SHM pressing with its plain vanilla counterpart, both created from the same CD master. At first, when listening via my transport, I was certain I was hearing two different masterings, so different did the drums, cymbals and piano sound. I would have bet money I was hearing two different EQs created by two different engineers. I thought it was a trick to make SHM, which I took to be just another way of pressing a CD, sound better than it really was. Much to my surprise, when I extracted both the SHM and CD versions to computer hard drive and played them from there, they were indistinguishable.
What accounts for the differences? I'm can only speculate. Playback from the disc involves several processes. The player must track the spiral of pits, maintain focus on the laser, read the pits, decode the 8:14 modulation by which the binary data is encoded to create the nine different length pits on a CD, perform any necessary error correction, and convert the binary stream to analog audio, all in real time. While playback from hard drive in a computer certainly involves some processes too, it seems to me there is less to do overall and my experience has been when there is less to do, better results are achieved. Again, just speculation on my part. (I'm always open to learning something new.) What I do know is that I've never heard CD playback from any transport/DAC combination, regardless of price that sounds indistinguishable from listening to the CD master, while playback from the computer routinely does sound indistinguishable from the master.
So again, if someone feels playback from the CD is "better", I wouldn't argue. They may simply like the resulting sound. But my ears tell me it doesn't sound the same as the master sent to the replication facility by the mastering house. Me? I'd rather hear the sound of the master.
Just my perspective, of course.
Best regards,
Barry"