Bit-identical playback CAN sound different

[manueljenkin]

Try the Junilabs audio player and it's file optimizer. The file optimizer takes in a FLAC/wav file and gives out another FLAC/wav file that is bit identical (I've checked this) but sounds much better imo. You can do multiple iterations of optimization in one go, I generally do it 3-5x for the songs in my system.

 

The player is also very good.

[manueljenkin]

8 hours ago, March Audio said:

So it takes a file, makes no changes to it (it remains bit for bit identical), saves it as a new file which then sounds better?

 

Really?

Pretty much that! And yes I am using it on a solid state drive and it does sound better. It's a free tool so anyone can give it a try.

[manueljenkin]

Just now, March Audio said:

OK, can you put both files into the foobar abx comparator and post your results?

I mean you can try for yourself, much easier.

[manueljenkin]

5 minutes ago, March Audio said:

As mentioned I will try it for myself, but it would it would be interesting to see if you can hear the difference when you don't know which file is which, hence the foobar test.

I am not fond of the sound quality of foobar, I use other audio players. Is there a way I could code an ab-x test for other players in windows. I use either Junilabs player or Playpcmwin now (xxhighend too, but that's another story).

[manueljenkin]

3 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Foobar plays bit perfect and sounds just fine and has the abx tool.

Maybe for you, not for me unfortunately (after bit perfect configuration in asio/wasapi). I donot have a helper to set up ab-x, but my friend has done AB-X comparison with a helper on foobar vs players I enjoy playing in bit perfect mode and he could pick the differences quite well. Foobar for me has a baseline skew. I would like to try the same ab-x on the other tools I'm mentioning.

[manueljenkin]

26 minutes ago, March Audio said:

If anyone wants to listen to this original and allegedly "optimised" file you can find them here:

 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgk84MM9gWIU9Spme?e=eifCdJ

 

 

Better to let people try on their own systems, as transfer/copy of the file is not guaranteed to carry benefits.

 

I myself said the file is bit perfect to the original. Not sure what you're trying to accomplish new by the 3 posts. I said it sounds different (imo better) despite being bit perfect. And like I said, I'll be happy to try ab-x on the tools I use (foobar has a baseline skew for me).

 

Great job on the test now I'll wait for others to try.

[manueljenkin]

On 5/7/2021 at 10:47 AM, manueljenkin said:

Try the Junilabs audio player and it's file optimizer. The file optimizer takes in a FLAC/wav file and gives out another FLAC/wav file that is bit identical (I've checked this) but sounds much better imo. You can do multiple iterations of optimization in one go, I generally do it 3-5x for the songs in my system.

 

The player is also very good.

In case anyone reading lost what it's about, here's the player. I'll wait for people to try it.

[manueljenkin]

On 5/7/2021 at 10:47 AM, manueljenkin said:

Try the Junilabs audio player and it's file optimizer. The file optimizer takes in a FLAC/wav file and gives out another FLAC/wav file that is bit identical (I've checked this) but sounds much better imo. You can do multiple iterations of optimization in one go, I generally do it 3-5x for the songs in my system.

 

The player is also very good.

Posting back for visibility for personal testing just in case anyone couldn't dig inside 8 pages of messages to find the context 😁.

 

Fyi foobar ab-x will copy the files to TEMP path hence it breaks the recommended usage of the tool.

[manueljenkin]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

10. What is optimization?

The optimization aims to improve the sound rendering. Optimization does not change the content of files. Optimization operates on a whole new level.

There are two very distinct optimizations. The software optimization which is launched via the Configuration menu ... and the individual optimization of an audio file which is launched via the Optimize audio file menu . Optimization is not mandatory, it is a plus that allows better sound reproduction.

The individual optimization of a file will be all the more efficient when the installation of the Junilabs Audio player has been correctly optimized.

Optimization does not dilute over time. Once the executable is optimized it will remain so. There are, however, more favorable times for optimization. The optimization is sensitive to the electromagnetic effects of the environment. Electromagnetic activity is lower at night than during the day. An optimization launched at night will be more effective than an optimization launched during the day.
It is desirable that there is no user next to the computer during optimization.

 

It is my guess that you guys need to read this better, so you see through what this is about. This is always better than calling something or someone a con right from the start (in your mind - @March Audio, you seem to be good at that - not good for someone in the business).

 

I think I can estimate quite well what the Junilabs player is doing, because this is foremost about all what's happening in my software as well (XXHighEnd). However, the way it is dealt with will be different in Junilabs. Instead of offering a kazillion (stepless) settings possibilities (XXHighEnd), Junilabs tries to self-calibrate these, and will use some discrete means of qualifying what is best. So it calibrates its executable (read all about Junilabs again and you will see that it is written there - it's in the  quote (auto-translation ??) above too).

How this is qualified is beyond me, but this is not much different from offering a tuning parameter of which I know it *will* have audible influence - by which exact internal (PC !) means - I don't know myself. That is, until I use it for myself for a year or so, and start comprehending.

 

The optimization of the audio file is just a very different means, and this will be about the disk sectors used indeed (someone was suggesting that in a first post about this, and next apparently nobody understands or forgets (or does not read)). This is in XXHighEnd the very same and you can bet that this helps in at least "changing" the sound (I always leave it to others whether this is for the better - plus it combines with all those other settings). And yes this *is* related to Sandy K (Alex) who was quoted for the very this, earlier in the thread. As a matter of fact I made it explicitly for him, in order to get over his idea that a file sounds different once copied to a USB stick (and back !). It is only that Alex always refused to try it out (being delusional about it).

 

Anyway, it would be my advice to investigate a product instead of calling someone a con. Especially if this is a "colleague". I just did that too. And you know what ?

 

 

Apparently there is a difference between people plainly believing (in) nothing of what others say and people (me) who at least at first listen to their customers (and possibly debunk later).

This is how we make progress in sound reproduction.

 

Now please continue, but stop offering ABX stuff through Foobar. You can't be serious in this audio world when you offer these kind of comparisons through the worst sounding player on the globe.

Otoh (March Audio) I understand that you think that bit perfect always sounds the same. You need a LOT to learn then.

 

/End of rant (I hope).

 

 

Thanks Peter. I don't think the player is taking as rigorous an approach as xxhighend in terms of defragging/sectors etc. My guess guess would be to have it in RAM for a while for reduced (randomized or become less correlated) noise (by internal ram refresh cycles) and return back to storage so the new stored data has less intrinsic access noise (electromagnetic structure of the stored data) than before. Just my guess, not particularly sure how it works. However I can say that I prefer the optimized files + xxhighend over unoptimized files + xxhighend in my system. Maybe give it a try yourself.

[manueljenkin]

On 5/7/2021 at 10:47 AM, manueljenkin said:

Try the Junilabs audio player and it's file optimizer. The file optimizer takes in a FLAC/wav file and gives out another FLAC/wav file that is bit identical (I've checked this) but sounds much better imo. You can do multiple iterations of optimization in one go, I generally do it 3-5x for the songs in my system.

 

The player is also very good.

The origin of the current discussion got buried again. Pushing it up in case any new readers are interested to give a try.

[manueljenkin]

52 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I simply asked for you to explain some simple things that logically dont make sense to me.  I actually have quite extensive knowledge and understanding of the subject which is why I am asking these questions.

1. If it doesn't logically make sense to you even after mentioning why foobar abx breaks the functionality of the tool, better upgrade your knowledge base.

2. I doubt that considering the level of comprehension you've shown here.

[manueljenkin]

10 minutes ago, March Audio said:

The claims of the software in question are clear, fully understood.  Whats in question is the validity of the claims.

I've used the software within the recommendations they described and to me it sounded better. Foobar moves the files for its ab-x to temp folder so it breaks the functionality.

 

12 minutes ago, March Audio said:

We know that it makes no changes to the file.  The only thing left is that it tries to "optimise" how it is read off the disc. Even PeterSt admitted this is meaningless when using an SSD, as you do.

Neither I nor Peter implied anything about it being meaningless when using a SSD. I am using the player on an SSD and the improvements I described are when playing back from SSD. Peter said his tool takes care of similar optimization through a different method. Again looks like you have a comprehension problem.

 

13 minutes ago, March Audio said:

So what is the software doing to the file to create these alleged improvements?  Why does it get broken by copying the file?

 

Your judgement of my comprehension implies you understand whats going on, so please explain it all to me.

Again I only stated the flaw in your analysis technique, that it is not within recommended usage guidelines of the tool. It doesn't imply I know what's going on in the tool. And to me, when I use the tool within recommended usage scenarios it sounds better, on an SSD fyi.

 

15 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Also, as you expressed concerns regarding Foobars playback quality, could you kindly take a listen to the files I prepared above and identify which ones are Foobar?

You're missing the point again.

 

[manueljenkin]

23 minutes ago, EdmontonCanuck said:

 

Just to be clear, nobody was calling the poster a con. We were referring to the software in question and specifically to the claims of it's function. If you are asking us to read carefully and choose our words carefully (which is a fair criticism, my apologies) then please endeavor to do the same.

"This is always better than calling something or someone a con right from the start". This is what he wrote in his text. Notice the word "something"? Peter doesn't have a problem with his choice of words, it's your narrative fitting, leaving out the full sentence that's the problem.

 

[manueljenkin]

5 hours ago, March Audio said:

There are many reasons you may think it sounds better, even if it isn't actually the case.

 

Peter agreed with my point about SSDs.

 

There is only a flaw in my analysis technique if you accept, without question, what is claimed by the software vendor.  I don't.

 

What point am I missing?  You say Foobar sounds bad.  "Skewed" is the term I think you used, you might want to expand on what that means.  

 

So I have recorded files played back by Foobar and Roon.  If Foobar sounds bad you should be able to identify which files it was used in. You can download and listen to the files on any playback software you like, in whatever way you like.

 

This isn't a test of the Juniper alleged optimisation, this was just straight playback of the original files.

I said I don't like the way foobar sounds. And I don't care about roon anyway, do foobar vs roon is a lost cause for me. But I wouldn't go into a discussion of roon and push it unlike what you do here.

 

You're not using the tool as it was intended. So that alone invalidates your "conclusions". It's like getting a submarine and then accusing the manufacturer because it didn't fly.

[manueljenkin]

Just now, Racerxnet said:

Then copy and paste the optimized file into the temp folder and play it with Foobar. 

I don't like the way foobar sounds, and copy pasting optimized file will not retain the improvements (check the page to see what are permitted and what is not). And even if I generate the new file in temp folder there is no guarantee foobar wouldn't create a new copy in temp and play from it again deviating from the recommended conditions of the player. If you give me an option to try ab-x with Juniplayer, in the scheme the tool/output files is to be used (no further moving etc) I'll happily do it.

 

And as I said, the tool is free. Anyone can try it and decide for themselves.

[manueljenkin]

10 minutes ago, semente said:

 

40 people listing in an unfamiliar room, sitting outside of the sweet-spot, over an unfamiliar system and probably unfamiliar music using Foobar as a player.

The result is easy to predict...

Looks like he is going to do a triple blind test. The player would not know which among the 40 people are listening to it. 😁

[manueljenkin]

On 5/7/2021 at 10:47 AM, manueljenkin said:

Try the Junilabs audio player and it's file optimizer. The file optimizer takes in a FLAC/wav file and gives out another FLAC/wav file that is bit identical (I've checked this) but sounds much better imo. You can do multiple iterations of optimization in one go, I generally do it 3-5x for the songs in my system.

 

The player is also very good.

Since the discussion has got posts that buried the original content the current discussion is based on, time to let the new readers know what it is. Give it a try and decide for yourself, maybe let us know what you feel (the new people trying).

[manueljenkin]

I'm not sure if people are interested in paying 400$ for a rebranded khadas tone board which one could get for 100$. I would say this software atleast is free when it apparently to march audio "does nothing".

[manueljenkin]

Just now, March Audio said:

 

You dont need to install foobar.

 

Just download the files.  There are 3 pairs of tracks, one recorded with Foobar playback the other with Roon.  If Foobar sounds as bad as you and others claim it should be easy to identify which is which.

 

You can play this back on your current system with your favoured player.

Who said roon is our favourite player. And why would I trust your adc to have done a good job of capturing the differences without filtering them both.

[manueljenkin]

1 minute ago, March Audio said:

Why do you feel the need to be so rude?

 

Why dont you engage in sensible debate? 

 

If I am a fool then demonstrate you can hear the allegedly bad sounding foobar in the listening test I created.  Prove me to be wrong.

I find it funny who's accusing who to be apparently rude.

[manueljenkin]

3 minutes ago, March Audio said:

It does exactly what it claims to do 😜

 

So it appears that you would also like to get personal instead of actually addressing the topic.

 

Why dont you try the listening test and prove me wrong?

Well suggesting placebo for everything is a personal poke as well. Why would I be convinced to trust your setup or analysis, especially given I've shown why it breaks the recommended usage of the tool.

 

This tool I recommended is free. Anyone can try and form an opinion for themselves.

[manueljenkin]

4 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Where have I been rude?

Just because you use passive agressive/assertive tone doesn't mean your wordings aren't rude. Blocking visibility of a post for your personal agenda. Let people try and form an opinion for themselves.

[manueljenkin]

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I havent done that.  However it is one real possibility.

 

The ironic thing is that if you took the listening test and you were successful in reliably demonstrating you could identify Foobar playing, it would prove your subjective opinions arent just placebo.

The irony isn't that. It's the fact that I've shown you why foobar ab-x breaks the usage scenarios of the tool and you keep insisting on using the same.

[manueljenkin]

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

So in other words I have done or said nothing rude, whereas Peter and yourself have been directly rude. 

Sorry, I pity your comprehension skills (but am in awe of your skewed narrative fitting). Nothing in my post implied me or Peter were rude. I said you used passive aggressive rude tone, and chimed in when you claimed Peter was rude, when it reality it was yourself who was rude.

[manueljenkin]

3 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I dont think you understand the test I have created.

 

It doesnt involve you using Foobar in an ABX test.  It has nothing to do with Junilabs.

 

Its just listening to files recorded from playback with Foobar and Roon.

Why would I be interested in your recording of foobar and roon when I can try them out myself (with less of the translational errors due to adc etc in between). I've personally tried foobar and roon myself, and not impressed with either.

 

And how is this relevant to this thread?