Do you hear what I hear (bit perfect files sounding different)?

[manueljenkin]

I was recommend this audio player from a company called junilabs in another thread.

 

http://www.junilabs.com/fr/products/audioplayer.html

 

There are extravagant claims, but atleast in my system it has worked wonderfully.

 

The music player is quite good. The output is MME by default, I recommend changing to wasapi.

 

What gets me more interested with the junilabs player is not the player itself, but rather the file optimizer that comes with the player. It is another executable in the same folder. The process is you drag and drop a music file, press optimize it'll take two minutes (and advisable to not do any background tasks during this time) and after that the save command will export a new file that is bit identical copy of the original, yet sounds better (to me and a few others who have tried it atleast). You can also do multiple rounds of optimization before saving (I do 3-5x for my music on my machine). Since you would have both the unoptimized and optimized files you could easily a/b between the two and compare when playing on the junilabs player. You can use this new file with any music player that copies to RAM directly (like playpcmwin) and plays to enjoy the benefits, as long as you don't move or edit the file (moving between different local drives, making a copy and editing would likely nullify the optimization).

 

Playback system is surface book 2016 256gb SSD with gt940m feeding a few usb dacs.

[idiot_savant]

Hi @manueljenkin, maybe this is the old grizzled non-believer in me, but I’m assuming you’ve compared the “before” and “after” files -

“fc unoptimised_file.wav optimised_file.wav” /b 

 

This is a ( pedantic) first step? We can all speculate, but we can *prove* the file is bit identical before we start, no? This way no one can claim identical CRC’s etc

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[idiot_savant]

I’m afraid I’ve committed the cardinal sin here in going all command line, so let’s start at the very beginning - there is a claim that files can be optimised *without* changing their contents, so being even handed the first thing to verify is that the contents are *unchanged^
 

if you’ve done this, grand, and you’ll be happy to share how this was done?

 

I’m interested, but before we go into the subjective realm, a quick objective check - which matches the objective claim - is worth it? Does this seem common sense?

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[Currawong]

I presume that the software writes a non-fragmented version of the file to disk, such that reading the file reduces electrical noise generated by multiple disk reads. If that's so, putting one's music on a separate hard disk and defragmenting it would solve that issue.

 

However, the site states (translated):

Quote

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.

 

I have a lot of trouble with this, as would most people. 

[PeterSt]

37 minutes ago, Currawong said:

I have a lot of trouble with this, as would most people. 

 

That part would not be about the file data, but about the program itself. Think of compiler optimization. This really exists ...

... And could vary for result over time and influences.

 

@sbgk (did I quote the correct nick here ?) was all about this, with 10 versions a day, a year in a row. 

I myself ever back started out with this, but this was too much out of control to proceed on.

[idiot_savant]

Whoa!

 

we have a claim here where we *really* need to verify the foundations, because everything on top of that is conjecture and supposition. 
 

Are the optimised and un-optimised files the same ( content-wise )? This is easy to confirm, so why not start there?

until this has been verified ( and I am casting no doubt ) then discussions are pointless

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[manueljenkin]

2 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

Hi @manueljenkin, maybe this is the old grizzled non-believer in me, but I’m assuming you’ve compared the “before” and “after” files -

“fc unoptimised_file.wav optimised_file.wav” /b 

 

This is a ( pedantic) first step? We can all speculate, but we can *prove* the file is bit identical before we start, no? This way no one can claim identical CRC’s etc

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

Yes I've done testing comparing the two sound files both in junilabs player and xxhighend. I can hear the difference.

 

I have also compared the files. They are bit identical. I even checked the waveforms in audacity and also tried nulling them.

[manueljenkin]

2 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

I’m afraid I’ve committed the cardinal sin here in going all command line, so let’s start at the very beginning - there is a claim that files can be optimised *without* changing their contents, so being even handed the first thing to verify is that the contents are *unchanged^
 

if you’ve done this, grand, and you’ll be happy to share how this was done?

 

I’m interested, but before we go into the subjective realm, a quick objective check - which matches the objective claim - is worth it? Does this seem common sense?

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

I have used commandline players earlier (wtfplay is one of my favourites). But over time I have found tools that sound as good as, if not better than commandline players. The junilabs player is one, xxhighend is another (playpcmwin with ramdisk tweaks where I load the driver, software and music all to RAM also came very close). I feel the improvement this file optimizer brings is worthwhile addition to the general player improvements I got.

[manueljenkin]

2 hours ago, Currawong said:

I presume that the software writes a non-fragmented version of the file to disk, such that reading the file reduces electrical noise generated by multiple disk reads. If that's so, putting one's music on a separate hard disk and defragmenting it would solve that issue.

 

However, the site states (translated):

 

I have a lot of trouble with this, as would most people. 

 

I am running it on a SSD anyway and the players I use fully cache the song into RAM before playback. It is relating to access noise for sure but it's unlikely due to defragmentation.

[March Audio]

12 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

Whoa!

 

we have a claim here where we *really* need to verify the foundations, because everything on top of that is conjecture and supposition. 
 

Are the optimised and un-optimised files the same ( content-wise )? This is easy to confirm, so why not start there?

until this has been verified ( and I am casting no doubt ) then discussions are pointless

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

 

After the initial thread I was contacted by another member who had kindly taken it upon himself to contact the software author and try and illicit some further information about what this software does.  Conversation below:

 

Hello

 

I was wondering if you could describe what exactly your file optimization function in your player is doing? From the documentation, it states that the file isn't modified, so I'm curious what it is that I'm hearing after a file optimization is performed.

 

Kind regards,

 

D******

 

-----------------------

 

Hello D**********

 

Thanks for your interest in our products.

 

Optimization is a form of "harmonization". It's very similar to what is done in electronic equipment like the Juniwave or Junilight. I use a similar process in the Junilabs Audio player to perform this software optimization.

 

http://www.junilabs.com/fr/products/juniwavetwo.html

http://www.junilabs.com/fr/products/junilightone.html

 

Best regards,

 

Eric Juaneda

 

_______________________

 

Hi Eric

 

Thanks for the response. However, I'm not asking what optimization you make to your software, but what optimizations are you making on the music files themselves? The documentation recommends making several passes at each of my music files, and I'm just wondering what optimizations are being performed on the files themselves?

 

Kind regards

 

D*************

 

____________________

 

Hi d************

 

>...I'm just wondering what optimizations are being performed on the files themselves?

 

What the software does:

1) loads the audio file in memory, 

2) start optimization process,

3) run optimization process,

3) optimization process ends,

4) save the audio file loaded in memory on to the disc drive under another name.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Eric Juaneda

 

___________________________

 

I guess you aren’t interested in revealing then what “run optimization process” entails exactly? Is the file changed at all (that is, are any bits changed from the original?)

 

Kind regards

 

D******

 

______________________________

 

Hi D**************

 

>I guess you aren’t interested in revealing then what “run optimization process” entails exactly?

I don’t provide any information about optimization process.

 

>Is the file changed at all (that is, are any bits changed from the original?)

This information is mentioned in the online user manual.

http://www.junilabs.com/fr/products/audioplayerfaq.html

 

4. Optimizing an audio file

It is possible to optimize an audio file. The purpose of optimization is to improve the sound rendering. Optimization does not change the content of the file, it operates on a completely different level.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Eric Juaneda

________________________________

 

 

So no information from the author on what it does.  It just "operates on a completely different level".  Whatever that means.

 

I downloaded the software and decided to give it a try.  I :optimised a few different audio files and could find no audible difference from the original.  I decided to take a closer look at the optimisation process.  I demonstrated in the other thread that the "optimised" file is entirely identical to the the original by loading them both into Adobe Audition then inverting the polarity of one file, then mixing them together.  They cancelled perfectly to zero.

 

The author claims the audio file is loaded into memory before it it "optimised".  I could see no evidence of this.  Please watch the video below where I optimise a file and watch the disk, memory and CPU activity.  Nothing changes.  It appears that the file is not read from disk and loaded into memory.  I have tried this with very large and very small audio files.  They all take the same 2 minutes to "optimise". This does not make sense.  It just appears that this is a 2 minute timer that does nothing, and that the original file is just renamed and copied at the end.

 

I will let you make your own minds up on what it is (or not) doing.

 

 

 

 

[andrewinukm]

2 hours ago, March Audio said:

Hello D**********

 

Thanks for your interest in our products.

 

Optimization is a form of "harmonization". It's very similar to what is done in electronic equipment like the Juniwave or Junilight. I use a similar process in the Junilabs Audio player to perform this software optimization.

 

http://www.junilabs.com/fr/products/juniwavetwo.html

http://www.junilabs.com/fr/products/junilightone.html

 

Best regards,

 

Eric Juaneda

The Juniwave 2 is a Schumann resonance generator. So it seems that the player generates/imparts/simulates "Schumann resonance" onto the HDD or music file.

 

I love voodoo tweaks that science cannot explain, and bought a cheap Schumann device to try. I am unable to hear any changes, but I know friends who could hear a difference with vs without Schumann device turned on. In the case of Junilabs player, I probably won't be able to hear a difference using this software. But I'll still give it a try.

 

On a side note, the Schumann device did have an impact on my sleep. I'll leave you guys to debate the science and fiction behind it. I aint' doin' no double blind trials or null tests of my sleep.

[manueljenkin]

18 minutes ago, andrewinukm said:

The Juniwave 2 is a Schumann resonance generator. So it seems that the player generates/imparts/simulates "Schumann resonance" onto the HDD or music file.

 

I love voodoo tweaks that science cannot explain, and bought a cheap Schumann device to try. I am unable to hear any changes, but I know friends who could hear a difference with vs without Schumann device turned on. In the case of Junilabs player, I probably won't be able to hear a difference using this software. But I'll still give it a try.

 

On a side note, the Schumann device did have an impact on my sleep. I'll leave you guys to debate the science and fiction behind it. I aint' doin' no double blind trials or null tests of my sleep.

Thank you very much. I've never thought of this aspect. I had tried to do RAMdisk playback (loading entire song to RAM) and I couldn't get it to sound as good as junilabs optimized audio file, even if I stored it for more than 5 minutes before playing. Maybe I should explore that Schumann resonator thing (last time I saw some discussion on other forums). If it doesn't work for audio, it'll atleast be useful in sleep 😁.

[The Computer Audiophile]

@March Audio this is @manueljenkin’s thread. Please stop posting in it, as the two of you will never make progress and will only serve to annoy each other and others. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

@manueljenkin has requested moderator rights in this thread. Per our rules, that has been enabled. 

[manueljenkin]

Just to make it clear, the author has never mentioned defragging. It is a guess @Currawong had and there is no evidence for the software to be doing it. I am using a SSD and all the tests showing differences were done in SSD, so there's that too. Hence I have removed all off topic comments relating to defragmentation.

 

The author already mentioned that the files are bit perfect and the data is unaltered, I'm not sure why March audio has to make it look like a flaw by his narratives. The title of the thread makes it clear already and I've checked the files, they are bit by bit identical when it comes to the data.

 

[kumakuma]

12 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

Just to make it clear, the author has never mentioned defragging. It is a guess @Currawong had and there is no evidence for the software to be doing it. I am using a SSD and all the tests showing differences were done in SSD, so there's that too. Hence I have removed all off topic comments relating to defragmentation.

 

The author already mentioned that the files are bit perfect and the data is unaltered, I'm not sure why March audio has to make it look like a flaw by his narratives. The title of the thread makes it clear already and I've checked the files, they are bit by bit identical when it comes to the data.

 

 

The author of the software says the following:

 

Quote

 

What the software does:

1) loads the audio file in memory

2) start optimization process,

3) run optimization process,

3) optimization process ends,

4) save the audio file loaded in memory on to the disc drive under another name.

 

 

March Audio's video shows evidence that the first step isn't happening.

 

Seems pretty clear to me that nothing the author of the software says can be trusted. 

[manueljenkin]

It does load the file to memory. Windows Task manager is also just another algorithm, it may not reflect actual instantaneous usage. I have done the optimization with 1GB iso file to make things clear and here is the results.

 

Before running Optimization:

 

After Running Optimization:

 

 

You can also check the code, it surely has a copy to RAM operation! Fyi, each operation usage, doesn't necessarily need to reflect in the same application instance in windows task manager, the optimizer can spawn a new instance of the application with a different/generic name (just look at the number of instances for Edge update, or if you have multiple chrome tabs, look at the number of instances).

 

I'm sorry, the software dev cannot be held responsible for March Audio's oversights and flawed correlations. His tool does what he mentioned.

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

It does load the file to memory. Windows Task manager is also just another algorithm, it may not reflect actual instantaneous usage. I have done the optimization with 1GB iso file to make things clear and here is the results.

 

Before running Optimization:

 

After Running Optimization:

 

 

You can also check the code, it surely has a copy to RAM operation! Fyi, each operation usage, doesn't necessarily need to reflect in the same application instance in windows task manager, the optimizer can spawn a new instance of the application with a different/generic name (just look at the number of instances for Edge update, or if you have multiple chrome tabs, look at the number of instances).

 

I'm sorry, the software dev cannot be held responsible for March Audio's oversights and flawed correlations. His tool does what he mentioned.

 

Where is the source code available? I didn't see anything on the website but my French is rusty.

[manueljenkin]

This is a proprietary software so source code is unlikely. But there are ways to atleast partially see what an executable is doing. I'm not a software dev, so I don't know how to do it but I had another person who checked and found a move to RAM operation in the code.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, manueljenkin said:

And also a two minute timer as expected. I don't know what the middle part of the code does 

 

What did your expert say it did?

[manueljenkin]

And also a two minute timer as expected. I don't know what the middle part of the code does. I wondered if it could be as simple as copy to RAM, wait a couple of minutes, move back to hard drive, but my similar attempts using RAMDISK didn't give me anywhere near as good a result as the junilabs player optimization.

 

[manueljenkin]

The objective-fi thread for the same topic : 

 

[manueljenkin]

4 hours ago, manueljenkin said:

It does load the file to memory. Windows Task manager is also just another algorithm, it may not reflect actual instantaneous usage. I have done the optimization with 1GB iso file to make things clear and here is the results.

 

Before running Optimization:

 

After Running Optimization:

 

 

You can also check the code, it surely has a copy to RAM operation! Fyi, each operation usage, doesn't necessarily need to reflect in the same application instance in windows task manager, the optimizer can spawn a new instance of the application with a different/generic name (just look at the number of instances for Edge update, or if you have multiple chrome tabs, look at the number of instances).

 

I'm sorry, the software dev cannot be held responsible for March Audio's oversights and flawed correlations. His tool does what he mentioned.

In case you didn't notice the difference, the memory usage changes from 33% before running optimizer to 64% after running optimizer. I have repeated this multiple times to ensure. The Total RAM in my system is 8Gb and 30% of it would be roughly 2.4Gb. It is pretty clear the file is loaded to RAM as per the dev claims.

[manueljenkin]

@idiot_savanthas tried looking into the code. Pasting snapshots of the code findings

 

"it’s written in C#. there are functions called scintillate and harmonize. it opens a couple of files inside the windows page file, that it seems to write random numbers into before swapping them around in a ping pong, using a number of threads."

[Confused]

My experiment with the Junilabs player is off to a poor start.