Popular Post andrewinukm Posted June 2, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted June 2, 2021 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. March Audio, botrytis and manueljenkin 1 2 Link to comment
Popular Post andrewinukm Posted June 8, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted June 8, 2021 On 6/7/2021 at 3:50 PM, Confused said: The PGGB thread is about upsampling. This does offer the possibility to reduce electrical noise buy reducing activity in the DAC, but this is not what the Junilab player is doing. The Junilab playing is not changing bits, whereas PGGB is. For my main system I use HQPlayer to upsample to the native rate of the DAC input, which is a different approach but has some similarities. Both PGGB and HQPlayer are changing bits, Junilabs is not. (as far as I am aware) That is a bit of a general statement. In my case my "main rig" has a higher standard of playback than my desktop headphone set up. The main system uses Ethernet streaming, Ethernet isolators, a network endpoint, a device for cleaning USB, a Mutec MC3+USB (galvanically isolated) This is a complex set-up, and debating if this is a good or bad approach is off-topic here, but it does mean that any noise in the PC is very remote from the system. Indeed, you can disconnect the Ethernet cable from the Router and music continues playing for a couple of seconds, indicating that "bits" are being buffered remotely from the PC. With my desktop set-up the PC is connected direct to the DAC, so is far more likely to be susceptible to any electrical influences of the PC playback. And none of this goes any way towards establishing what this Junilabs file "optimising" might actually be doing. For that I suggest we wait to see what @manueljenkin comes up with and take it from there. Just to throw a wrench to this thought process: I have a DAC that buffers all audio inputs for 1 second before upsampling in an internal DSP, and yet changes at the digital front end still made observable differences (i.e. Iso Regen vs iFi iUSB, change of audio software, footers on my laptop, laptop vs RaspPi, etc.). Sometimes they are easily observable, sometimes barely, and some not at all. It baffles the mind as I have the same expectation that the buffer should have buffered it from the source. 🤯 Also, the less coloured, better resolution, and better "audio hygiene" (clean power & what not), the easier it is to observe small changes. A buddy once brought a DAVE (way beyond my budget), and holy macaroni we could easily identify the effects of tweaks that I had put aside as "no observable effect" pile. So I've learned "never say never" when pushing beyond the measurable and explainable realm in audio. I'm in the midst of testing out Junilabs optimisation on audio files. In the mean time, lets see what Manueljenkin discovers. manueljenkin, Confused and PeterSt 3 Link to comment
andrewinukm Posted June 9, 2021 Share Posted June 9, 2021 3 hours ago, Racerxnet said: Some effort to understand exactly how it works? Shouldn't you have already known this prior to your post.... This is like asking a customer to explain the chef's cooking method and prove it. After all, we are all just users being curious and figuring things out when there are observations that beffudles common measurable or scientific explanation. There's no need for hostility amongst us users. 5 hours ago, idiot_savant said: But I will say to @andrewinukm - what purpose does this 1s buffer serve? Is it better than pressing “play” 1s later? How? just a thought experiment , since we are running late with an explanation, tour friendly neighbourhood idiot I think we're OK to digress a little as long as we are all cool headed, and get back to the topic eventually. Digital audio signals are delivered "live" as it is without means to cross check with the source. So according to the manufacturer, the buffer sort of holds the information and buffer it against inconsistent or poorly transmitted data, before sending it to DSP. They tested various buffer sizes, and determined that 1 second is the most ideal for their DAC. This is my layman explanation. There's a switch that defeats the buffer for videos, and most people who have listened to my setup can easily observe a difference in sound quality. I personally prefer the buffer turned on when listening to music. It's not a big deal, but if I can max out the quality for my enjoyment, why not? I generally think measurements and science based approach for audio gears should be encouraged more. But I've listened to tweaks or stuff that current measurements or scientific information doesn't explain. Instead of denying my observations or arguing with other deniers... I build stuff, test them, get friends to measure and listen, etc to understand the phenomena. I find it odd there are many who make lots of noise and demand all sorts of information, but unwilling to test it themselves. PeterSt 1 Link to comment
andrewinukm Posted June 9, 2021 Share Posted June 9, 2021 10 hours ago, idiot_savant said: @manueljenkin- I’m in no rush, it’s merely you said you’d have something, so I’m waiting patiently @andrewinukm - I’m not disagreeing with a single thing you’re saying. There *are* valid reasons for having a buffer ( eg to deal with the “bursty” nature of network/USB connections ), or to prevent pops and bangs when something upstream changes, but it’s not going to help with “inconsistent” or “poorly transmitted” data - this kind of problem won’t sound slightly worse, it will pop and crackle - what kind of input are you using, out of interest? I’m not here to argue with what people hear, I’m here to discuss why these beliefs have become so widespread. I’m a big believer that if you hear something but can’t measure it, you should look at why you can’t measure it, and fix that your friendly neighbourhood idiot I wasn't directing at you, it was mainly to prevent some others who may have a hard opinion to jump in and accidentally start a thread war. 😅 I mainly use USB (laptop as my digital source) & optical (gaming). I've tried SPDIF RCA with WaveIO converter before. For the case of my DAC, the buffer is implemented for sound quality reasons by the manufacturer. As a user, I like what this buffer does. Without the buffer, there's no drop outs or anything, just that I observed a slight drop in clarity. Like I said, it's a layman explanation as electronics and digital science are not my specialty. Though this won't stop me from trying things out and hopefully understanding the science behind it. But the onus is not with one consumer to spend personal time and money, simply to satisfy another consumer's demand for better measurement data or proof. Also, there's the consideration that measurement technology or methodology may not be developed yet. Developing a validated test protocol is a huge scientific effort, and I thank you for thinking so highly of me or any random forumer can easily achieve this. But sadly, I can only build simple stuff and listen to it across many setups and many different ears... hopefully to identify a consistent trend. Also, I wish bit identical files sound the same. I was skeptical of claims by others, so I went and did my own tests. As for the results, let's just say I'm either hallucinating or I'm enjoying the placebo effects waaaayyy too much than I should. 😜 Can't explain nor measure it, but I certainly have identified some consistent observations. --- This is more of a public announcement to others: I applaud ppl like Golden Sound and Manueljenkin for their technical knowledge and willingness to to measure and prove things, even though that's not their responsibilities. So what if a user claims something? A baby seal didn't die because of that. And the software is FREE. Is there really a need to hang the creator and a user of the software just because someone hears a difference? 😅 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now