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

[idiot_savant]

If you’re going to quote me, could you do me the courtesy of not being selective?

 

”The decompilation doesn’t help, but whatever  it is trying to do looks pretty pointless to me - but it *is* trying to do something, even if misguided - I’m not sure if there’s a magic sequence it’s trying to write to the disk whilst copying a file at the same time? 
 

anyway, I’ve seen nothing ( so far ) that could explain any difference in sound”

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[yamamoto2002]

I created the app to inspect fragmentation status of specified file on NTFS formatted volume.

 

https://sourceforge.net/p/playpcmwin/wiki/WWFileFragmentCount2/

 

[manueljenkin]

1 hour ago, idiot_savant said:

If you’re going to quote me, could you do me the courtesy of not being selective?

 

”The decompilation doesn’t help, but whatever  it is trying to do looks pretty pointless to me - but it *is* trying to do something, even if misguided - I’m not sure if there’s a magic sequence it’s trying to write to the disk whilst copying a file at the same time? 
 

anyway, I’ve seen nothing ( so far ) that could explain any difference in sound”

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

I've posted the relevant findings about the player code. You have exercised your option to share your personal feelings in this comment of yours.

[manueljenkin]

2 hours ago, Confused said:

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

 

Oops. Have you installed the necessary dac drivers and chosen the dac as default device? I've had multiple people report this issue and it got resolved after installing dac driver.

[manueljenkin]

1 hour ago, yamamoto2002 said:

I created the app to inspect fragmentation status of specified file on NTFS formatted volume.

 

https://sourceforge.net/p/playpcmwin/wiki/WWFileFragmentCount2/

 

Thank you very much!

[idiot_savant]

@manueljenkin- right, so I’ve been thinking about this some more. So your suggestion is that by writing random numbers to the page file *somehow* makes that file different in electromagnetic terms. 
 

Even, and I must say this is a *big* if, this is true, then surely only the first fraction of a second during playback whilst the file is read can this make a difference? I.e from seconds 0.01 - end of track the file is not being accessed any more ( as it’s being deliberately read in one go, or from the file system cache )
 

I’m sure you and your friends are picky, but you can’t be suggesting that the electromagnetic interference continues from here? Or am I being an idiot again?

 

You say you have an EE background, so I’ll patiently await your response,

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot

[PeterSt]

15 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

I’m sure you and your friends are picky, but you can’t be suggesting that the electromagnetic interference continues from here? Or am I being an idiot again?

 

You say you have an EE background, so I’ll patiently await your response,

 

Like in one of the other threads, I would this time like to literally see a quote from the author where there's talk about "electromagnetical interference" in relation to page file hammering. My hint : it does not exist.

In that case there's also no requirement to lay this out, right ?

 

Personally (might that be important): I don't see any EMI by measurement, although that may not tell enough (it is too un-directional to measure properly with what I have for it). However, would I be the creator of such software, I might not be knowing what is happing (nobody does) and I would/could call it EMI influence.

 

Fact is, that the more years I experience with the ^2 and ^3 cables, the more I know that most of the influence goes through air. This works from inside of the cable to the outside, but also from the outside to the inside of the cable. It goes as far as the cable influencing itself.

Now, might you happen to know a device which can picture this for me (as in light through smoke), kindly let ne know and I may obtain it. It will save a lot of trouble and the progression in audio may speed up quite a bit (hopefully).

 

The real message of this post:

1. don't combine elements of which it is not known whether they combine in reality (EMI vs PageFile);

2. the author himself most 99% probably won't know what is happening BUT it happens for result.

 

Ad 2.: Don't underestimate this and know that only after decades this may have become science.

[idiot_savant]

@PeterSt 

 

couple of points here:

 

firstly, we’re talking about this page-file thrashing being done at a different time to playback ( optimising a file ). So my point still stands - even *big if* this made some difference to the file how does this affect *anything* after it’s been read? I.e the first fraction of a second?
 

secondly : are you seriously as a manufacturer of cables and equipment coming on to a public forum and saying you have no idea how they work or why they are beneficial?

*edit* got my threads mixed up, here is what was said on the other thread

 

”Along with this goes another kind of example (interesting for your subject here), ... because of his knowledge but by far more merely because of his education, poor me is not able to talk with him about my own cables, because, well, I am not educated in the cable field.”

 

thirdly : as a manufacturer selling product in the EU, don’t you need to do EMC testing as part of CE? Couldn’t you use this time in the test chamber to get some measurements to support your theories?

 

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[manueljenkin]

I would recommend to wait for a short while (a couple of days at max), I'm working on something and I feel I could contribute something here.

[Confused]

20 hours ago, manueljenkin said:

Oops. Have you installed the necessary dac drivers and chosen the dac as default device? I've had multiple people report this issue and it got resolved after installing dac driver.

OK - Another day and now it works.  I am not sure why, but for me it would not work when set to WASAPI,  Changing the setting to DirectSound and it works fine.

 

Could I hear a difference when playing an "optimized" file? For me it is no more than a maybe.  If there is a difference it is very subtle.  There were a couple of times when I thought that maybe the optimized file sounded better, but it was within the margins where I would consider that I might be imagining things.   I very much doubt I could pass an blind test of otimized versus normal files.

[Confused]

@PeterSt - Have you tried the Jinilabs player or one of it's file optimizations?  A genuine question, by the way.

[idiot_savant]

@manueljenkin - no problem, I await your response

 

 

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[PeterSt]

28 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

secondly : are you seriously as a manufacturer of cables and equipment coming on to a public forum and saying you have no idea how they work or why they are beneficial

 

Sure. That's research life.

1. One grabs a couple of 1000 of ears ...

2. etc.

 

29 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

thirdly : as a manufacturer selling product in the EU, don’t you need to do EMC testing as part of CE? Couldn’t you use this time in the test chamber to get some measurements to support your theories?

 

The idea is great, but the CE certification is explicitly left out. Proof, page 14 of the specs guide of our D/A converter (Dec 2010):

 

 

 

34 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

saying you have no idea how they work or why they are beneficial?

 

These are your words, which kind of twisted mine. You should not do that (unless you want threads to close down).

You might quote me on these things, however.

I don't know how many dozens of pages I spent on the subject. And what I can't help is that it is my subject. Thus, food for rough ? (I hope this is English).

 

38 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

firstly, we’re talking about this page-file thrashing being done at a different time to playback ( optimising a file ). So my point still stands - even *big if* this made some difference to the file how does this affect *anything* after it’s been read?

 

No. More firstly, this is your personal conclusion while it is also your personal observation.

Or am I wrong on this one ?

 

Still ... (but here I go again) ... Shall I show you the code in 10+ versions which tries to tame Windows memory and garbage collection ?

Shall I ? It took me 2 years to master it.

Shall I count for you the number of times the term "Page File" occurs in my software ?

I could still say "you know your stuff" (I did so two days ago). But it looks that you must be careful not to use it inadvertently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is in a loop with several other stuff preceding it. One small example:

 

 

 

[........]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The latter is a test on the cpu cycles still used on GC.

 

So like me, you better believe too that these matters exist.

Can you now (or anyone) please stop to be suspicious ?

 

On another note, it looks like Eric got hold of my sources. ;-)

 

Anyway, there you have your 2 minute process, possibly (!).

Also, don't underestimate how the first line in the first screenshot relates ("Straight Contiguous Memory"). You can guess it by now, Yes ?

Now don't ask me how smart this Eric is. But in my eyes everybody could be smart, so why not. If they only don't steal ...

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

 

All what remains is the viability of such applications. Like I said, XXHighEnd is 250K+ lines of VB.net. This one (de Audio Engine itself) is 60K lines of C++ code. The lines that play audio are 16 lines only. And that's 16 instead of 1 because of it sounds better.

But for the viability I myself listen to users and not to myself (or initially I will and when wrong it's not going to the public). All people have a say and the common denominator(s) win. Fix it, and up to the next idea.

With cables no different, as long as we don't understand the processes (and lack the measurements).

[idiot_savant]

@PeterSt I know English is not your first language, so I’ll try to be more explicit

 

I am not talking about *your* software

 

I am not talking about playback software *at all*
 

I’m talking about this “optimising of a file”

 

understand?

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[PeterSt]

46 minutes ago, Confused said:

@PeterSt - Have you tried the Jinilabs player or one of it's file optimizations?

 

No. And to be honest, I don't do these things because it would feel like stealing for me. I explicitly don't want to be like that.

But as you just saw, I can guess a lot and I believe all.

 

One thing interests me: Someone quoted from the manual that a copy of the file was made to disk. This asserts that that file is being played, right ? (XXHE works by this means too, never mind after that it goes to memory as well);

Why did I not see anyone diving further into this ?? ... All I see is that the file remains unchanged. OK. So what about that copy then ?

 

PS: In my case the checksums will remain exactly the same. But the organization ... far from it. Remember, before it goes to memory. And all has its reasons.

 

Fun (for those who were there): This is how the JPlay guys split from XXHighEnd and started their own version of it (Marcin and Josef) with XXHE features in the base. We (mainly Josef and me) disagreed on how which means of file/memory approach would sound for the better. ... This is all quite high snuff ...

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

I’m talking about this “optimising of a file”

 

I am sorry, but not clear much because you referred to the page file. And otherwise, please quote because I apparently now don't know what you are referring to. By now one thing:

 

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

PS: In my case the checksums will remain exactly the same. But the organization ... far from it. Remember, before it goes to memory. And all has its reasons.

 

I won't elaborate on that one. But trust me, it happens (for today the viability is up to listeners).

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

I’m talking about this “optimising of a file”

 

Works for an SSD too. Please trust me, even without elaboration.

 

Remember what I just blathered about Contiguous Memory. Got the hint ?

[idiot_savant]

@PeterSt

 

Right, so to be clear : this *whole* thread is about a single executable that can “optimise” a file so it sounds better, but is *identical* in terms of content. 
I believe it has been stated it is not defragmentating the file. 
 

Looking at the executable, it *appears* to spend 2 minutes writing random(ish) numbers to the windows page file. It then copies the original file to a new name. 
 

Now the question is : even *if* this did anything, be that by angels dancing on electrons, defragmenting the file by accident, electromagnetic “effects” or noise, *how* can this effect last longer than the reading of the file ( I.e. the first fraction of a second ). 
 

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[manueljenkin]

1 hour ago, Confused said:

OK - Another day and now it works.  I am not sure why, but for me it would not work when set to WASAPI,  Changing the setting to DirectSound and it works fine.

 

Could I hear a difference when playing an "optimized" file? For me it is no more than a maybe.  If there is a difference it is very subtle.  There were a couple of times when I thought that maybe the optimized file sounded better, but it was within the margins where I would consider that I might be imagining things.   I very much doubt I could pass an blind test of otimized versus normal files.

Thank you for trying. I'm not sure why wasapi didn't work, directsound in general is not an ideal candidate for these tests. I'll try to look into it.

[manueljenkin]

@PeterSt @idiot_savant I requested a one day gap. I hope we can continue the analysis with lesser speculations/vague-assertions after that.

 

[Confused]

9 hours ago, PeterSt said:

One thing interests me: Someone quoted from the manual that a copy of the file was made to disk. This asserts that that file is being played, right ? (XXHE works by this means too, never mind after that it goes to memory as well);

Why did I not see anyone diving further into this ?? ... All I see is that the file remains unchanged. OK. So what about that copy then ?

When you optimise the file, it does save a copy to disk.  One thing that I noticed is that it must be playing from memory, I deleted one of the optimised files when it was playing, and it kept on playing until the end of the track.  It would not play it again after it finished, clicking back to make it play a second time it looked to load the file again, which it could not do as it was deleted.

[fas42]

48 minutes ago, Confused said:

When you optimise the file, it does save a copy to disk.  One thing that I noticed is that it must be playing from memory, I deleted one of the optimised files when it was playing, and it kept on playing until the end of the track.  It would not play it again after it finished, clicking back to make it play a second time it looked to load the file again, which it could not do as it was deleted.

 

Yes. It's all about doing whatever it takes to optimise the status of all the electronics, at the time of playback. What do you think all the chatter on the PGGB thread is about ... you 'reshape' the source data so that the processing of it to finally generate an analogue signal is done as benignly as possible; in terms of the levels and type of attendant electrical noise generated. The latter is death to digital SQ - so just about anything you do to alter the electrical environment at the time of the replay will have an audible impact. Unfortunately, the higher the standard of that playback, the easier it is to hear these degradations - that's the nature of the beast ...

[Confused]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

What do you think all the chatter on the PGGB thread is about ... you 'reshape' the source data so that the processing of it to finally generate an analogue signal is done as benignly as possible;

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)

 

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

Unfortunately, the higher the standard of that playback, the easier it is to hear these degradations - that's the nature of the beast ...

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.

[idiot_savant]

@manueljenkin - I guess it really is very deep thinking that's required?

 

 

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot

[fas42]

14 hours ago, 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)

 

Both techniques are about reducing electrical noise - upsampling is doing it much closer to the DAC; player tricks are about reducing it in the electronics which retrieve, read the music data - both can make their way to the sensitive areas of the analogue parts of the chain - the Junilab methodology is just a variant of buying an ultra, ultra high end music server; you do what it takes, what tickles your fancy, to get the playback chain to work more 'cleanly'.

 

14 hours ago, Confused said:

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.

 

It is a general statement ... I have a rule of thumb: if someone says, I have done enough to stop something bad happening in my audio system, I would say, there is a good chance you're wrong. Wrestling with a python comes to mind, when I think of what it's like to completely knock over every audio chain issue, 😜.

 

14 hours ago, Confused said:

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.

 

At some stage, the designer found out the doing of whatever it does, helps ... it may not help a lot of people's setups, but it does for some. Life could not exist if a 100% robust explanation for why every single trick that is used is beneficial - so, the smart ones just say, it does the job; so now, I'll just get on with doing what really interests me ... 😉.