Jump to content
IGNORED

Bit perfect software changing sound. How?


Recommended Posts

@kumakuma

 

Manueljenkin has asked that I do not respond in his thread where he is promoting a certain audio player.  You have posed some objective questions in that thread which in theory is not allowed as its the "subjective" section.

 

So on your points, with the audio files I tried the software process does not show any memory or disk usage, So if the file is being loaded into memory its by a different process.  Having said this you will note in the video I presented the main memory didnt change either, so whilst possible, that doesnt seem a likely explanation. The process didnt show any cpu usage in the files I tried during "optimisation".

 

In addition to this the optimisation process takes exactly the same amount of time, 2 minutes, regardless of file size.  I have tried files from 50 to 500mB in size.  So my question is what processing and "optimisations" is it making that can take exactly the same amount of time regardless of the file size?

 

The software states:

 

image.png.ce961ef67403c0af3dabd1059537adb1.png

 

What is it doing that is sensitive to this?  Why isnt in an issue in normal playback?

 

Why does optimising multiple times allegedly improve the sound?

 

Lastly I have tried optimising many files.  Also optimising the same file multiple times as suggested.  I can hear zero difference between original and the "optimised" files.  I already demonstrated in the original thread that the files are identical (as the software author states) and the original and optimised files null perfectly.

 

Please try the software out and see if you can hear improvements with "optimised" files.  I would be interested in your findings.

 

Bottom line is that I find the claims of the software unlikely to say the least.  We have no explanation form the author about what it does to "optimise" the file beyond "it operates at an entirely different level".  Im just interested to see if there is anything genuine about this beyond expectation bias or bias created by uncontrolled subjective comparisons.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, March Audio said:

@kumakuma

Manueljenkin has asked that I do not respond in his thread where he is promoting a certain audio player. 

I haven't blocked you from replying or posting, but requested you to not try to inflict unintended deviations. I have kept your first post as is for reference because you put effort to check things. I have made some observations that are different from your assessment, and I have added that also to the topic. The player does load the music into the RAM as I've described in my post with the evidence. Windows task managers may not reflect all changes, and you'll have to observe carefully or try with a bigger file.

The rest of your comments were all off topic, hence I removed them since it was deviating from the core point of the thread.

 

2 hours ago, March Audio said:

@kumakuma

 

You have posed some objective questions in that thread which in theory is not allowed as its the "subjective" section.

I haven't found any issue with his questions so far. They were genuine and intended to check things. If it were actually asking for measurements or other objectivity oriented question, I myself would have directed those posts here.

 

2 hours ago, March Audio said:

@kumakuma

 

Lastly I have tried optimising many files.  Also optimising the same file multiple times as suggested.  I can hear zero difference between original and the "optimised" files.  I already demonstrated in the original thread that the files are identical (as the software author states) and the original and optimised files null perfectly.

Few things. The developer's recommendation is to not make a copy of the file, move it across different partitions and/or physical drives, and not make modifications to the content of the file other than renaming. Certain music playback software make a temp copy before playback and it would nullify the test as per the above. It is recommended to make the tests with the junilabs player if you haven't to make a fair assessment.

 

I'm also curious to know more. Good luck!

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

 The player does load the music into the RAM as I've described in my post with the evidence.

 

 

Can you explain walk me though what this evidence is?

 

I looked at the screen caps you shared but don't see anything indicating that a 1 GB file ISO file had been loaded into memory.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Can you explain walk me though what this evidence is?

 

I looked at the screen caps you shared but don't see anything indicating that a 1 GB file ISO file had been loaded into memory.

Memory usage level changed from 33% (before starting optimizer) to 64% (after starting optimization). My system has 8GB RAM and 30% of it would be about 2.4 GB. No other process was run during this time and did it multiple times to confirm.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

This thread should not have been started by someone with insufficient knowledge of the Windows OS.

The forum is an open place. Let them have their posts. His assessment has flaws because of the unreliable probes he has used, but as can be seen, it can be refuted quite easily.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

This thread should not have been started by someone with insufficient knowledge of the Windows OS.

 

So what's the answer to the question posed by the OP?

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

So what's the answer to the question posed by the OP?

How it optimizes is uncertain, but the flow of actions that the dev described looks true so far. The assessments by march audio on how the tool works have many flaws - it actually does RAM loading as the software dev mentioned, it doesn't seem to defrag unlike predictions from @Currawongand few others. And the assessment of fidelity/changes through foobar ab-x also break the usage conditions of the tool as foobar ab-x makes a temp copy of the files before playback which the dev advices against. I can only give sighted experiences at the moment and I'll reserve it to subjective thread. For an assessment to March audios requirements, it would be suitable to try the same comparison with the junilabs player but with helper to properly ab-x (need to make sure the helper doesn't do anything that breaks ab-x) so that both the player requirements are fulfilled and ab-x test is also fulfilled.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

So what's the answer to the question posed by the OP?

 

I briefly took the usual suspects off of ignore as I saw they had responded to the thread and I wanted to see the context of your response.

Just more ad hominem instead of actually answering the questions.  I find it ironic that Manuel requested admin rights in his thread to prevent me from responding in it, yet claims freedom of speech here.

 

As you and I have asked,  what is the software doing to "optimise" the file?

 

Even if it does load the file into memory what happens then?  

 

How can it optimise the file but take exactly the same amount of time to do so with a small 50mb file and a 500mb file?

 

It cant be due to any sequential optimisation on the disk because this is irrelevant with SSDs (which Manuel uses).

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I find it ironic that Manuel requested admin rights in his thread to prevent me from responding in it, yet claims freedom of speech here.

I requested admin rights to ensure that the thread stays on topic and not to block any particular individual. A flawed analysis is fine, and I have kept your original assessment on the thread and made my observations refuting it. Comments that try to deviate the thread, use weasel words and passive aggressive tone, are the ones that get removed.

Link to comment

 

9 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

How it optimizes is uncertain, but the flow of actions that the dev described looks true so far. The assessments by march audio on how the tool works have many flaws - it actually does RAM loading as the software dev mentioned, it doesn't seem to defrag unlike predictions from @Currawongand few others. And the assessment of fidelity/changes through foobar ab-x also break the usage conditions of the tool as foobar ab-x makes a temp copy of the files before playback which the dev advices against. I can only give sighted experiences at the moment and I'll reserve it to subjective thread. For an assessment to March audios requirements, it would be suitable to try the same comparison with the junilabs player but with helper to properly ab-x (need to make sure the helper doesn't do anything that breaks ab-x) so that both the player requirements are fulfilled and ab-x test is also fulfilled.

 

I will respond to this.

 

The floor is yours to come up with some kind of cogent explanation as to how it works.  Please propose a theory of how it might work.

 

Can you explain why making a copy of the file breaks the alleged "optimisations".  We  know it doesnt change the file, from the null test and the authors own testament.  So whats left?  File reading position and continuity on disk?  Sorry but as even you agree, that is irrelevant with SSDs.  Yet you still claim you hear improvements playing off your SSD.  So what is it doing???????

 

I have just proposed some methods of analysis.  Isnt it quite comically convenient that the "usage conditions" prevent such objective analysis?  Conditions that so far have no rational explanation or justification.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

 

I will respond to this.

 

The floor is yours to come up with some kind of cogent explanation as to how it works.  Please propose a theory of how it might work.

 

Can you explain why making a copy of the file breaks the alleged "optimisations".  We  know it doesnt change the file, from the null test and the authors own testament.  So whats left?  File reading position and continuity on disk?  Sorry but as even you agree, that is irrelevant with SSDs.  Yet you still claim you hear improvements playing off your SSD.  So what is it doing???????

 

I have just proposed some methods of analysis.  Isnt it quite comically convenient that the "usage conditions" prevent such objective analysis?  Conditions that so far have no rational explanation or justification.

There's nothing preventing objective analysis within the boundary conditions mentioned. I have mentioned a suitable test in my previous comment.

 

I cannot predict how it might work, I am also curious of the same, since it does work as the dev claims on my system. The above conditions just rules out those particular predictions (defragmentation) on how it works. There's an entire other sea to explore when it comes to electromagnetism, and access noises. It doesn't change the "data" in the file, but it does create a new file (ie it does a change), as evidenced by the fact that it copies to RAM before optimization.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

I requested admin rights to ensure that the thread stays on topic and not to block any particular individual. Comments that try to deviate the thread, use weasel words and passive aggressive tone, are the ones that get removed.

Of course that was your motivation. 😏

 

There is nothing passive aggressive about objectively looking at the software.  Thats just your erroneous assertion. I understand why you want to attack an alternative view that contradicts yours.  You have been directly offensive towards me in the previous thread. You even called me a liar at one point.  You have repeatedly used ad hominem attacks towards me in multiple threads.  So dont go there.

 

This is an objective thread.  Do you have any contribution to explain how this software might work to improve sound?

 

From my objective perspective so far this appears to be firmly in magic crystals and homeothapy territory.  My subjective analysis also concludes it does nothing to improve the sound.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

There's nothing preventing objective analysis within the boundary conditions mentioned. I have mentioned a suitable test in my previous comment.

OK, I will organise a test :)

 

Can you explain why copying a file would break th alleged optimisations?

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, March Audio said:

This is an objective thread. 

 

This means that you must have your measurements correct. Your OP does testify of the contrary.

You thus put all in a perspective of attacking the author and THAT with so-called objective assessments ?

 

Your thread thus derailed in the first post already. Especially in the objective board you should have your facts right. But as usual, you just shout around and love yourself with it. What about toning down and have a real discussion ?

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Just more ad hominem instead of actually answering the questions.

 

We can't answer questions which are put in a wrong context. As I said, you should not have created this thread because of insufficient knowledge (plus a wrong attitude). You are not ready to learn as well. And yes, sorry, but that springs from all of your other posts. Maybe retry in this thread. It is your own, so why not ...

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, March Audio said:

There is nothing passive aggressive about objectively looking at the software.  Thats just your erroneous assertion. I understand why you want to attack an alternative view that contradicts yours.  You have been directly offensive towards me in the previous thread. You even called me a liar at one point.  You have repeatedly used ad hominem attacks towards me in multiple threads.  So dont go there.

 

This is an objective thread.  Do you have any contribution to explain how this software might work to improve sound?

 

From my objective perspective so far this appears to be firmly in magic crystals and homeothapy territory.  My subjective analysis also concludes it does nothing to improve the sound.

I didn't remove your "assessment" post in the original thread fyi. I have also made my own tests showing that your assessment is flawed and it is also present there.

 

I only removed your other comments that were nothing but a culmination of weasel words and passive aggressive attacks. Even your "assessment" posts had such references but I have let it be.

 

And fyi: 

 

In every other thread most of my comments directed to you were only pointing out flaws in your assessment and assertions. You had been stacking up conjectures on the "gaming measurements" thread where you inserted so many uncorrelated phenomenon and often misunderstandings of - assumption of types of mics used in phones, assumption of human hearing perception with respect to cocktail party problem, etc. Almost everyone in the thread has shown you immense patience and tried to correct where your assumptions were wrong. If you felt that to be an ad hominem attack, I guess we'll need some class on literature/grammar.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

So what's the answer to the question posed by the OP?

 

If you have been following the by now three other threads about this, you can have read that without the smallest knowledge of the product I already could lay out how things might work. In the first thread about this, I really did. But if all is rejected by false stipulation like not seeing the memory changed and what now, everybody goes blind.

 

I can lay out each of those possible explanations again, but first the context must be clear. All noses in the same direction and such.

 

Let me kindly remind you that in XXHighEnd ALL of this stuff is contained as well**. I only don't talk about the constellation of the stars. But who knows ...

So I think I know what I am doing ...

 

**): The fact that I apply these matters should not ever be debunked by false/faulty observations like memory and 2 minutes stuff. In other words, it should tell Mr MachAudio that he could be wrong in his observations. Thus, dig harder; understand more.

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

This means that you must have your measurements correct. Your OP does testify of the contrary.

You thus put all in a perspective of attacking the author and THAT with so-called objective assessments ?

 

Your thread thus derailed in the first post already. Especially in the objective board you should have your facts right. But as usual, you just shout around and love yourself with it. What about toning down and have a real discussion ?

Exactly. So far the posts by op on this thread has only been a poorly researched, personally structured attack on the author, disguised as something "objective".

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

We can't answer questions which are put in a wrong context. As I said, you should not have created this thread because of insufficient knowledge (plus a wrong attitude). You are not ready to learn as well. And yes, sorry, but that springs from all of your other posts. Maybe retry in this thread. It is your own, so why not ...

Well explain how it works Peter, there is no context other than asking for your ideas on how it improves the sound. 

 

The floor is yours.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

I didn't remove your "assessment" post in the original thread fyi. I have also made my own tests showing that your assessment is flawed and it is also present there.

 

I only removed your other comments that were nothing but a culmination of weasel words and passive aggressive attacks. Even your "assessment" posts had such references but I have let it be.

 

And fyi: 

 

In every other thread most of my comments directed to you were only pointing out flaws in your assessment and assertions. You had been stacking up conjectures on the "gaming measurements" thread where you inserted so many uncorrelated phenomenon and often misunderstandings of - assumption of types of mics used in phones, assumption of human hearing perception with respect to cocktail party problem, etc. Almost everyone in the thread has shown you immense patience and tried to correct where your assumptions were wrong. If you felt that to be an ad hominem attack, I guess we'll need some class on literature/grammar.

Do you want me to post your  multiple ad hominem attacks?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Well explain how it works Peter.

So your objective is not to find if it works or not. But to extract how it would work. Well in that case, your requirement is completely unrelated to what is called as an objective analysis. An objective analysis can be done in a black box method and testing if the output is as claimed, the black box need not be fully known. It is a functionality testing method, doesn't need to know how it is accomplished.

 

I've tested it for my use case and it works convincingly for me. If you wanted an objective assessment, I have shown you the method to do it as well.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

If you have been following the by now three other threads about this, you can have read that without the smallest knowledge of the product I already could lay out how things might work. In the first thread about this, I really did. But if all is rejected by false stipulation like not seeing the memory changed and what now, everybody goes blind.

 

I can lay out each of those possible explanations again, but first the context must be clear. All noses in the same direction and such.

 

Let me kindly remind you that in XXHighEnd ALL of this stuff is contained as well**. I only don't talk about the constellation of the stars. But who knows ...

So I think I know what I am doing ...

 

**): The fact that I apply these matters should not ever be debunked by false/faulty observations like memory and 2 minutes stuff. In other words, it should tell Mr MachAudio that he could be wrong in his observations. Thus, dig harder; understand more.

 

So you know how the junilabs software works then.  Care to share that with us? 

 

Dig harder?  Well presumably if you do understand all of this you would be able to explain it.  Can you help me out here and explain it?

 

Simple and direct question.  Why does the optimisation process take 2 minutes regardless of file size?

 

As an aside, do you see that in this circumstance you would be considered to have a conflict of interest?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...