Bit perfect software changing sound. How?

[PeterSt]

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

[PeterSt]

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 ?

[PeterSt]

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 ...

[PeterSt]

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.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

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.

 

The latter is not necessary.

 

The problem of subjects like these is that some software explicitly changes sound while staying as bit perfect as can be. And mind you please, this whole shebang started with Manuel and his "player" thread (really some linger ago by now). So if I am allowed to take my own software as example, then it is completely stacked with features that change sound while bit perfectness is not changed a bit. ;-) This is a matter of digital loopback plus some listening (or the other way around). You can try it too and no UnDemo is necessary to perceive what I mean.

 

So without answering your quoted question, it is totally clear to everybody with very small experience (try XXHighEnd) that the sound can change. It is NOT allowed - especially not in an objective subject, to not trust things only because one does not know what to look at. And in this case it is worse: we see things (the description of the player, including some stars stuff) - we do not understand that, we also will not find out further, to next debunk a resulting fact which can easily be tested. Read: The result is there (but of course be open to it, which is different from being biased), so what the heck can the author mean by his descriptions. And well, what I have in advance over others is that I create such things myself. So I will 100% believe such statements (hey, without listening !). Whether I - with that - know what really happens inside, is something else. Do I want to know ? maybe. And only if I want to implement it in my own software. ... Do I do such things ? nope.

I could happily cooperate with finding out what that software does, but all I would be working on is stealing the IP of a colleague. And so I would rather stick by my "authority" of the common knowledge that I wrote software doing such things, and that it thus surely can exist. And if Manuel - who out of all comes up with my software with the better sound - comes up with the software now subject of this thread, I myself assume that he will be correct for 100%.

 

Now *that* is the context, hopefully not for me alone. But I will cooperate, you will see. And always in favor of Eric there.

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, March Audio said:

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?

 

You see, there you go again already. Besides I just posted about this, not knowing of this strange assessment, you apparently did not read a thing about my judgments of this player in the first thread about it (say 3 weeks back). And if you somehow want to see this as a conflict of interest, well, than this is sick. So, still a bad attitude. I hope it can change.

 

About the 2 minutes I also talked already. But you probably missed it (because you could not see it working ?);

Many explanations for this exist. But what I would allege is that a process is given 2 minutes for iterations, those iterations stopping at a time-period limit because it could improve infinitely, but less and less per iteration (some kind of 80-20 rule). What I personally would do is changing low level machine code commands in a direction that less cpu usage will be the result. This can be done for really many parts of the program and it will depend for a 100% of the machine itself (yours being different than mine).

Remember that I also referred to compiler optimization. This works similar but is a different beast all together. And mind you, I am now talking about optimizations applied to the program/executable.

 

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, March Audio said:

The audio file has been loaded.  Iterations of doing what?

 

Insufficient experience with the Windows OS as a base, and now no programming experience.

Sorry ...

But you can read, yes ?

 

14 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

I personally would do is changing low level machine code commands in a direction that less cpu usage will be the result.

 

... but can't understand. Correct ?

[PeterSt]

21 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I offer observations and opinions on why I dont see how it could work

 

Can you please quote one ? then we can see where we might drift off.

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, March Audio said:

1. I have twice as many friends that have reported to me no improvement in sound quality.

 

I have 1000 times more real customers who easily hear the difference in anything. And a real forum full with it.

But djeez, what a childish approach.

 

7 minutes ago, March Audio said:

😜  Im not holding my breath.

 

You are not here for any objective reasons. You're just a giant troll.

21 minutes ago, March Audio said:

The point of the question wasnt actually specific to this software.

 

Your problem is that you don't understand a hoot of this all. OK, you are most certainly not alone on this one, BUT ... you created the thread with stipulation and all. Your intentions are false.

 

[PeterSt]

Because of your lack of comprehension plus lack of understanding about everything, if I were you I would politely ask the moderators to close down your own thread. It would save you.

Most probably this thread will be closed down anyway, but that may not save you at all.

 

Are you having fun ?

[PeterSt]

IMHO the thread can already be closed because

1. That playback software makes a difference, even when bit perfect, is clear already. But

2. If it doesn't make a difference to you then why bother, unless you want to tear down a colleague (man, what shit you are !!);

3. People who understand the process have sufficiently made clear what influencing aspects can be seen from within other software

4. which you don't believe anyway.

 

So you are only here for #2.

 

Quote

This is despite you claiming that you use all the same optimisations in your own software.

 

Was it already said that you have a giant comprehension problem ? if not, there you go.

Mr Troll, in order to explain something, one needs some basic knowledge.

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, March Audio said:

The more you attack me with ad hominem the more your credibility reduces. 

 

I am fine with that. And even better: it frees me from further cooperation in this thread after all.

Don't you have anything better to do ?

 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, idiot_savant said:

Consider, for example, if you play the same file twice - it's not read from the file system twice, it will be read from the filesystem cache, *even* if the application doesn't explicitly buffer it.

 

I.S., it could be a good idea to quote the text you respond to. For example, this could be addressed to me, but I am uncertain.

 

Consider, for example, that the disk file subsystem is eliminated as far as possible, by means of reading the file twice. Or triple. I could show you parts of the 250K+ lines of code snippets about this.

I can also assure you that if the physical file system does not exist as such because all is loaded from RAM (OS inclusive) then these things still matters because this is just how the OS works (your implying of layering).

And people in here wonder about how an SSD can still have influence ? I am just laughing.

 

Software like XXHE sounds better for countless reasons. And this most certainly will not imply that the author is held to explain the why's of it. Just leave it be. Don't buy it. Don't use it, whatever. But DO NOT start out with questioning in the negative ways March Audio does here. It is his freakin' 4th attempt because the threads are closed down he participates in, or he is banned from the other because of his sour shouting.

 

I suppose this will be my last post in here (huge threat's over my head).

[PeterSt]

47 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

then I'm sure you can back them up? You do realise that in a modern CPU each x86 instruction doesn't really map into what a CPU does any more?

 

What if ... what if our questioners in here would take it for granted that some of the others know a few things.

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, March Audio said:

PeterST claimed he used the same techniques in his software and therefore understood what was going on.  Yet when asked to explain he just became personally abusive.

 

When TF are you finally going to read ?

QUOTE ME.

And stop these nonsensical responses, mr TROLL.

[PeterSt]

35 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

I never said GPU displaying wallpaper produces "less noise" than music playback.

 

The factor of CPU cycles used with the normal Windows GUI operative (DWM) is 

10,000

more than when using the most native canvas that I can find (and use in XXHighEnd).

 

40 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

Xxhighend comes with an unattended mode where only a static image is displayed and when the next song is played it will actually take time to update (likely generates images at that instant and loads to GPU memory). It would be naive to think cpu generates all pixels at every instant of time and loads into GPU memory for displaying 😅, then there is no purpose for a GPU.

 

So still, I am afraid Yes. The CPU is involved largely.

Eliminating of such matters is always audible (for the better).

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, idiot_savant said:

Does the optimisation work on an NTFS compressed drive, as supported natively by windows 10?

 

Should you work with NTFS compressed drives in audio ??

You take way too much for granted.

 

Your questions are fine, but they assume less knowledge than yours. This is dangerous.

 

So ... Should you work with NTFS compressed drives in audio ??

and if so why. If not, why not ?

No clue ?

prerequisites perhaps ?

OS depended (indeed) ?

Use a server version of the same ?

 

This thread goes nowhere because it is too much without sufficient real-life experience. So:

 

@vortecjr, Jesus, nice to see you !

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, idiot_savant said:

Just to be clear, I can think of no way for (2) to happen if the *data* is identical on a modern OS - consider if our OS was running a deduplicating file system, where identical files are identified and only one copy is physically kept on the disk? Or a file on a NAS, where we absolutely have no control over it?

 

I see. You too are ready for XXHighEnd.

Want to bet ?

You have no single-idea how much all can be done, ONCE one thinks of it. You can and do too, right (because tempted or not). Well, go ahead. I won't bet you on not being able to do it (because you sure can and will with some stakes). Not with you. Not with a few others in this thread as well.

Whether you'd really do it, first requires some belief. Or a very graduate expansion of such features. And 1000s of ears because you can't do this alone.

 

See ?

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

I'm not talking about *updating* the screen.

*sigh*

So... Application->many,many layers of graphics stuff->framebuffer->HDMI

If you crash a PC, does the screen turn off? Or - maybe, just maybe the last thing the OS does is draw a blue screen in the framebuffer, that still needs to be sent by the GPU

 

I am sorry, but it is again not clear who you address here (could be Manuel, could me me).

It is also not clear what you are "stating".

 

Nobody needs to refresh/update a screen because Mr Windows is doing this all the time for you.

No ?

[PeterSt]

57 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

1 hour ago, idiot_savant said:

@manueljenkin 

I'm the one giving numbers and facts, these aren't speculations. If you really want me to install a VM so I can install some potentially virus-ridden code, and use a debugger to try and find out what this thing does, then I'm afraid you might not like the results. After all, if it's really written in a low-level language, that should be pretty simple to prove

 

Sorry, installing these on vm will also likely induce overhead and cause issues in analysis. The code hasn't caused any issues to my system but YMMV.

 

No-way this will be possible. And you'd have instant poor sound of it.

(tried it all)

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, idiot_savant said:

@PeterSt - I'm talking about the graphics card providing HDMI to the screen. Where is that image *stored*, and constantly *read from*

 

From the Video Card with mapping to normal memory.

But fyi: nobody is using physically attached monitors for audio playback. Unless, of course, you want poor sound.

 

How many context-changes to you want ?

oh uhh oops. Hahaha.

 

Let's start that subject. Task switching.

 

Come on, this is endless. Really. We only make ourselves steamed up. Or me y'all.

[PeterSt]

deleted

 

[PeterSt]

8 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

I'm talking about the graphics card providing HDMI to the screen. Where is that image *stored*, and constantly *read from*

 

Highlight the text and click Quote Selection. Now I quoted you ...

 

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

 

@PeterSt - so now I'm not allowed to use a screen?

 

 

For the better SQ ?
no.

As a matter of fact, the more modern playback systems always use two PC's. One of them headless.

That better playback system does not have anything in the audio paying PC. Only a CPU and memory and an Ethernet connection to the Music somewhere plus for RDC. And RAM. Nothing else.

OS from RAM.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

There are no context changes or task switching involved in a GPU ( or CPU ) reading a framebuffer to generate HDMI

 

happy?

 

I put yet another context to "prerequisites". Not your fault that you didn't get that one.

But next I hopped to the subject of Task Switching.

 

Already did some counts on your modern OS ? I say : 16 million per second on a 20 core. Doing not-thing.

Now try XXHighEnd in MinOS mode while playing. 160,000.

Something has to be doing this. Oh, this is not important. But what is important is that this is totally full with the sh*t we try to work out here. Impossible.

Still true.

 

Try it for your own system and see whether I may have the numbers right. Btw, it is allowed to use a screen. Haha (back at the time I did too).