PeterSt Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 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. manueljenkin 1 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
March Audio Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 14 minutes ago, manueljenkin said: 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. I have subjectively tested it and my experience is that it doesnt improve the sound. You have a contradictory experience. Therefore its perfectly reasonable to objectively look further and, amongst other things, analyse process of operation and assess reasons for differences in conclusions. Link to comment
manueljenkin Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 3 minutes ago, March Audio said: I have subjectively tested it and my experience is that it doesnt improve the sound. You have a contradictory experience. Therefore its perfectly reasonable to objectively look further and, amongst other things, analyse process of operation and assess reasons for differences in conclusions. Then why are you merely ranting instead of just actually trying to assess it the proper way. 😅 I am not the one who asked for proof or started objective fi thread. But I do know if a personal rant is disguised as an objective thread 😬. Link to comment
manueljenkin Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 14 minutes ago, March Audio said: What was the context for calling me a liar? How that is congruent with the forum spirit and rules? Links please. Link to comment
March Audio Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 1 minute ago, manueljenkin said: Then why are you merely ranting instead of just actually trying to assess it the proper way. 😅 I am not the one who asked for proof or started objective fi thread. But I do know if a personal rant is disguised as an objective thread 😬. There is no ranting. Its a simple situation: I tried the software after you promoted it. I heard no improvement in sound. I currently do not understand any mechanism by which it could improve the sound So yep, im sceptical but open to ideas. I offer observations and opinions on why I dont see how it could work In search of alternative ideas I ask for input from others who might be able to explain how it works Still waiting............. Link to comment
PeterSt Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 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. 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
manueljenkin Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 4 minutes ago, March Audio said: There is no ranting. Its a simple situation: I tried the software after you promoted it. I heard no improvement in sound. I currently do not understand any mechanism by which it could improve the sound So yep, im sceptical but open to ideas. I offer observations and opinions on why I dont see how it could work In search of alternative ideas I ask for input from others who might be able to explain how it works Still waiting............. 1. Suggesting something and promoting something are two different things. (They may sometimes overlap but it's not the case here). One more episode of your narrative skewing. 2. Good for you. You can happily skip this and move on to other stuff that interests you. 3. If you're truly curious you'll try to explore more into computer audio. It's a vast domain, so I can't say anything concisely. Everything from changing buffer to changing audio libraries, to changing Os resulted in audible changes for me (sometimes even measurable, but not always). 4. I'm skeptical about your openness considering your whole saga has been to derail any discussion on this topic, and successfully closed one topic too! Even this thread and your comments on my original thread often begin with derogatory remarks from an incomplete assessment. 5. If a subset of tests can't show difference, it doesn't mean there is no difference. 6. Inputs were given in other threads which you conveniently ignored. You are just looking for opinions that try to reinforce your prejudice. 7. I hope you get your answer eventually. Link to comment
March Audio Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 2 minutes ago, PeterSt said: 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. Nothing strange about it. You said yourself that all these principles of operation exist in your software. Its therefore perfectly reasonable to consider that you have vested interest in promoting their usage and validity. With that consideration, you attacking a contradictory point of view comes across as well, unconvincing. Ok, lets explore you idea about whats happening in those 2 minutes. The audio file has been loaded. Iterations of doing what? Link to comment
March Audio Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 14 minutes ago, manueljenkin said: 1. Suggesting something and promoting something are two different things. (They may sometimes overlap but it's not the case here). One more episode of your narrative skewing. 2. Good for you. You can happily skip this and move on to other stuff that interests you. 3. If you're truly curious you'll try to explore more into computer audio. It's a vast domain, so I can't say anything concisely. Everything from changing buffer to changing audio libraries, to changing Os resulted in audible changes for me (sometimes even measurable, but not always). 4. I'm skeptical about your openness considering your whole saga has been to derail any discussion on this topic, and successfully closed one topic too! Even this thread and your comments on my original thread often begin with derogatory remarks from an incomplete assessment. 5. If a subset of tests can't show difference, it doesn't mean there is no difference. 6. Inputs were given in other threads which you conveniently ignored. You are just looking for opinions that try to reinforce your prejudice. 7. I hope you get your answer eventually. You heard an improvement in sound. Good for you. perhaps you can move on instead of opening another thread to promote it? As an aside, how many others have come back in this forum to say they also hear an improvement in sound? Im truly curious about THIS software. It was you and PeterST that thread crapped with significant amounts of ad hominem for good measure. My questions were and still are perfectly legitimate and reasonable. There were no cogent explanations provided in the other thread. Well it appears that answers arent exactly forthcoming from those who claim to know how it works. Link to comment
PeterSt Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 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 ? 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
PeterSt Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 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. 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
March Audio Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 22 minutes ago, PeterSt said: Insufficient experience with the Windows OS as a base, and now no programming experience. Sorry ... But you can read, yes ? ... but can't understand. Correct ? I can read. It didnt answer the question. How is that relevant to the audio file? Doing what to/with the audio file? Also, the author claims you can keep on improving the sound by repeating optimisation over and over again. Are you suggesting that you can keep on infinitely reducing CPU load by repeatedly changing low level machine code? That would be a neat trick. Link to comment
manueljenkin Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 35 minutes ago, March Audio said: I can read. It didnt answer the question. How is that relevant to the audio file? Doing what to the audio file? Also, the author claims you can keep on improving the sound by repeating optimisation over and over again. Are you suggesting that you can keep on infinitely reducing CPU load by repeatedly changing low level machine code? That would be a neat trick. The file optimizer likely has to do with access noise during the file access. Every bit is stored as a set of charges in a cell (typically a floating gate nand cell), and the scenario in which the write action happens can likely manifest in differences in the structure of charges and magnetic fields stored in the cell that the next access after optimization may have either lesser noise or lesser correlated noise. Digital circuits work just with thresholds. Above a certain threshold it is 1, below it it is 0 (or vice versa in some implementations), and there are boundary conditions which the designers have to work hard to ensure data integrity is maintained. This is the reason why you don't magically get infinite clock speeds. There's more to it in modern devices (they are multi, triple layer cells etc) and there's a lot of algorithmic stuff that goes on to it. There's a lot of hardwork in making a reliable working digital system, but it's even harder when you get into analog systems. Now the problem with analog/mixed signal systems though is that it's not merely working on thresholds. A fair amount of noise may be mostly harmless in a digital system but will cause significant issues with an analog/mixed signal systems as every single flaw/deviation will cause deviations in the analog circuit (the dacs) and later get amplified in the buffer and amplification stages. So any of the activity you do has a potential manifestation in the analog circuit, and any task that reduces noise at source can be beneficial. You can claim optical isolation but it is more fairytale than reality. They have their own jitter and noise footprints and any attempt to correct it will have its own jitter and noise footprints. The circuits can always be tweaked to fake numbers to specific scenarios while not being truly capable in other scenarios, and hence measurement charts get unreliable. PeterSt 1 Link to comment
March Audio Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 OK, First question. Are you suggesting this player operates without any memory buffering? That it reads continuously and therefore increadibly slowly off the disk? So that this alleged noise is continuous during playback? Second question. Have you any objective evidence of this noise mechanism causing problems? Link to comment
March Audio Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 42 minutes ago, March Audio said: I can read. It didnt answer the question. How is that relevant to the audio file? Doing what to/with the audio file? Also, the author claims you can keep on improving the sound by repeating optimisation over and over again. Are you suggesting that you can keep on infinitely reducing CPU load by repeatedly changing low level machine code? That would be a neat trick. Sorry to quote my own post but the edit time has expired. Third question here. The author also claims that the process is "sensitive to the electromagnetic environment". Can you explain how the EM environment affects machine code? Link to comment
manueljenkin Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 12 minutes ago, March Audio said: OK, First question. Are you suggesting this player operates without any memory buffering? That it reads continuously and therefore increadibly slowly off the disk? So that this alleged noise is continuous during playback? Second question. Have you any objective evidence of this noise mechanism causing problems? I cannot make specific remarks on what this software does unfortunately. I haven't explored the code yet. The above post is generic to whole of mixed signal systems and yes many of these issues are well known (search ground plane noises, working of optocouplers etc). 12 minutes ago, March Audio said: Sorry to quote my own post but the edit time has expired. Third question here. The author also claims that the process is "sensitive to the electromagnetic environment". Can you explain how the EM environment affects machine code? I haven't claimed electromagnetic spectrum in the environment affects machine code as data, but the the electromagnetic spectrum does induce differing noise on anything that can act as an antenna (including fingers and skin), and pcb lines and transistors would be no exception. Again if your entire process is going to be fully in digital domain, just passing the cut offs would be enough, but for analog and mixed signal systems, may not be, especially if you're looking for very high fidelity. Link to comment
manueljenkin Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 1 hour ago, March Audio said: You heard an improvement in sound. Good for you. perhaps you can move on instead of opening another thread to promote it? As an aside, how many others have come back in this forum to say they also hear an improvement in sound? Im truly curious about THIS software. It was you and PeterST that thread crapped with significant amounts of ad hominem for good measure. My questions were and still are perfectly legitimate and reasonable. There were no cogent explanations provided in the other thread. Well it appears that answers arent exactly forthcoming from those who claim to know how it works. 1. I've had enough friends who have reported me that it improved sq for them. Give it some time and you might see similar results in the forums as well. Not everyone is free all the time. 2. Nice. I hope you get enlightened. 3. I'm sorry, if you look at the first post, you didn't start off normally but you made a remark about me, then made assertions with your "analysis" which I've shown to be incorrect. 4. I'm not responsible for your inability to comprehend. PeterSt 1 Link to comment
idiot_savant Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 Righty-ho, please nobody attack me :) I've kind of not really read this thread as it appears to be degenerating rapidly, but this *is* the objective-fi forum, so let's see what we can objectively ascertain, no? 1: So we have some playback software, that claims to benefit SQ on playback. Assertions have been made to both the positive and negative as to this, but as far as I can see, we don't have any measurements, making this a purely subjective claim 2: An Additional feature is this "optimise" feature, that can be run more than once, that creates improved copies of the original source material. These improvements are very fragile. Again, subjective claims to positive and negative, and the files have been nulled successfully ( although I'm not sure anyone's done a simple file compare or a CRC ) So, does the claimed improvement only work with the associated software player, or with all players? Is it PC specific? Can more than one OS be used? Now, if the improvement only works on one player, it is feasible that the contents of a file could be restructured whilst maintaining the actual reconstructed audio, and this is in some way beneficial to that player - anyone who has ever attempted to write an audio file parser will understand this ( typically, there are a bunch of "chunks", which can contain audio, metadata, other guff ). Actually, what file types can you optimise? WAVs? DSF? FLAC? All files? If it is attempting to interact with the file system, does it require administrative rights? your friendly neighbourhood idiot March Audio 1 Link to comment
March Audio Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 51 minutes ago, manueljenkin said: I cannot make specific remarks on what this software does unfortunately. I haven't explored the code yet. The above post is generic to whole of mixed signal systems and yes many of these issues are well known (search ground plane noises, working of optocouplers etc). I haven't claimed electromagnetic spectrum in the environment affects machine code as data, but the the electromagnetic spectrum does induce differing noise on anything that can act as an antenna (including fingers and skin), and pcb lines and transistors would be no exception. Again if your entire process is going to be fully in digital domain, just passing the cut offs would be enough, but for analog and mixed signal systems, may not be, especially if you're looking for very high fidelity. The point of the question wasnt actually specific to this software. You were speculating that reading from the disk creates noise. If the playback software has a memory buffer, the reads from the disk would be extremely short in duration. Especially in your case of an SSD. The noise would only occur during those reads. So why would this cause ongoing audible issues throughout the playback of a track? Link to comment
March Audio Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 49 minutes ago, manueljenkin said: I haven't claimed electromagnetic spectrum in the environment affects machine code as data, but the the electromagnetic spectrum does induce differing noise on anything that can act as an antenna (including fingers and skin), and pcb lines and transistors would be no exception. Again if your entire process is going to be fully in digital domain, just passing the cut offs would be enough, but for analog and mixed signal systems, may not be, especially if you're looking for very high fidelity. PeterST speculated the software is optimising the low level machine code to minimise cpu load. I have asked how this would pertain to the audio file itself. The optimisation is of the audio file, not the playback software. My subsequent question was based on the claims of the software author that the process is susceptible to the electromagnetic environment. I wanted to understand how the electromagnetic environment would affect the optimisation of machine code. Can you explain that connection? Link to comment
March Audio Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 9 minutes ago, idiot_savant said: Righty-ho, please nobody attack me :) I've kind of not really read this thread as it appears to be degenerating rapidly, but this *is* the objective-fi forum, so let's see what we can objectively ascertain, no? 1: So we have some playback software, that claims to benefit SQ on playback. Assertions have been made to both the positive and negative as to this, but as far as I can see, we don't have any measurements, making this a purely subjective claim 2: An Additional feature is this "optimise" feature, that can be run more than once, that creates improved copies of the original source material. These improvements are very fragile. Again, subjective claims to positive and negative, and the files have been nulled successfully ( although I'm not sure anyone's done a simple file compare or a CRC ) So, does the claimed improvement only work with the associated software player, or with all players? Is it PC specific? Can more than one OS be used? Now, if the improvement only works on one player, it is feasible that the contents of a file could be restructured whilst maintaining the actual reconstructed audio, and this is in some way beneficial to that player - anyone who has ever attempted to write an audio file parser will understand this ( typically, there are a bunch of "chunks", which can contain audio, metadata, other guff ). Actually, what file types can you optimise? WAVs? DSF? FLAC? All files? If it is attempting to interact with the file system, does it require administrative rights? your friendly neighbourhood idiot All very reasonable and pertinent questions. No attack from here :) Link to comment
Confused Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 I have a question. For those that hear a difference, are you running a PC to DAC via USB? For my own set up, I use a PC, but this is then streamed via Ethernet to a network attached endpoint. In addition to this, I do have a desktop setup that is PC to DAC, for headphones or desktop speakers. Just thinking out loud a little, I can imagine that some kind of software optimisation might yield an improvement when running a PC via USB to DAC. A reduction of noise in the PC, less noise making to the DAC. With Ethernet streaming to an endpoint, I cannot see how this could be a factor. (I might be wrong) Keeping an open mind, I should be able to try this "both ways" at the weekend, to see if I can discern any audible improvements. March Audio 1 Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade. Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones. Link to comment
March Audio Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 45 minutes ago, manueljenkin said: 1. I've had enough friends who have reported me that it improved sq for them. Give it some time and you might see similar results in the forums as well. Not everyone is free all the time. 2. Nice. I hope you get enlightened. 3. I'm sorry, if you look at the first post, you didn't start off normally but you made a remark about me, then made assertions with your "analysis" which I've shown to be incorrect. 4. I'm not responsible for your inability to comprehend. 1. I have twice as many friends that have reported to me no improvement in sound quality. 😜 Im not holding my breath. 2. Im asking you to help. Its all been pretty nebulous so far. 3. I explained the context of the thread. I have been prevented from posting in your thread. 4. Thanks for yet another ad hominem. Its not an inabilty to understand, its a lack of cogent explanation thats the issue. Link to comment
March Audio Posted June 4, 2021 Author Share Posted June 4, 2021 22 minutes ago, Confused said: I have a question. For those that hear a difference, are you running a PC to DAC via USB? For my own set up, I use a PC, but this is then streamed via Ethernet to a network attached endpoint. In addition to this, I do have a desktop setup that is PC to DAC, for headphones or desktop speakers. Just thinking out loud a little, I can imagine that some kind of software optimisation might yield an improvement when running a PC via USB to DAC. A reduction of noise in the PC, less noise making to the DAC. With Ethernet streaming to an endpoint, I cannot see how this could be a factor. (I might be wrong) Keeping an open mind, I should be able to try this "both ways" at the weekend, to see if I can discern any audible improvements. Absolutely. I talked about this in the original thread. Noise currents can flow in the USB shield and into the dac. seen plenty of posts on another forum describing "computer noises" in certain set ups. . Very real and easily measurable. Its something you have to take care to eliminate when performing measurements. Luckily its also easily solved with galvanic isolation. Ethernet has isolation transformers built into its design. Just dont use shielded cat whatever that can connect the respective chassis together. However this doesnt explain the audio file optimisation this software claims to perform. Link to comment
PeterSt Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 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. Superdad 1 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
Recommended Posts