Bit perfect software changing sound. How?

[March Audio]

8 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Then you have the CPU running at 3.7 to 5 GHZ. 

I know, it's a non sensicle proposition that tweaks to a minor pc process (the audio replay) is making any difference considering the comparitvely massive activity that's going on regardless.

[March Audio]

18 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

But then we have Jcat and others claiming that if we power the USB card from its own supply, we have mitigated the gremlins. I'd like to have Maunueljenkin get back to the science behind the software. The Jepardy tune is running in the background. 

There is no science for him to get back to.

[manueljenkin]

Well your arguments again stem from an assumption that PC power supply is sloppy work. Far from it. A 12V supply is regulated in multiple stages to ensure that there is enough buffer in place to take any disruption that changes power consumption would bring and it is generally very low noise because it'll have to run through multiple layers in the CPU. Can they be improved by a better power supply input? Surely yes, and a better power supply input can also help the rest of the pcb. You can afford to do this much level of buffering and filtering because it is power (a specific fixed voltage and current with some transient deviation). But you can't do this multiple levels with data which is a switching sequence of pulses or else you'll be losing speed.

 

Data lines hence are non deterministic as mentioned earlier. There's not much ways to fully control it other than controlling your software, and since they use ground as reference, they both play together creating the problems.

 

 

[Racerxnet]

As much as I try not to buy into the magic, I bought the Jcat card and did a comparison to the DACup ports on the Gigabyte board. I could not hear a difference. What the Jcat did do is provide a more robust connection. It seems that the Gigabyte boards suffer from lag/interupts to the connected devices on USB. I run a custom Bios which gives me greater control to stabilise the OS, RAM timings, and CPU. Maybe people should start tweaking the bios for better compatabitity and a stable OS first. 

 

I did notice a definite improvement with the Berkeley Alpha USB to Spdif converter. I have isolated the noise/jitter fed to the DAC. 

[March Audio]

49 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

How many times do I need to tell you that you have a comprehension problem. Just READ. And follow the link, of course. And again READ.

Your comprehension problem includes making up things in your mind. Now you saw an amateur studio ! Hey, spread the word !!

 

Since I am not banned, I give up. You are a total waste of everyone's time.

Have fun. Or better: good night. It must be late for you. 

Definitely an amateur recording effort.   Have never seen a drum kit miked up that way.  Those look like cheap behringer mics.  Are they?  You realise they won't handle drum kit SPLs without significant distortion right?  They also high high self noise.  What was the recording interface/mic pre?

 

In any case what has your amateur recording efforts got to do with the question that was posed?   The question was about professional studios who know what they are doing.  So do you think that all professional studios have ruined all their recordings because they have been made on computers that had disk access going on with monitors attached?

[manueljenkin]

1 minute ago, Racerxnet said:

As much as I try not to buy into the magic, I bought the Jcat card and did a comparison to the DACup ports on the Gigabyte board. I could not hear a difference. What the Jcat did do is provide a more robust connection. It seems that the Gigabyte boards suffer from lag/interupts to the connected devices on USB. I run a custom Bios which gives me greater control to stabilise the OS, RAM timings, and CPU. Maybe people should start tweaking the bios for better compatabitity and a stable OS first. 

 

I did notice a definite improvement with the Berkeley Alpha USB to Spdif converter. I have isolated the noise/jitter fed to the DAC. 

Thanks for the reference. First time I'm hearing about a motherboard manufacturers looking at their usb ports to this attention atleast in terms of power supply regulation. No idea of jcat though, it does seem to use high quality components (last I remember seeing a crystek oscillator and nec UDP720201).

[Racerxnet]

8 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

Well your arguments again stem from an assumption that PC power supply is sloppy work. Far from it. A 12V supply is regulated in multiple stages to ensure that there is enough buffer in place to take any disruption that changes power consumption would bring and it is generally very low noise because it'll have to run through multiple layers in the CPU. Can they be improved by a better power supply input? Surely yes, and a better power supply input can also help the rest of the pcb. You can afford to do this much level of buffering and filtering because it is power (a specific fixed voltage and current with some transient deviation). But you can't do this multiple levels with data which is a switching sequence of pulses or else you'll be losing speed.

 

Data lines hence are non deterministic as mentioned earlier. There's not much ways to fully control it other than controlling your software, and since they use ground as reference, they both play together creating the problems.

 

 

A linear supply does not gaurantee the best fit for the application. We can find that switching supplies can be engineered to fit the application much better and have a lower noise floor over the demands applied from the device. So as above, I agree. But, you have explained nothing in reference why your software is creating a better listening file experience. How does the code work within the operating system and data memory device? 

[Racerxnet]

For anyone looking for a custom bios for their motherboard, you may be able to find it here.

https://www.win-raid.com/

[manueljenkin]

2 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

For anyone looking for a custom bios for their motherboard, you may be able to find it here.

https://www.win-raid.com/

Thanks.

[manueljenkin]

16 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

A linear supply does not gaurantee the best fit for the application. We can find that switching supplies can be engineered to fit the application much better and have a lower noise floor over the demands applied from the device. So as above, I agree. But, you have explained nothing in reference why your software is creating a better listening file experience. How does the code work within the operating system and data memory device? 

The dev hasn't explained so I don't know what the code exactly does, but it does copy the files to RAM as the dev claimed (verified in task manager twice and another person also saw part of code corresponding to that execution having mov to ram operation). I only can make guesses on where the changes come from physically and the only place I know of for this case is access noise differences from the charge distribution differences in the storage cells. It could be some other digital noise phenomenon too but I donot have other guess.

 

And if you're wondering about noise due to different data access, the entire last 7 pages is for you, don't want to repeat all those again.

 

btw the Berkeley alpha looks cool but crazy expensive. Any teardowns available?

[manueljenkin]

20 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

A linear supply does not gaurantee the best fit for the application.

Too high output impedance with LPS? I'm not aware of very low noise SMPS above a few 10s of watts of power (PCs require a few 100s of watts of power, generally atleast 500w for a desktop tower).

[The Computer Audiophile]

OK, here's the deal. My inbox and reported post inbox are full of items from this thread. I can't spend 50% of my time on 0.00001% of the members of this community because a couple of you can't stop arguing. You're reporting each others' posts like children running to the school teacher at recess. 

 

You're adults. Get over the nonsense of trying to prove something at all costs. Trust me, the more ridiculous posts you have, the worse you look, no matter the outcome. If people just can't handle themselves, they can go to a number of other forums and duke it out to their hearts' content. 

 

This is the one warning. 

[Racerxnet]

1 hour ago, manueljenkin said:

The dev hasn't explained so I don't know what the code exactly does, but it does copy the files to RAM as the dev claimed (verified in task manager twice and another person also saw part of code corresponding to that execution having mov to ram operation). I only can make guesses on where the changes come from physically and the only place I know of for this case is access noise differences from the charge distribution differences in the storage cells. It could be some other digital noise phenomenon too but I donot have other guess.

 

And if you're wondering about noise due to different data access, the entire last 7 pages is for you, don't want to repeat all those again.

 

btw the Berkeley alpha looks cool but crazy expensive. Any teardowns available?

The software moves the file to RAM (volitile) and then back to the drive (nonvolitile)? Is this correct?  If I remember correctly, it stores the new file in the software subfolder. So you have taken the file, moved it to RAM, and copied it to a new folder and it sounds better. 

 

There are only 2 instances where I actually heard a diffrence between Foobar2k and other playback software. One was with Cic's software some years ago, and HQplayer. After some investigation, on my Pc, I set the MMCSS mode in Foobar to Pro Audio, thread priority to 7, and disabled all non essential background applications. I did a A/B comparison to HQplayer and found the playback consistent between the 2. There have been some registry tweaks per some online discussions for foobar also. 

 

The best estimate of wide gaps in playback from my perspective is: 

Stabilize the OS and hardware to run consistently. (memtest 64)

Use quality components that do as suggested with evidence. (berkeley Alpha)

Don't overclock the bejeesus out of it. Don't under volt it either.

Watch your 'RAM timing and get compatible sticks. 

Adequately cool it.

Look for and think about qualified tweaks that can make a difference. (mmcss Pro Audio settings)

Prevent the hard disk from sleeping to limit voltage transients.

Use ASIO drivers if possible. (theysecon for the Berkeley) 

Don't digitally clip the volume.

Room treatment with DSP and the best speakers you can afford. Amplifiers to match.

 

With that said, I don't hear all the hype from people about drastic improvements in playback. That does not mean I will not keep looking. I have tried many different things along the way, but am skeptical of many. 

 

Here is a link to some foobar tweaks I used along the way. 

https://www.tirnahifi.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2456&i=1

[AnotherSpin]

Easy. Perception is never the same, every time the sound is different.

[AnotherSpin]

26 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

OK, here's the deal. My inbox and reported post inbox are full of items from this thread. I can't spend 50% of my time on 0.00001% of the members of this community because a couple of you can't stop arguing. You're reporting each others' posts like children running to the school teacher at recess. 

 

You're adults. Get over the nonsense of trying to prove something at all costs. Trust me, the more ridiculous posts you have, the worse you look, no matter the outcome. If people just can't handle themselves, they can go to a number of other forums and duke it out to their hearts' content. 

 

This is the one warning. 

 

Chris, that sounds upsetting. I always thought the worse the post, the cooler the author looks. Otherwise, what's the fun of chatting?

[idiot_savant]

Ok,

 

so I’ve decompiled some of this optimiser thing. 
 

it’s written in C#, so I already hate it. 
 

there are functions called scintillate and harmonize 

 

it opens a couple of files inside the windows page file, that it seems to write random numbers into before swapping them around in a ping pong, using a number of threads. 
 

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 

[Racerxnet]

1 hour ago, idiot_savant said:

Ok,

 

so I’ve decompiled some of this optimiser thing. 
 

it’s written in C#, so I already hate it. 
 

there are functions called scintillate and harmonize 

 

it opens a couple of files inside the windows page file, that it seems to write random numbers into before swapping them around in a ping pong, using a number of threads. 
 

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 can look at it with IDApro as well .

[March Audio]

3 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

Ok,

 

so I’ve decompiled some of this optimiser thing. 
 

it’s written in C#, so I already hate it. 
 

there are functions called scintillate and harmonize 

 

it opens a couple of files inside the windows page file, that it seems to write random numbers into before swapping them around in a ping pong, using a number of threads. 
 

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 

So it really is in magic crystals territory.  From your description there is no possible way it can be optimising or improving anything with regards to audio playback.

 

Thank you for your time and effort, much appreciated.

 

Not much more to say in that case.  My suspicions are confirmed.

[manueljenkin]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

OK, here's the deal. My inbox and reported post inbox are full of items from this thread. I can't spend 50% of my time on 0.00001% of the members of this community because a couple of you can't stop arguing. You're reporting each others' posts like children running to the school teacher at recess. 

 

You're adults. Get over the nonsense of trying to prove something at all costs. Trust me, the more ridiculous posts you have, the worse you look, no matter the outcome. If people just can't handle themselves, they can go to a number of other forums and duke it out to their hearts' content. 

 

This is the one warning. 

I'm sorry for your experience. I'll just ask you one thing. How many times have you had to face this prior to March audio joining this place? That would give you the answer already. There have been threads closed almost everywhere March Audio has joined (this is the most frequent I've witnessed this ever since I joined AS).

 

If he was truly in search of seeking answers instead of trying to disguise his catcalling with pseudo aggressive posting no one would have bothered to come up to this thread as there is nothing to defend in terms of our morality. The amount of aggression he has shown on a simple player suggestion is staggering, just with the intent to derail any possible experiments (he'll word it in a way telling that he encourages experimentation but the entire comment will be a carefully crafted vitriol spewing).

 

The entire thread, outside of calling us names or throwing his tantrums, has been all about his incorrect assertions and his moving goalposts that we have successively refuted. It started with him calling the software dev a liar because he couldn't seek the change in task manager, which is an unreliable probe. I showed him that was not the case and that the software does load into RAM. Then the whole saga of moving goalposts has happened, from every single differences to him claiming there is magic fix for everything, which again has been refuted. And the post just above does show the tool has all specific code commands that the dev has mentioned so he is not lying.

 

Now March audio is onto the next personally inflicted assertion. And also tries to play victim safely while throwing all sorts of aggressive abuse at the rest of us (happens ever so frequently in his comments).

 

Maybe just look up the first post in this thread, there are so many nice ways to begin this thread in a useful way instead of shoving my name in, and throwing his misguided tantrum of how the tool works (you can check the very next post where I've shown his assertions to be wrong). I can share you every single of his comments where he always begins in a passive aggressive tone, if you do need.

 

Tldr: there would have been no problem had March audio not tried to disguise his personal rant and moving goalposts as objectivity.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Nobody said it is easy and in fact I claim (all over the place) that it is mighty difficult to let sound digital right (as in: surpasses vinyl by many audio miles).  One thing: where needed I /Phasure can supply the whole shebang. But this thread is not about that.

 

Poor Peter ... having a hard time here, 🤪.

 

Indeed this is the heart of the matter ... if you take getting the best out of a particular, especially digital source, system very seriously, then it is, currently, pretty hard. The analogue areas, meaning from the guts of the convertor on, are never designed or implemented well enough to prevent interference effects from impacting what is audible - hence the endless array of devices, techniques, and general craziness, trying to fix this problem, after the matter ... what is being discussed here is just one of the myriad ways of fiddling with the ingredients; which may or may not help, depending upon everything ... 😉.

[manueljenkin]

6 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

The software moves the file to RAM (volitile) and then back to the drive (nonvolitile)? Is this correct?  If I remember correctly, it stores the new file in the software subfolder. So you have taken the file, moved it to RAM, and copied it to a new folder and it sounds better. 

 

There are only 2 instances where I actually heard a diffrence between Foobar2k and other playback software. One was with Cic's software some years ago, and HQplayer. After some investigation, on my Pc, I set the MMCSS mode in Foobar to Pro Audio, thread priority to 7, and disabled all non essential background applications. I did a A/B comparison to HQplayer and found the playback consistent between the 2. There have been some registry tweaks per some online discussions for foobar also. 

 

The best estimate of wide gaps in playback from my perspective is: 

Stabilize the OS and hardware to run consistently. (memtest 64)

Use quality components that do as suggested with evidence. (berkeley Alpha)

Don't overclock the bejeesus out of it. Don't under volt it either.

Watch your 'RAM timing and get compatible sticks. 

Adequately cool it.

Look for and think about qualified tweaks that can make a difference. (mmcss Pro Audio settings)

Prevent the hard disk from sleeping to limit voltage transients.

Use ASIO drivers if possible. (theysecon for the Berkeley) 

Don't digitally clip the volume.

Room treatment with DSP and the best speakers you can afford. Amplifiers to match.

 

With that said, I don't hear all the hype from people about drastic improvements in playback. That does not mean I will not keep looking. I have tried many different things along the way, but am skeptical of many. 

 

Here is a link to some foobar tweaks I used along the way. 

https://www.tirnahifi.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2456&i=1

Thanks. Those are a lot of hardware tweaks, so I'll have to see how I can go about it, but I'll try to experiment. I have tried a few tweaks on foobar before giving up and moving to other players, but I'll try again after a while.

[Racerxnet]

18 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

Thanks. Those are a lot of hardware tweaks, so I'll have to see how I can go about it, but I'll try to experiment. I have tried a few tweaks on foobar before giving up and moving to other players, but I'll try again after a while.

I changed some registry Dwords based on the linked article.

 

[Racerxnet]

DSP with the convolver on Foobar2k.

 

[manueljenkin]

9 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

I changed some registry Dwords based on the linked article.

 

Thanks. I'll try the software part of the tweaks tomorrow.

 

I use headphones so no need of room treatment dsp here.

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, manueljenkin said:

I'm sorry for your experience. I'll just ask you one thing. How many times have you had to face this prior to March audio joining this place? That would give you the answer already. There have been threads closed almost everywhere March Audio has joined (this is the most frequent I've witnessed this ever since I joined AS).

 

If he was truly in search of seeking answers instead of trying to disguise his catcalling with pseudo aggressive posting no one would have bothered to come up to this thread as there is nothing to defend in terms of our morality. The amount of aggression he has shown on a simple player suggestion is staggering, just with the intent to derail any possible experiments (he'll word it in a way telling that he encourages experimentation but the entire comment will be a carefully crafted vitriol spewing).

 

The entire thread, outside of calling us names or throwing his tantrums, has been all about his incorrect assertions and his moving goalposts that we have successively refuted. It started with him calling the software dev a liar because he couldn't seek the change in task manager, which is an unreliable probe. I showed him that was not the case and that the software does load into RAM. Then the whole saga of moving goalposts has happened, from every single differences to him claiming there is magic fix for everything, which again has been refuted. And the post just above does show the tool has all specific code commands that the dev has mentioned so he is not lying.

 

Now March audio is onto the next personally inflicted assertion. And also tries to play victim safely while throwing all sorts of aggressive abuse at the rest of us (happens ever so frequently in his comments).

 

Maybe just look up the first post in this thread, there are so many nice ways to begin this thread in a useful way instead of shoving my name in, and throwing his misguided tantrum of how the tool works (you can check the very next post where I've shown his assertions to be wrong). I can share you every single of his comments where he always begins in a passive aggressive tone, if you do need.

 

Tldr: there would have been no problem had March audio not tried to disguise his personal rant and moving goalposts as objectivity.