Bit perfect software changing sound. How?

[March Audio]

2 hours 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.

Manuel.  It's plainly obvious that you and Peter have been thread crapping.  

 

Peter has called me a wanker and a shit along with repeated other ad hominems.  You have previously called me a liar and also been using frequent ad hominems. You have provided very little cogent objective contribution, just Ill informed speculation and frankly disrupted the thread for 10 pointless pages.  It's obvious that as this thread is contrary to yours and peters views (and peters interests) and that you wanted to try and cause trouble to get it closed down ad per the previous thread.

 

Idiot_savant has examined the software code and found that it does nothing that could possibly improve the sound.  Your own subjective experience is entirely down to the power of suggestion and expectation bias and faulty comparison methods.

 

I have been discussing the entire situation with Chris as your and peters behaviour has been totally unacceptable.  It's even spread to other threads I have been contributing to. Your behaviour is clearly against the forum genetal T&Cs and indeed the specific intent of the objective area.

[idiot_savant]

People,

 

if you’re going to post random registry tweaks/Foobar settings into the *objective* forum, please can I refer you to the terms of this forum? You’re way, way off topic…

 

As to the topic at hand, I’m in two minds - I completely expected when I’d gone through the hoops to find this optimiser did nothing at all. My first pass at the code reveals it does lots of pointless things, but nothing to the file itself ( apart from a copy at the end )
 

subjectivists seem happy it does something, anything at all - even though I *guarantee* if you were to run this past *anyone* at eg Microsoft who *wrote* the OS they’d look at you with an eye for the door…

 

objectivists are happy that the files are apparently the same, although I’ve not seen any measurements to verify this…
 

 

To avoid *any* misunderstanding, in my opinion ( as a dual qualified SW/EE ) this software will do nothing but waste ( not many ) CPU cycles for no benefit. I’ve not completed my evaluation, but since the fact it *might* do *something* appears enough, I’m of the opinion I’ve spent more time analysing this than it deserves. If someone cares, I might spend more time on it, but seriously what’s the point?

 

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

 

 

 

 

[manueljenkin]

31 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

To avoid *any* misunderstanding, in my opinion ( as a dual qualified SW/EE ) this software will do nothing but waste ( not many ) CPU cycles for no benefit. 

Ah, sweet appeal to authority. Fyi I'm an EE as well, so are a lot of people here.

[manueljenkin]

40 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Manuel.  It's plainly obvious that you and Peter have been thread crapping.  

No. Definitely not in my case.

41 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Your own subjective experience is entirely down to the power of suggestion and expectation bias and faulty comparison methods.

Again no. You don't have the authority to tell that (considering the fact that the software does something different and the effects have not been explored thoroughly), and ironic that you mention faulty analysis methods because your entire 10 pages of posting has been mostly just that.

[manueljenkin]

4 hours ago, March Audio said:

My suspicions are confirmed.

Last I remember, your suspicion was that the software doesn't load the file to RAM which the post debunked. Lovely that your suspicion and argument keeps changing goalposts.

[kumakuma]

11 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

Ah, sweet appeal to authority.

 

I asked my doctor the other day if the degrees on her wall were an "appeal to authority".

 

Unfortunately, I should have mentioned this after the prostate exam, not before...

[manueljenkin]

18 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I asked my doctor the other day if the degrees on her wall were an "appeal to authority".

 

Unfortunately, I should have mentioned this after the prostate exam, not before...

A doctor is going to treat your illness so his/her qualifications cater to that (and beyond that if you still have your suspicions, I'm not going to argue on that). An EE/sw engineer is going to code things to make good computation performance in general or other branches of electrical engineering. Unless you're a quantum physicist, material science engineer, a hardcore analog designer (which does indeed need ee as a foundation, but the contrary need not be true), a psychoacoustic researcher, I don't think the ee appeal to authority has any bearing on what a code sequence can impart in terms of noise performance in a mixed signal system or its audibility.

[Racerxnet]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I asked my doctor the other day if the degrees on her wall were an "appeal to authority".

 

Unfortunately, I should have mentioned this after the prostate exam, not before...

She must have really stuck it to you...

[March Audio]

22 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

No. Definitely not in my case.

Again no. You don't have the authority to tell that (considering the fact that the software does something different and the effects have not been explored thoroughly), and ironic that you mention faulty analysis methods because your entire 10 pages of posting has been mostly just that.

Apart from ill informed speculation what objective contribution did you make?

 

Considering the software has been demonstrated to do nothing relevant that could possibly have any impact on the audio quality, the only conclusions to draw are that your subjective findings are faulty.  Pick whatever reason you like, but the 3 I mentioned are the most likely.

[Racerxnet]

34 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

Ah, sweet appeal to authority. Fyi I'm an EE as well, so are a lot of people here.

At least he attempted to see what the code was doing and is much more intuitive than the power of suggestion. If you care as a EE, run IDA Pro and reverse engineer it for your own peace of mind. Maybe you can then explain what it does in a more definitive manner. Right now it appears to do nothing. Maybe the developr can come forward and explain a bit better? 

 

Sorry about the Foobar tweaks, I know it is off topic. I'll leave this discussion alone for now. 

[manueljenkin]

15 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

At least he attempted to see what the code was doing and is much more intuitive than the power of suggestion. If you care as a EE, run IDA Pro and reverse engineer it for your own peace of mind. Maybe you can then explain what it does in a more definitive manner. Right now it appears to do nothing. Maybe the developr can come forward and explain a bit better? 

 

Sorry about the Foobar tweaks, I know it is off topic. I'll leave this discussion alone for now. 

Sorry I don't intend to violate someone else's IP/hardwork. I appreciate his efforts but refute his conclusion. He carefully sneaks in the word "imo" to be on the safe side and rearguards it with an irrelevant appeal to authority.

 

17 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Apart from ill informed speculation what objective contribution did you make?

 

Considering the software has been demonstrated to do nothing relevant that could possibly have any impact on the audio quality, the only conclusions to draw are that your subjective findings are faulty.  Pick whatever reason you like, but the 3 I mentioned are the most likely.

That assertion that it cannot do anything is also a speculation, that is quite well refutable if you have any understanding of digital systems and the associated electrical/magnetic phenomenon.

 

Audibility is a different area, and we likely need a psychoacoustic researcher/properly conducted tests to conclude. I have had decent set of people who could hear it in sighted test which does indeed mean it is worthy of a dbt trial, but done in a proper way within the usage bounds of the tool.

 

[March Audio]

27 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

 

That assertion that it cannot do anything is also a speculation, that is quite well refutable if you have any understanding of digital systems and the associated electrical/magnetic phenomenon.

 

Audibility is a different area, and we likely need a psychoacoustic researcher/properly conducted tests to conclude. I have had decent set of people who could hear it in sighted test which does indeed mean it is worthy of a dbt trial, but done in a proper way within the usage bounds of the tool.

 

My conclusions were not merely speculation.  They were based in all the available evidence, my technical knowledge and actual technical tests. Plus a dose of common sense. 😉

 

If, as you admit, you require controlled subjective tests to make conclusions, why did you start promoting this software in two threads?  Why did you confidently proclaim it improved SQ when you realise your conclusions could easily be flawed?

 

The floor is yours to provide some objective evidence to support your assertions.  At the moment all we have is you saying you hear an improvement in sound quality.

 

All the actual evidence, and its very strong, indicates this is not possible.

 

This is an objective thread.  The subjective claims of you and your mates is of no relevance unless you can show you conducted properly controlled evaluations.

 

 

[ricko01]

I am a low level Unix/Linux guy going back to 1980 so cant contribute much given the OS is windows.

 

On LInux (as  I am sure many people know) you can run "strace" against a process which will show you the system calls a process is making.

 

Is there no similar process for windows?

 

This way you would have an exact idea about the RAM memory requests/allocations, disk allocations etc. the app is doing.

 

Using generic/high level monitoring on any OS (1 sec intervals is the lowest) wont have the resolution to allow you to trace with any accuracy the resources a process might use hence you need to track it at the call level.

 

If someone with windows knowledge can provide the protagonists with how to do this and they then provide the dump files then we might advance the speculation.

 

Peter

 

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, March Audio said:

It's obvious that as this thread is contrary to yours and peters views (and peters interests)

 

4 hours ago, March Audio said:

Peter has called me a wanker

 

You are.

 

I like to point out that I never ever be the first with saying such things. It is always a response-to. Look, you just did it again.