|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.146.5.113
In Reply to: RE: JPlay - Do you have to have a DAC posted by Bob_C on April 05, 2015 at 11:34:54
"You have a serious reading comprehension problem."
No, you have a serious writing problem. Your vague statements are so open to different interpretations I simply give up trying to understand them.
"That is not close to what I said at all."
Well, then just what was it you said? Am I supposed to take another guess? Rather than simply telling me I am wrong, perhaps you could try to explain your position in a different way so I can hopefully understand it. Maybe you could even provide links to whatever it is that has you so angry?
"Do you even understand the meaning of the word "ethics"?"
From merriam-webster.com: "rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad..."
How is it morally bad for Archimago to conducts tests and post them on his website? How is it morally bad for Archimago to let others quote, cite, or link to his website? How is it morally bad for others to cite Archimago's work as support for their claims?
Are you hung up on your notion of what an "expert" is? If so, who made you the arbiter of what constitutes an expert? If you feel Archimago is not sufficiently expert, then you should demonstrate how he lacks expertise. Calling him "unethical" is not such a demonstration.
JE
Follow Ups:
Just to be clear for you. I did not call him a name so your claim is not accurate.
As already stated he can have any opinion on his personal blog, no matter how faulty it may be.
His blog can say that Jay Z and Beyonce are devil worshiping vegetarians from Mars. Who cares!
But when a vindictive interplanetary uses this information to defame devil worshiping vegetarians from Uranus, allowing this use is unethical.
The concept of ethics cannot be defined with one line from a dictionary.
Your lack of understanding "act" is rather tiring.
"Just to be clear for you. I did not call him a name so your claim is not accurate."
Are you serious? When replying to Archimago you said: "I have little patients (sic) for unethical individuals such as yourself!" If calling someone an "unethical individual" is not opprobrious I'd like to know just what is. My concern over the gravity of your accusation is what prompted this whole dialogue.
Let's skip over your analogy as I've no idea whether its claims or conclusion actually fit the facts of the case. Instead, how about a link to whatever it was that has made you so angry so I can judge for myself? You're very good at linking to comic videos, how about a link that would better let me understand your concerns?
"Your lack of understanding "act" is rather tiring."
In the case of your posts, I assure you it's not an "act." You need to realize that others are not privy to your thoughts and that you may need to provide more detail in your arguments in order to make them understandable to others.
JE
Here is the PUBLIC web page which has been discussed infinitum.
Can't get much lower than JRiver. Maybe they should change their name to Congo which is the worlds deepest river. I think it's fitting.
THAT's your idea of being "unethical?" From reading that page I surmise that the folks at JRiver cannot hear any improvement to audio output when using JPlay, JPlay makes no measurable difference in the output from a PC, using JPlay may have deleterious side effects on the rest of your PC, and JPlay related issues have increased the amount of issues people are reporting with JRiver software.
So from JRiver's point of view, JPlay is charging 99 euros for software that does not do what it claims to do and which may actually be bad for your PC and especially for JRiver's software. Why is it unethical for them to call that a hoax? They think they are doing the public a kindness by publishing their opinion. Now they may well be incorrect, though no one has yet been able to convince them, or others, of that; but they are not being unethical by saying what they believe to be the truth.
How is Archimago being unethical for allowing his blog to be cited by JRiver? He tested JPlay and found no meaningful difference in the measured output between JPlay and Foobar. He also listened to JPlay and couldn't hear any difference either. Again, why is it unethical for him to publish his results and conclusions? Why is it unethical for him to let others cite the work he has done?
By throwing around disparaging terms such as "unethical" it seems to me you're putting more effort into demonizing folks you disagree with than actually answering their arguments and rebutting what they have to say.
JE
Calling a competitive product a "hoax" is not what I would call ethical marketing. Because of this move, I added Jriver to my personal list of companies that I will not do business with. In addition to questions of ethics, I question their technical competences. Competent audio engineers should be able to hear differences due to computer tweaks or at least recognize the need to hire skilled listeners.
As to Jplay, they have no requirement to publish their "magic sauce". It's not like this is safety-critical software. Anyone who is sufficiently curious as to what they have done is free to purchase the product and do their own reverse engineering. I have taken a casual look at Jplay's marketing literature and haven't seen a blatantly false claim.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Along with Apple?
LOL!
OK, while I agree with you position on JRiver I still think you're a HOOT!!!
Oh Tony. Let me know that you at least are capable of abstract thought!
"Calling a competitive product a "hoax" is not what I would call ethical marketing."
My postulate, for which I provided my surmises here:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/14/145820.html
is that JRiver sincerely believes JPlay to be a hoax. Can you explain why posting what they think to be the truth about something, even if it is a competing product, is unethical? Are they supposed to lie? Are they supposed to keep silent and let their customers and the general public continue to be hoaxed?
"Because of this move, I added Jriver to my personal list of companies that I will not do business with."
I am unable to follow your logic but that's your decision and one I'm not arguing with.
"In addition to questions of ethics, I question their technical competences. Competent audio engineers should be able to hear differences due to computer tweaks or at least recognize the need to hire skilled listeners."
Even if the issues we are talking about are ~-90db down?
As per: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/jriver-vs-jplay-test-results-156/
Wherein mitchco sez: "As you can see, it is similar to when I compared FLAC vs WAV. What the result is saying is that the Difference signal between the two music players (JRiver and JPlay) is at -90 dB. I repeated this process several times and obtained the same results."
In an earlier post you stated: "1. The signal to noise ratio of 16 bit digital audio is approximately 91 dB, measured from peak levels. This comes from the necessity to add dither noise to eliminate gross distortion and noise modulation. Measuring from average levels, the signal to noise ratio is roughly 70 to 80 dB for recordings that have not been subjected to the "loudness wars"."
I have to break it to you, Tony: I don't really worry about the noise floor in Redbook playback. I never hear it while music is playing normally or when my stereo isn't playing back at levels I would NEVER ordinarily use to listen to music. Why should I be worried about something even quieter than that?
Besides, there are plenty of posts on the internet that say they can't hear any differences when using JPlay. Why isn't their input given the same credence as those who claim to hear a difference?
"As to Jplay, they have no requirement to publish their "magic sauce."
There's no harm in asking though, is there?
JE
Jriver has put themselves in a catch 22 situation. From various posts by Mr. River on forums and web sites the basis for the "Hoax" claim is their dogmatic belief in the religion of "Bits are just bits". If they believe in this dogma, then they are incompetent. Good engineers do not dismiss claims of sonic differences based on lack of measurements and/or inability to personally hear these differences. If they do not believe in this dogma then their claim of "hoax" has no basis and this statement is unethical. Actually, making such a statement in public would be questionable ethically, even if JPlay were a hoax, unless they were prepared to back it up with evidence.
Differences at low levels can be audible under certain circumstances, depending on the recording, the equipment and the listener. Given numerous people who hear differences, such as effects of playing FLAC vs WAV files, that would be inaudible if "bits were really just bits", a competent engineer would be asking himself, "What is going on? Why are other people hearing differences and I am not? If they are right, how am I going to develop and market a quality product?" (This is the situation that one of the designers of the SABRE chip had when audiophiles reported artifacts in an early version of the chip that the designers could not hear and could not measure. The result was an investigation that showed that they were hearing real effects, a new measurement technique that demonstrated how to quantize sigma-delta modulator performance, and ultimately a new version of the modulator that sounded better.)
As to effects at -90 dB supposedly being inaudible. This is nonsense. Peak sound levels can be over 20 dB greater than average sound levels, in some recordings over 30 dB greater. Low level effects are not as low as you may think. Another factor relates to how noise levels are measured. If they are measured broadband then one can hear distortion that is as much as 20 dB below the noise floor. Alternatively, if the -90 dB was taken from a spectrogram plot, it may correspond to a noise level that is as much as 30 dB louder. For playback of acoustic music recorded in a concert venue there will be "reverb tails" that go all the way down to the threshold of hearing. Peak sound pressure levels at Mahler symphonies have been measured at over 120 dB, even though the average sound pressure levels at these brief fortissimos may be only 95 dB.
To put matters further in perspective, I once sent back an 88/24 needle drop file. I had been editing a portion of it. However, the person who got it said that I had "completely trashed" the file. I thought I had left it unchanged except for the ticks and pops. It turned out that my software had converted the file from 88/24 to 88/32floating point. When I sent the file back, I converted back to 88/24 with dither enabled. As a result, low order bits had been changed. Most of the differences were +1 or -1 in individual samples, but there were some that were +2 and -2. The RMS difference between these two files was -136 dB, and yet an audible difference was reported.
I no longer worry very much about the noise floor or Redbook recordings, or the sound quality thereof. I consider this format obsolete and incapable of state of the art playback. This was my inital belief when CD players first came out and although there have been improvements in the recording and playback technology this is still my belief. Anyone who doesn't appreciate the inadequacy of the 44/16 format is unqualified to comment to the issues under discussion because they lack the ability to hear what is going on. If one of these people is selling audio playback software, their only sensible course of action would be to keep their mouth shut. (It would have been appropriate for Jriver to politely say that systems with JPlay installed were not supported because of potential system interactions. No need for the "H" word.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony, why knock yourself out? He doesn't appreciate anything you present to him and never will.
Edits: 04/06/15
"Anyone who doesn't appreciate the inadequacy of the 44/16 format is unqualified to comment to the issues under discussion because they lack the ability to hear what is going on. "
I would not call the approach complete BS if you also required the "qualified" to prove their system and ears via relevant statistically significant experimental results. As a general rule this kind of credibility is not often required of posters making questionable claims here.
Why should I require someone who hears the same kind of effects that I do be required to "prove" that they actually hear them before I believe them? Life is short. That would be an absurd waste of time on both of our parts.
If you say you can't hear something, then that's fine with me. I believe you. I don't know why you say this, it could be you lie, you are willfully deaf (almost the same thing), you are lazy, inexperienced, or untrained or the test setup and equipment is inadequate. I do have a few questions though. If you are not hearing even the grosser forms of differences that are discussed here, why are you wasting your time on this forum? Why do you claim to be a music lover / audiophile? Why should I believe that you are not just an Internet troll?
There is good statistical evidence that trained listeners hear the differences between CD and high res. You will find these on various forums and in peer reviewed AES publications.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"If you say you can't hear something, then that's fine with me. I believe you. I don't know why you say this, it could be you lie, you are willfully deaf (almost the same thing), you are lazy, inexperienced, or untrained or the test setup and equipment is inadequate. I do have a few questions though. If you are not hearing even the grosser forms of differences that are discussed here, why are you wasting your time on this forum? Why do you claim to be a music lover / audiophile? Why should I believe that you are not just an Internet troll?"
So, in summary, the question is: Why would you, the guy who verbally champions logic correctness seemingly every other post, follow logically valid lines of reasoning????
Beats me Tony! I figured maybe you'd want to practice what you preach. Maybe I was wrong.
If you think I am being illogical, please be specific, so that I may be able to understand you.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Deeming someone of unknown hearing acuity and experience with identifying audible issues associated with this type of playback unqualified to comment about issues with 16bit 44.1khz's inadequacy by your standards due to your assumption they can't hear what you've presumed should be hearable in this persons hypothetical test system of unknown quality is illogical.
I'm still looking for a properly crafted paragraph with correctly structured sentences. A word salad of run on sentences won't do. Until I can parse your words, I won't be able to analyze your argument.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
LOL The high road it is then I see.
Yes, you are being illogical. Unless there is responsibly gathered statistically significant evidence proving there are those who can positively identify a difference in a system which has been adequately proven to actually resolve at that level, and not just color the signal in an audible way, then the debate is ongoing.
Without statistically significant supporting experimental results suggesting otherwise, your opinions can not be qualified as fact. Not qualifying your opinions for what they really are is being dishonest. Fine if you want to lie to yourself, but post it here and someone is likely to call you on it.
For example: how do you positively know your preference for high rez over redbook files played back on your system isn't actually a preference for some coloration that high rez file playback introduces to your system?
There is no debate possible between people who have a fundamentally different concept of truth, based on fundamentally different epistemology, metaphysics and ontology. You give away this difference through your use of words such as "statistically significant", "adequately proven" and "qualified as fact". Who gets to determine what is "qualified as fact" or not? This is the essence of the matter. My position is simple: I get to determine what I consider to be fact. I don't care what other people think, except as to their ability to aid me in making these determinations. This is especially true where people use "statistics" as the basis of arguments, since the vast majority of statistical arguments are either outright bogus or rely on unstated models of causality. (Of course I am well aware that I could be wrong in my determinations. Such is the nature of personal knowledge.)My preference is for high quality recordings over lower quality recordings. I know these when I hear them. My experience is that the highest quality recordings in my library are all high res. Furthermore, my experience with hundreds of hours of using state of the art conversion tools has convinced me that the finest hi-res recordings can not be transparently down converted into the 44/16 format. In doing these comparisons my motivation was to do the best possible conversion to make my best possible attempt to achieve transparency in down conversion. Note that preference played no part in these experiments, so as to avoid the issue of coloration, especially coloration on recordings vs. coloration during playback, and the possibility of cancelling coloration. In addition, it became clear that different downsampling settings changed what was lost in the downsampling operation in terms of specific sonic qualities that were changed. I was not trying to make the "best" downsampling that everyone would accept, or even the "best" one that I would accept. I was trying to find at least one setting that would provide transparancy. I made my best effort and failed, believing that it was a fundamental problem of "putting 10 pounds into a 5 pound bag" or "squeezing a large balloon into a small suitcase." As the setting space I worked with had three dimensions and millions of possible settings, it could be that I missed the best possible setting. It is possible that better conversion software might become available in the future that provided an expanded choice of settings and more accurate execution thereof. However, I gave up. There is no reason to even consider this debate any more, since the extra cost of higher resolution is pennies per album. (Take note: I am talking about "cost" not "price".)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 04/07/15
author compares sample rate conversion capabilities of several softwares. Has me tempted to buy the newest soundforge suite.
Not sure which article you referenced.
I have an old version of Soundforge, 10c. It does not have the latest version of the iZotope 64 bit CRC, which can be found in RX4 or RX4 Advanced. If you are doing cut and paste type editing then I prefer the Soundforge user interface. It can also use iZotope plugins, such as their parametric EQ. However, for doing sample rate conversions or serious repair work I use RX4, because it has a much better user interface for these tasks, including a spectral editor which can be used to remove various noises by selecting time-frequency ranges and editing the plots. You can download a free trial of this software. (Unfortunately, it's not cheap.)
The older version of the iZotope SRC in Soundforge 10c is considerably slower than the newer version and has a more confusing interface for controlling filter parameters. In addition, all the earlier versions before the version in RX4 have a sub-sample time offset in their output. This makes it impossible to get a deep null when doing testing. The new version in RX4 will give a deep null if you feed it a properly bandlimited sample and then resample it (up and down or down and up). While this time alignment has little audible effect when listening to one track it is a big deal if one is doing comparison testing and null testing.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
It is quite true I have defaulted to the methods of data analysis shown to me during my college undergrad classes without ever really considering questioning, with any depth, the validity of the approach. It's always struck me as being a reasonable approach and seemed to work well enough for me. I may have to pick up that book in your link. Thanks for posting it.
Though you may be missing my point. My point was never to debate the merit of hi rez, at least in this thread. I simply wanted to hear how you justify making authoritative statements which might be interpretted by readers as established fact as determined by more traditional data analysis technique. Since I am not aware of conclusive results as taken by more traditional methods, it seemed worth exploring.
Regarding the word "fact". Of course, there is no such thing as a real fact. However, a line must be drawn somewhere within reason if any work is to get done. The approach I'm most familiar with is establishing some limit of uncertainty and working within the limits.
BTW, why would you dawnsample in the first place? Memory is nearly free these days.
So you are telling me you can identify, by merely listening, which tracks have the brass band in them on the Audio Diffmaker Listeners' Challenge? Cool! Could you post your answer key for us less blessed listeners?
And sorry, but I don't recognize you as a certifying authority for who is or is not allowed to comment on any issues, not just the one currently under discussion.
JE
I can not tell you anything about a test that I haven't taken. I don't believe in tests as a means of convincing skeptics. It is too easy to rig tests to prove whatever the experimenter wants to prove. I also know that even were I to pass such a test, then some of the "objectivists" would find something wrong with the test or the way I took it. Worse, if these objections could be removed, then the next step would be for them to accuse me of cheating. I have no interest in going down this path, lacking the requisite patience and tolerance of toxic personalities.
I do not believe in third party authorities. We must each be responsible for our own beliefs. Following this logic, I would disrespect anyone who were to accept me as their authority. They should be making their own determination, using their God given senses and God given mind.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"I can not tell you anything about a test that I haven't taken."
The listeners' challenge is not a test, but a demonstration. The premise is simple: you are presented with two tracks of a choir singing Brahms' Lullaby. Mixed into one of the tracks is a brass band playing a Sousa march. The challenge is to choose which track has the brass band in it. Now if flipped bits ~ -130db down are audible, it should be a doddle to hear an entire brass band. However, it's not as easy as you might think!
The diffmaker software and the .dyf files are free to download. No registration is required to grab them. The software does not tamper with the running of your PC. You can use the software in the privacy of your own home. No one need ever know. If you ever did try the challenge then you might better understand my confusion over claims that tiny changes in playback result in huge perceived differences.
JE
I have a carefully calibrated playback chain that I use for all critical listening. I am set up for file formats that are supported by DBPoweramp. I am not about to install real time software that I have not vetted. Furthermore, I see no point in such demonstrations. It is possible to construct demonstrations that will make obvious or hide "the gorilla".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I got caught up in trying to get JPlay to work and didn't post for a bit.
"I have a carefully calibrated playback chain that I use for all critical listening. I am set up for file formats that are supported by DBPoweramp. I am not about to install real time software that I have not vetted."
We're not talking about "critical listening" here, but simply playing back some 15 second or so files. Surely you have some old laptop and ear buds laying around that you could use for this purpose?
"Furthermore, I see no point in such demonstrations. It is possible to construct demonstrations that will make obvious or hide "the gorilla"."
OK, now you're playing both sides of the street. You say that changes -130db down are obvious, but that the folks at Liberty Instruments are somehow "hiding the gorilla?" If you can hear 130db into a mix, how on earth are they going to do that? Besides, the entire point of the diffmaker is to reveal the differences, if any, between the two files being compared. Sure enough, when you tell diffmaker to extract the differences, the brass band is right there for all to hear.
JE
Why don't you try the JPlay trial program (fully functional) and report back to us what you hear. Aren't you curious?
"Aren't you curious?"
Not really. I'm pretty skeptical that it provides any audible benefits.
Have you read mitchco's review comparing JPlay to JRiver? I find it persuasive. Mitchco couldn't hear any difference between the two, and when comparing their respective analog outputs he got a null of ~ -90db. That's comparable to a distortion level of ~0.003%, not nearly enough to get me curious. And that was after having run the signal through an analog stage which will introduce noise to the signal. I suppose you could look at mitchco's results two ways: either JPlay does little to the audio output, or JRiver recreates the JPlay "magic" without the expense or hassle.
If we are supposed to believe people claiming to hear a difference with JPlay, shouldn't we extend the same courtesy to those claiming to hear no difference? If that results in competing, contradictory claims, why can't we then look to objective measurements to help us decide which side deserves more credence? So far as I know, the objective measurements all seem to back up those claiming to hear no differences. Are there any objective measurements out there that show JPlay making a meaningful difference in the audio output of computers?
JE
Well then it's a done deal for you. I find just about all of Mitchco's conclusions to be garbage.Believe what works for you.
Edits: 04/06/15
Let's just say I'm very cautious about what I put on my PC. When confronted with a program that is designed to tamper with the inner workings of a PC, my caution meter pretty much gets pegged. You've worked with this thing. Just how intrusive is it? More importantly for me, how cleanly does it uninstall?
Why do you say mitchco's conclusions are garbage? He listened to JPlay and didn't hear any difference. Why are the claims of those reporting a difference more credible than the claims of those reporting no difference? Mitchco provided evidence to support his claim that JPlay does little, if anything. Are there tests out there that show JPlay having a meaningful impact on a PC's output?
JE
"When confronted with a program that is designed to tamper with the inner workings of a PC, my caution meter pretty much gets pegged."Stop the BS it is getting pretty annoying now!!!
Edits: 04/06/15
"Stop the BS is is getting pretty annoying now!!!"
Learn how to write English! It is getting pretty annoying now!
You are behind the times. I've already downloaded and installed the free version of JPlay. I'll spare you the suspense: it doesn't do anything that I can notice.
JE
Jim must be so proud.
As well he should! He's able to put out a fully featured media player that sounds every bit as good as JPlay's featureless attempt at a media player, and at a fraction of the price!
Why aren't you thrilled at this audio bargain? Do you enjoy spending extra money for no reason?
JE
JRiver is a midfi product. It cost way more that you let on. Every time they want some extra cash they put out an new version. LOL A couple versions ago they actually said the look was changing... Still looks the exact same. No real changes, except for a new number and needed patches. Actually sold Beta to MAC users and before they finished it actually wanted to charge for an upgrade... smh... Please keep your bloated advertizing laden software. Great for the kids to watch movies with or play MP3s but not an audiophile product.
You need to interact with like minded individuals on interact.
Fuhrer Jim must be proud of you.
Those who live in the sewer tend to smell like...
Done wasting my time.
So again, anyone who disagrees with you deserves to be called names (in this case, "smells like sewage?") and is beneath rational response? You're doing yourself a disfavor. You're better than that. If nothing else, at least take a chill pill so other folks don't bother you so much.
Earlier I asked you for a link to a video and subsequently took it on the chin. You can't say I didn't walk into that one!
Well, I'm going to ask for it again. Got anything else that can put me in my place? N.B.: it has to be a funny one or it doesn't count!
JE
"The concept of ethics cannot be defined with one line from a dictionary."
One may need to read an encylopedia. Try "categorical imperative" or "golden rule".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: