Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

JPLAY Responds

66.37.246.2

Posted on June 14, 2013 at 10:43:05
joelha
Audiophile

Posts: 12
Joined: August 9, 2012
http://www.audiostream.com/content/jplay-responds-open-letter

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
Looks like a bunch of double talk to me, posted on June 14, 2013 at 14:10:07
JPlay beats around the bush and throws out a lot of scary buzz words chosen to frighten the credulous audiophile, but nowhere shows that PC audio is actually affected by the buzz words they throw out. Then they boast about how they muck with processes in your PC as if this is some sort of solution to the problems they haven't even shown exist in the first place. They candidly admit that current measurements are unable to show JPlay actually doing anything to the output signal, but then say that "technical measurements will come in time." They then wrap up with a shout out to the poor folks who actually paid for the program that they admit they cannot demonstrate actually does anything besides gum up your PC.

Once again I think the typical audiophile would be better off saving their money and spending it on actual music instead.

Edited! D'oh! Thanks and a bit tip o' the hat to Bob_C for helping me find my out!

 

RE: Looks like a bunch of double talk to me, posted on June 14, 2013 at 14:37:11
joelha
Audiophile

Posts: 12
Joined: August 9, 2012
Jaundiced Ear,

Have you listened to JPLAY yourself?

If you have, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, although I have to say, in my opinion, if you can only listen to equipment which measures differently from other equipment, then you're missing out big time.

And if you haven't listened to JPLAY, then your statements are no more credible than those of JPLAY which you believe are baseless.

Joel

 

RE: Looks like a bunch of double talk to me, posted on June 14, 2013 at 14:50:37
andy_c
Audiophile

Posts: 1470
Joined: June 2, 2007
"They candidly admit that current measurements are unable to show JPlay actually doing anything to the output signal..."


:-). Classic "Russel's Teapot" scenario. From Russell:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

 

If I knew how to edit a post,, posted on June 14, 2013 at 15:29:12
I'd edit my post above to delete "simple minded" and instead use "credulous." Sorry about that!

 

RE: JPLAY Responds, posted on June 14, 2013 at 18:07:44
Archimago
Audiophile

Posts: 820
Joined: January 18, 2002
I am perplexed by this statement:

"We at JPLAY believe the old rule 'simpler is better' should not be ignored for computer audio—to the contrary: We believe that the less work a computer has to do the better it will serve as a digital audio transport."

From what I see, the Kernel Streaming "engine" seems to be doing a good amount of "work" when the computer is set to their recommendations with "DirectLink" "buffer" size. "Simple" would be using a decent buffer and just let the hardware negotiate rather than using the CPU to do all the timing, especially with modern asynch DACs IMO.

Also, this:
"Sure, we don’t have all the 'technical measurements' we would like: The simple fact is, while there are plenty of DAC measurements regarding jitter, when it comes to using a computer as a digital transport, there simply aren’t any! Nobody has quite figured out how to measure ‘computer jitter’ (or 'computer noise'), which others propose is the "real" cause of the sonic differences in software and/or hardware."

Firstly, not only do they not have "all the technical measurements we would like", admittedly they simply don't appear to have "any" to support the assertion that their theory is true. Assuming for a moment JPLAY did make a difference, how then would they even know that *timing* was to blame rather than say a Windows/ASIO/WASAPI/DirectSound bug they've circumvented? This also leads to a very inconvenient situation where one has to ask by what means they engineered the audio engine - not just ONE, but as it stands FOUR choices!



-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

 

Russell..?, posted on June 14, 2013 at 18:29:43
Audio Bling
Audiophile

Posts: 307
Location: Australia
Joined: October 9, 2007
Russell is making the point that an assertion or belief should not be considered “proved” merely because it cannot be disproved.. This is like saying that it pays to be sceptical in the absence of firm evidence – a thought that predates Russell by a long way.

The JPLAY letter asserts that the computer, if it is to reproduce music successfully, needs to be better at managing itself in the time domain. And, in the absence supporting measurement it is also saying that you could let your own ears be the judge by way of a free trial. Nowhere is it asking you to put your scepticism aside. What gives JPLAY’s challenge credibility is that so many reviews have been positive.

It strikes me if you come to this (or any other) audio forum seeking “proof” you are wasting your time. This place is about the sharing of experience in the main. Read the reviews; give it a go and then tell us if you think it is bunk.

 

RE: JPLAY Responds, posted on June 14, 2013 at 19:01:59
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
"how then would they even know that *timing* was to blame rather than say a Windows/ASIO/WASAPI/DirectSound bug they've circumvented? "

Because they are not stupid...

 

No teapots, but there are asteroids and comets., posted on June 14, 2013 at 19:07:45
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

Skepticism is itself a dogmatic belief system that enjoys no particular privilege over other dogmatic belief systems. The search for truth is not a win-lose game. Debating ploys that attempt to move the goal posts accomplish nothing.

There may not be teapots in space, but there are asteroids and comets. As our ability to detect these intruders has improved over time we have become aware of more and more of them. Some of these intruders appear as flashes of light that skeptics may dismiss as delusions or illusions, but sometimes the results are more dramatic, even possibly reaching the level of extinction events.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: No teapots, but there are asteroids and comets., posted on June 14, 2013 at 19:18:55
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
But in the end, these flashes of light are proven to be what they really are with science. Skepticism is incredibly useful because it puts snake oil salesmen through their paces.

Being skeptical of commonly held beliefs or being skeptical for the sake of it serves no purpose, I agree.

With out skeptics an endless amount of pure and utter nonsense and bullshit would be held in high regard.

In Africa, the rapid spread of AIDS happened because in several countries the men felt thought they were immune because as Zulu warriors, they were protected by the Gods. Skeptics are bullshit detectors when they are being sincere.

 

RE: No teapots, but there are asteroids and comets., posted on June 14, 2013 at 20:16:00
LOL!! Getting a little dramatic aren't we? Talk about debating ploys that attempt to move the goal posts: now skeptics are going to be responsible for an extinction event?

As a skeptic, I don't think I'm asking for much: if people claim they can hear a difference, shouldn't they be able to demonstrate that an actual, audible difference exists? Turn the bass or treble up or down enough and even I will be able to hear it and you'll be able to show me the change you made. Add in sufficient noise or distortion and again, I'll hear it and we can see what happens. But when the changes between two outputs are so subtle as to appear to be objectively inaudible, then yes indeed you can color me skeptical when people make claims that they can readily hear what should be inaudible.

 

RE: JPLAY Responds, posted on June 14, 2013 at 21:05:36
Archimago
Audiophile

Posts: 820
Joined: January 18, 2002
Yeah... That's real helpful...

-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

 

RE: JPLAY Responds, posted on June 14, 2013 at 21:39:27
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
Sorry but it is the truth IMO. It you try and think outside the box and look at the big picture, it is not really that hard to grasp what they are doing. You don't have to be Stephen Hawking.

 

"Big picture"? RE: JPLAY Responds, posted on June 14, 2013 at 22:33:50
Archimago
Audiophile

Posts: 820
Joined: January 18, 2002
Bob... No, you don't have to be Stephen H.

THE BOX IS ALL THERE IS (what other "big picture" is there? a "ghost in the box"?).

Consider how modern computers actually work - how the asynchronous instruction & data bus functions between CPU and RAM - each working off their own multipliers, how the Southbridge chip connects up to the bus (motherboard USB usually is hosted off this), how the USB data packets are constructed and transferred, how most modern USB DACs have their own internal buffer management and handshaking with the host machine, etc. I don't think you need to be Stephen H. to realize that the Windows/Mac software that you install as a download (we're not talking firmware or low level embedded software folks) can only do so much and the really low level stuff like on the order of picosecond jitter is in the *hardware itself*.

I have yet to see evidence otherwise despite claims like the one JPLAY posted. I would very much like to see the kind of hardware/software and interface where the player software has a proven effect on the pico/nanosecond jitter and not just creating buffer under-runs and audio drop-outs.

-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

 

RE: JPLAY Responds-and because they , posted on June 14, 2013 at 23:27:53
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
have the common sense (and background) to accept that delivery time in a time dependent stream being processed matters.

I have suggested that the answer will be to trace a musical stream from the HDD to the dac, but this is easier said than done.

 

There may not be teapots in space, posted on June 14, 2013 at 23:30:09
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
how do you know this; there may be?

 

RE: There may not be teapots in space, posted on June 15, 2013 at 00:49:26
Typical fmak: strike a pose before the forum, lift his leg and break wind noisily and "wetly," then act as if he has made a profound observation on the world of audio.

 

RE: No teapots, but there are asteroids and comets., posted on June 15, 2013 at 01:42:16
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6580
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
"But when the changes between two outputs are so subtle as to appear to be objectively inaudible, then yes indeed you can color me skeptical when people make claims that they can readily hear what should be inaudible."

Not so subtle at Lucy's lab.

 

RE: There may not be teapots in space, posted on June 15, 2013 at 02:01:54
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
If you don't like it, don't read it.

I don't bother about your semi logical crap, and I don't let it bother me.

 

what should be inaudible, posted on June 15, 2013 at 02:05:06
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
This is a 'Conviction' statement that precludes discussion.

I wouldn't bother.

 

RE: No teapots, but there are asteroids and comets., posted on June 15, 2013 at 02:36:13
Sorry, this went right over my head.

Care to elaborate?

 

RE: what should be inaudible, posted on June 15, 2013 at 03:06:25
Sorry, fmak. In the first case, you're answering a question that was not directed at you. I assure you, Tony Lauck can take care of himself. Haven't you enough of your own fatuous misinformation to manage by yourself?

Secondly, how exactly does my claim that audible differences can only exist unless they are actually audible differences to be heard preclude further discussion? Are you telling us that you can hear things that aren't there?

All I am saying is that if you are claiming that an audible difference exists, shouldn't you be able to demonstrate it's existence with something other than your personal claims or mere hearsay? How exactly does this preclude discussion?

 

RE: No teapots, but there are asteroids and comets., posted on June 15, 2013 at 03:15:22
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6580
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
Failure to acknowledge Lucy is an unforgivable act. I won't forget this. Nor will she.

 

RE: No teapots, but there are asteroids and comets., posted on June 15, 2013 at 03:43:27
Oh Noes! The suspense is killing me! What horrors await me?

 

RE: No teapots, but there are asteroids and comets., posted on June 15, 2013 at 03:49:03
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6580
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
Since you're new here, I'll give you a pass. Lucy is my dog. She has been a regular here since 2006.

She is the "brains" behind my operation.

 

RE: No teapots, but there are asteroids and comets., posted on June 15, 2013 at 04:07:15
Sweet. I like dogs. I just can't have any around because of allergies. My loss, because I really do think a dog or two adds a lot to a home. I envy you you're companion!

 

personal claims , posted on June 15, 2013 at 04:35:34
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
yours, wild and off the mark

 

RE: personal claims , posted on June 15, 2013 at 05:03:39
yours, non-responsive and content free. C'mon. You're better than that.

 

JPLAY, JRMC, squeezelite and Devialet, posted on June 15, 2013 at 06:49:44
OGS
Audiophile

Posts: 23
Location: Norway
Joined: July 19, 2009
I own JPLAY and JRMC. In my system JPLAY improves sound. Quite a bit actually. JRMC is a wonderful player. Fast, flexible and very advanced. I use both it's convolution engine and parametric equalizer. JRMC connected directly to my Stello U3 (wether ASIO,WASAPI og KS) is good and stable. Problem is that in my setup on windows 7, JPLAY and JRMC does not work together. JRMC will crash after some time, often in less than 30 minutes, so I can not trust the combination.

Recently Devialet upgraded their streaming software to Air2. For Windows, Air2 is a sound card emulator that supports WASAPI with exclusive mode. JRMC sounds very good with Air2 WASAPI, but JRMC crashes in the same way as with JPLAY.

Instead I use squeezelite-win as a player. Squeezelite and JPLAY together is rock solid. I run BrutefirDRC on LMS for convolution. With iPeng remote this is a very pleasant system to use.

I believe JRMC is not working properly with software emulated "cards" - as JPLAY (ASIO) and Devialet Air2 (WASAPI) is. The developer team at J. River needs to look at this as a problem with their own player and fix it. What Jim Hillegass says in his response to Michael Lavorgna is rather surprising. If people at J River listened to JRMC with JPLAY and found that it "does nothing" their system or computer or whatever certainly is different from mine.
System:
Readynas Ultra 2 Plus - LMS 7.8 with BrutefirDRC 4.1 - squeezelite or JRiver MC19 - filter from Audiolense 4.11XO - Devialet 250 - KEF Q300 (redesigned filter)

 

Black Swan, posted on June 15, 2013 at 07:11:28
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
In 2008 the financial skeptics were overcome by a Black Swan event.

Skepticism is an effective enforcer of "normal science" but can not predict or accept paradigm changes.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: No teapots, but there are asteroids and comets., posted on June 15, 2013 at 07:42:26
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
"What horrors await me?"

You won't be invited for tea with Lucy.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: No teapots, but there are asteroids and comets., posted on June 15, 2013 at 08:04:09
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
"She is the "brains" behind my operation."

And the looks! :)

 

You are stuck thinking inside the box, posted on June 15, 2013 at 08:14:26
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

"THE BOX IS ALL THERE IS (what other "big picture" is there? a "ghost in the box"?)."


The first reference to "box" in this thread was to "thinking outside the box". This has a specific meaning. The "nine dots" puzzle can not be solved by thinking within the obvious bounds. The puzzle is a metaphor that demonstrates the perils of dogmatic thinking.

Junk your religion of "scientific materialism". The Universe can not be divided up and analyzed as a collection of boxes. This method of analysis is useful in obtaining approximate solutions to certain puzzles, but can not answer other questions, which remains mysteries at the present state of human knowledge.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: JPLAY Responds-and because they , posted on June 15, 2013 at 08:25:34
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
I found the details of Jplay's explanation somewhat lacking. In particular, delivery time needs to be referenced to specific "whats" and "wheres". This they have not done. Also, in the case of an async USB connection, the stream is not time dependent, as there is no timing involved, just data. I do agree with Jplay's simplicity principle. Einstein is quoted as, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

If you want to trace things back, then you will need source code, and possibly firmware and device design documents. It won't be easy. This is the fundamental problem with software solutions to sonic problems in the computer system. If these problems can be solved elsewhere in the playback chain it will be much easier, where system complexity is much lower and there is some hope of transparency.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: You are stuck thinking inside the box, posted on June 15, 2013 at 08:44:10
Archimago
Audiophile

Posts: 820
Joined: January 18, 2002
Well Tony,
I appreciate what you're saying about thinking "outside" when it comes to LIFE.

But this is about computer science, and specifically JPLAY and their rationale.

"Scientific materialism" is not my "religion". But as it pertains to JPLAY and audio evaluation, I see no reason to invoke Quantum Mechanics when Newtonian physics can easily suffice.

-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

 

RE: JPLAY Responds-and because they -not just-, posted on June 15, 2013 at 08:56:13
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
simple. Install it, run it and look under priority and core assignment.

It doesn't work with my W8, increasing latency substantially and requiring larger buffers on the Mytek usbpal panel.

However it works wonders with my W7 install which doesn't sound anywhere as good w/o JPlay.

The usb packets may not be associated with timing, but inside a particular computer with all kinds of things running in the foreground or background, timing can be expected to matter, as the OSs are not 'real' time (just small time if you like).

 

RE: JPLAY Responds-and because they -not just-, posted on June 15, 2013 at 09:46:25
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
The O/S not being R/T is primarily an issue with regard to buffer underruns and overrunns which produce audible glitches. Modern I/O devices, whether sound cards or USB controllers, time the external signals that they generate using a hardware clock, not software.

Back in the 1970's I was a product manager for a line of datacomms interfaces that generated telegraph signals under unbuffered software control. They had to be redesigned to meet the NZ Post Office specifications for apparatus allowed to connect to telegraph lines, which limited jitter to 1 microsecond. I've also designed and implemented several real-time kernals for a variety of computer systems. These real-time systems weren't synchronous, but they did undertake certain guarantees to meet certain latency requirements, but again these were typically in the multiple microsecond region. Even today, software latency is still measured in microseconds, hence the need for hardware buffering and hardware clocking for audio.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: You are stuck thinking inside the box, posted on June 15, 2013 at 09:59:31
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Unless your computers are 100% vacuum tube based they are designed using quantum mechanics, which is the basis of device physics used to create transistors and integrated circuits. The components are interconnected by traces and wires, and these work according to the theory of transmission lines, which depend on Maxwell's equations. Modern technology goes far beyond Newtonian mechanics.


JPLAY's rationale may be a bit lame, but it is not false.




Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: JPLAY Responds-and because they -not just-, posted on June 15, 2013 at 12:28:00
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
"It doesn't work with my W8, increasing latency substantially and requiring larger buffers on the Mytek usbpal panel."


Have you had a chance to look at these?

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/iso-usb-key-installer-preconfigured-and-stripped-down-audiophile-version-windows-8-pro-including-jriver-and-foobar-14390/


http://jplay.eu/forum/computer-audio/windows-8-optimization-script/

http://jplay.eu/forum/computer-audio/release-of-new-windows-server-2012-audiophile-core-edition-this-weekend/


 

external signals that they generate using a hardware clock, not software. , posted on June 15, 2013 at 22:13:06
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
It depends how you look at it. Is a usb receiver part of a dac, or part of a computer audio system? Same for a sound card.

I see them as part of the computer audio system. Maybe you see them as part of the dac.

 

Russian Dolls, posted on June 16, 2013 at 06:09:27
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
I see both the computer and its software plus the DAC (and any digital cables or adapters) as part of a computer audio system. Of course, this computer audio system is itself a subsystem of a complete playback chain. What counts is the performance of the complete playback chain, not the performance of individual sub-systems. In selecting or designing components of this playback chain it may be useful to evaluate subsystems individually, but after a point an excessive fixation on optimization may become useless since overall performance may be limited by other subsystems, not to mention the possibility of interactions, which is what makes matters difficult.

It may be convenient to divide up a computer audio system into three pieces, a digital piece, a mixed signal piece, and an analog piece. It may also be convenient to divide the digital piece and the mixed signal piece into portions according to their clock domains. All this would be obvious to any system engineer who was competent in design of mixed signal systems, which necessarily includes competence in pure digital systems and analog systems. (People with these talents are rare, and are mostly to be found working where there is big money, e.g. telecommunications and military electronics.)

Of course you can package things into "boxes" any way you wish. The audiophile can do this as well. You can take a separate computer subsystem, a digital cable and a DAC and put them in a single cardboard box and call that a "1 box computer audio system". You can have boxes inside boxes if you like, ...



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Russian Dolls, posted on June 16, 2013 at 07:05:45
SBGK
Audiophile

Posts: 444
Joined: March 22, 2012
too often competent engineers in the hifi world are also arrogant engineers who will discard any notions of how things may effect sound quality, I have certainly come across this in the squeezebox world and in the player development world.
http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/

 

RE: Russian Dolls, posted on June 16, 2013 at 08:24:14
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
"too often competent engineers in the hifi world are also arrogant engineers who will discard any notions of how things may effect sound quality, I have certainly come across this in the squeezebox world and in the player development world."

I would disagree with you only in regard to the term, "competent". Any audio engineer who discards possible ways that sound quality might be affected is incompetent. In general, any arrogant individual who doesn't know that there are things he doesn't know is not only incompetent, he is a damned fool.

Years ago I worked for a large company. To provide a career path for the better and more experienced engineers that did not require them to go into management and supervise people we created a "technical ladder". The ladder contained job grades that were parallel to management job grades in terms of status and salary range, but did not require supervisory responsibility. The lowest rank on this ladder was "Consulting Engineer". For many years I served on boards that proposed and reviewed candidates for these titles. The distinguishing characteristic for a Consulting Engineer was the ability to foresee problems and plan activities that avoided them. In developing new technologies this meant that an individual had to have a firm grasp on what he didn't know, and constantly seek out new knowledge. An intelligent and experienced engineer with this attitude was key to avoiding development projects that spent a lot of time and money reinventing "the flat tire".

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

So, posted on June 16, 2013 at 08:52:24
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
timing and time sequencing do come into it

 

Not arrogant, posted on June 16, 2013 at 08:55:24
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
just poor engineers or no engineers,

Those geeks who spent 4 years being taught to 'engineer' software products are not engineers

 

RE: So, posted on June 16, 2013 at 09:26:06
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
"timing and time sequencing do come into it"

Only at the point of actual conversion to an analog waveform. The time at which a CD was ripped to hard drive will have nothing to do with the sound quality when it is subsequently played back. The only timing requirement is that the rip must be completed prior to playback. The same comment applies to other stages in the computer audio playback chain, up to the point where the controlling clock does its thing. (In the case of SPDIF it would be the SPDIF encoder, in the case of async USB it would be the master clock in the DAC.)

Unrelated activities in a computer system can affect sound quality of playback, even if they have absolutely no effect on the timing of those activities that are associated with playback. An example would be a periodic activity running on a processor core that is never used for music playback. The power consumed by this activity will create electrical noise that can then couple into the playback chain. In this case, it is true that the timing of this background activity will affect the timing of the coupled noise, but I don't think this is what you had in mind when you were talking about "timing".

If one can reliably hear or reliably measure (take your choice) audio degradation caused by timing effects then it will be possible to trace down the root cause and the chain of secondary causes. This may uncover effective ways of breaking the causal chain, thereby improving sound quality without needing to use expensive draconian measures. (For example, if noise couples to a DAC by power wiring and physical proximity, one could employ a second computer audio system to drive the DAC and then experiment with the first computer audio system doing various tasks to see if it still effects sound quality even if it is not physically connected to the DAC.) I would do these tests, but the differences that I hear are not sufficiently great as to be quickly and reliably detected. I would need a better ADC than the one in my juli@, which has noise levels that limit resolution to about 17 bits. It is also likely that I would need better analysis software, but this would not be terribly difficult to procure or write.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Another thread arguing this issue..., posted on June 16, 2013 at 17:32:52
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
This is from the What's Best Forum.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Quote Post 9, posted on June 16, 2013 at 22:22:16
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
''When I close processes I hear a difference, when I turn off the screen, I hear differences x100. I believe there may be subtle improvements with process shutdowns but I believe more in LCD power consumption/LCD vibration issues. Try shutting your screen down or your amp's LCD and then post your results''.


This is true and JPlay does some of this and reassigns cpu priorities

 

RE: Quote Post 9, posted on June 17, 2013 at 08:04:29
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
You mean this one?

"When I close processes I hear a difference, when I turn off the screen, I hear differences x100. I believe there may be subtle improvements with process shutdowns but I believe more in LCD power consumption/LCD vibration issues. Try shutting your screen down or your amp's LCD and then post your results."

Turning off my monitor and especially turning off the display and the LED level meters on my Mytek DAC makes a definite improvement in my sound. However, I won't swear that these are sonic effects, because I didn't conduct a controlled experiment. It may have been the light affecting my eyes and hence my mind.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Quote Post 9-How, posted on June 17, 2013 at 09:02:43
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
''I won't swear that these are sonic effects''

would you carry out 'controlled' experiments other than by blind tests/panels in subjective terms? It is better to trust your own experience, senses and your ears'.

Just don't look at the lights or your screen which, in a near field setup, certainly radiates to adjacent hardware. In fact, you can measure it with an electro-magnetic detector and space things accordingly. You can also install shields which are annoying. I have such meters.

 

Page processed in 0.047 seconds.