Jplay - just another scam? Options

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

It is almost worth signing up to their site just to thank him! That really is quite interesting.
BTW, I we saying that a async DAC would have removed even the tiny measured difference?

That wasn't the author's answer, and I agree with him.

The general problem was that he pushed his data through the analog domain, where it was likely to be corrupted by noise.

In his tests, he used a on-board ADC with about 90 dB dynamic range. The consequential noise floor was the main source of the trivial differences that he measured. The Lynx L22 (a great performer on the test bench in its own right) that he used as a DAC is not a heck of a lot better than the Dell's on board ADC if you drive it with 16 bit data.

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

As I have linked to earlier, I've had issues with fairly loud noise occurring when I scrolled the screen using my mouse wheel. Now is this a hardware or a software issue?

Probably due to an interaction between the two.

Someone (active in this thread) made the hypothesis that it was due to bad ground on mobo,

Probably false. One can often fix this problem with changes to software parameters, or by loading a different device driver software package.

Actually, this is not that far from what Jplay claims to do (in addition to obvious nonsense claims like the fits-in-cache, where Josef has admitted that he has indeed not made a cache-resident application). When the 'quit scrolling' operation improves sound – on bad hardware – then 'tell computer to ingore such instructions' can (again, on bad hardware).

The problem with Jplay is pretty basic, it is a solution looking for a problem.

We've been able to get really great audio in and out of Windows systems since the middle 1990s. I personally did it using nothing more SOTA software-wise than the Windows Media player.

Contrary to the current hubub over ASIO drivers, I did it with standard MMC drivers. Contrary to this current tussle over code that is carefully crafted to fit into the CPU cache, I even did it with software casually written in Visual basic 6.0.

Of course, the right way to do this, would be to stay away from computer components which spit noise on everything else

Yet another audiophile myth. I have found measured dynamic range (THD+distortion) as low as 118 dB down using a well-designed PCI card in a plain-vanilla PC - the first one I tried it on!

[Wombat]

Thanks for letting us know. I like this Diffmaker application a while now. Nice that one member there took some time and effort.
Nonetheless it is a bit terrifying to read the first response to his post.

I just want to clarify this one. The thread layout changed meanwhile, no clue why this is but the post i mentioned is now inbetween.

[icstm]

It is almost worth signing up to their site just to thank him! That really is quite interesting.
BTW, I we saying that a async DAC would have removed even the tiny measured difference?

That wasn't the author's answer, and I agree with him...

good I am comfortable with that
(I meant to type "are we" not "I we"...)

[Porcus]

Someone (active in this thread) made the hypothesis that it was due to bad ground on mobo,

Probably false.

Well, have a look at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=735854 . You might recognize the author ...

[icstm]

Someone (active in this thread) made the hypothesis that it was due to bad ground on mobo,

Probably false.

Well, have a look at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=735854 . You might recognize the author ...

ok, so who ARE we to trust?

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

Someone (active in this thread) made the hypothesis that it was due to bad ground on mobo,

Probably false.

Well, have a look at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=735854 . You might recognize the author ...

ok, so who ARE we to trust?

Also, there is an inherent mistake in trying to generalize an answer to a specific question.

Just because I diagnosed a grounding problem in a specific case doesn't mean that I think there is a grounding problem behind every noisy PC.

[sabrehagen]

Hi,

I just signed up to this site to give my 2 cents on JPLAY and support joseph and the software.

I have just completed a Bachelor of Computer Science from UNSW, and know that bits are bits, so the concept seemed flawed from the start. I am also a professional musician and audiophile, so I (believe I) can detect very fine detail in sound. Double blind tests have shown it!

The first time I downloaded and tested JPLAY I used Donald Fagen's Trans-Island Skyway as a test track. I have listened to this track hundreds of times and (thought) I knew the sound inside out. Within 5 seconds of listening to the track "holy shit" escaped my mouth as I heard space, detail, clarity, and crispness I had never heard before. Before you bash the software, download the trial and use your EARS to test it. There is a difference, and a marked one at that. The difference was night and day for me.

I only read to page 4 of this thread before giving up due to negativity, so please forgive me if this info has already been posted by another user.

Kind regards,


sabrehagen

[Agitator]

Hi,

I just signed up to this site to give my 2 cents on JPLAY and support joseph and the software.

I have just completed a Bachelor of Computer Science from UNSW, and know that bits are bits, so the concept seemed flawed from the start. I am also a professional musician and audiophile, so I (believe I) can detect very fine detail in sound. Double blind tests have shown it!

The first time I downloaded and tested JPLAY I used Donald Fagen's Trans-Island Skyway as a test track. I have listened to this track hundreds of times and (thought) I knew the sound inside out. Within 5 seconds of listening to the track "holy shit" escaped my mouth as I heard space, detail, clarity, and crispness I had never heard before. Before you bash the software, download the trial and use your EARS to test it. There is a difference, and a marked one at that. The difference was night and day for me.

I only read to page 4 of this thread before giving up due to negativity, so please forgive me if this info has already been posted by another user.

Kind regards,


sabrehagen

Do you have any ABX results to back that claim?

[probedb]

Hi,

I just signed up to this site to give my 2 cents on JPLAY and support joseph and the software.

I have just completed a Bachelor of Computer Science from UNSW, and know that bits are bits, so the concept seemed flawed from the start. I am also a professional musician and audiophile, so I (believe I) can detect very fine detail in sound. Double blind tests have shown it!

The first time I downloaded and tested JPLAY I used Donald Fagen's Trans-Island Skyway as a test track. I have listened to this track hundreds of times and (thought) I knew the sound inside out. Within 5 seconds of listening to the track "holy shit" escaped my mouth as I heard space, detail, clarity, and crispness I had never heard before. Before you bash the software, download the trial and use your EARS to test it. There is a difference, and a marked one at that. The difference was night and day for me.

I only read to page 4 of this thread before giving up due to negativity, so please forgive me if this info has already been posted by another user.

Kind regards,


sabrehagen

First post and a TOS #8 violation, well done.

[dhromed]

I have just completed a Bachelor of Computer Science from UNSW

No DBT process described, no evidence, no difference. As a Bachelor of Science you should know better than to throw this muck at an evidence-based forum.

Alternatively, burn your diploma.

This post has been edited by dhromed: Mar 26 2013, 11:02

[db1989]

Are they paying you people to do this? And did they give you a script? ‘Hit and run with incredulous posts about how closed-minded and pitiably pessimistic they are and how emotionally dripping subjective impressions somehow trump the intellectually honest requirement of objective testing.’ I ask because the same thing happens with minor changes to the details over and over again. Of course, now there’s the new secret weapon: bragging references to degrees. The reality, or at least the deserving, of which I honestly question if you’re able to say things like this in seriousness. Just do anything to evidence that these miraculous things you say are true, or go away.

This post has been edited by db1989: Mar 26 2013, 11:42

[phofman]

Are they paying you people to do this? And did they give you a script? ‘Hit and run with incredulous posts about how closed-minded and pitiably pessimistic they are and how emotionally dripping subjective impressions somehow trump the intellectually honest requirement of objective testing.’ I ask because the same thing happens with minor changes to the details over and over again. Of course, now there’s the new secret weapon: bragging references to degrees. The reality, or at least the deserving, of which I honestly question if you’re able to say things like this in seriousness. Just do anything to evidence that these miraculous things you say are true, or go away.

Interesting. Most likely I am just very paranoid but many posts uncritically praising jplay on computeraudiophile come from people who registered in fall 2012. Most likely a coincidence...

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-soft...released-14909/

[rednyrg721]

This thread is first result in Google for [Jplay+scam] query, so it's quite probable that they are trying to somehow oppose thread title statement.

[db1989]

People are welcome to prove the general sentiment of this thread wrong if they have any valid way to do so. Fame and fortune await.

Of course, the contenders so far have fallen terrible short of that standard. All we have are finger-waving appeals to ‘Wake up, sheeple’ and appeals to emotion, nothing of substance whatsoever. How people think such proclamations will alter the stance of a website based specifically on tenets that run completely contrary to the avoid-objectivity-at-all-costs mindset that Jplay exploits, I haven’t the foggiest.

To any other acolytes reading this: If you are bemused by the failure of a sensible evidence-based community to agree with your sentimental impressions, said community doesn’t care. You can either evaluate your claims properly, or you can keep them to yourself and any other Jplay users who might want to celebrate with you about how warm and fuzzy Jplay makes you all feel.

[mitchco]

User mitchco spent some time testing. This looks like hard evidence, not opinion.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/JR...AY-Test-Results

Sorry, Chris changed the site layout and the link is now here:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mi...st-results-156/

Halfway through the comments on the 2nd page, I re-ran DiffMaker using digital loopback. The result is as expected.
Both the analog and digital difference files (attached at end of post) can be downloaded and listened to.

[sabrehagen]

I have just completed a Bachelor of Computer Science from UNSW

No DBT process described, no evidence, no difference. As a Bachelor of Science you should know better than to throw this muck at an evidence-based forum.

Alternatively, burn your diploma.

Thanks for the advice.

I have done double blind tests, 16 in a row for 1/65535 accuracy. I was able to identify the JPLAY version 100% of the time, as though it was night and day. How do I post the results without you all poo-pooing and saying they're fabricated?

[probedb]

I have done double blind tests, 16 in a row for 1/65535 accuracy. I was able to identify the JPLAY version 100% of the time, as though it was night and day. How do I post the results without you all poo-pooing and saying they're fabricated?

Where are the results? I can say I can ABX between two identical files but without proof it's meaningless drivel.

[aztec_mystic]

Where are the results? I can say I can ABX between two identical files but without proof it's meaningless drivel.

and with "proof," it's a type I error

[phofman]

I have done double blind tests, 16 in a row for 1/65535 accuracy. I was able to identify the JPLAY version 100% of the time, as though it was night and day. How do I post the results without you all poo-pooing and saying they're fabricated?

Did you check for bit-perfection?

And it is a good question about correct way to post test results. I am interested in the answer too.

[dhromed]

How do I post the results without you all poo-pooing and saying they're fabricated?

That is the right question! The exact details of your DBT setup are very welcome.

As far as fabricated results go, yes it's always possible to outright lie about the data, but we usually take it on good faith that we all want to get results and learn something. Having the details of your experiment will help people to repeat the experiment independently.

[Wombat]

As far as fabricated results go, yes it's always possible to outright lie about the data, but we usually take it on good faith that we all want to get results and learn something. Having the details of your experiment will help people to repeat the experiment independently.

To be honest if someone just registered and his very first posts are about bringing a commercial product in a better light i doubt my good faith is strong enough.

[sld]

It is, however, something very, very different to accuse someone of being a cheat and a liar: and if you do that then, sorry pal, but as db1989 said ‘the burden of proof is on claimant’…

Foobar2000 doesn't modify the bitstream. Jplay doesn't modify the bitstream. But you claim that Jplay sounds better. A lie, then?

You want measurements? Kraut, man, top scientist in the world with budgets in millions (billions?) can’t agree whether they measured speed of light correctly or not yet you want two guys in garage to come up with a scientific paper that proves beyond doubt that what happens in PC during music playback can affect it? LOL

Red herring and straw man.
These scientists used the BEST SCIENCE and can't agree. You didn't even do anything scientific (i.e. double-blind testing aka DBT) to show the prowess of your software, let alone come up with a scientific paper.

And I don’t mean voodoo things but simple, logical, straightforward things like: if playback process is pegged to a single core which is cleared of any other tasks could it affect timeliness of data delivery?

Or, if OS scheduling priorities can be set to favour music playback process as opposed to ‘other’ tasks could it also ‘help’ deliver data to DAC ‘on time’?

Since these are so trivial (to you), I expect to see graphs showing that your software has less jitter, is "more timely", and I expect you to provide details on the computer systems you did the testing on. Thank you Sir!

Note: I am not implying ‘better’ or ‘worse’ SQ but a clear measurable difference…

Premise P: Foobar2000 claims to be indistinguishable from the original recording (usually CD).
Premise Q: Jpplay claims that it sounds different from Foobar2000.
Deduction: Jplay sounds different from the original recording, and hence has modified the bitstream.

But if you dare call me a cheat please put forward some evidence of your own or retract the claim…

The illogic of your software and your arguments is making the accusations, not us. Sorry!

[phofman]

Since these are so trivial (to you), I expect to see graphs showing that your software has less jitter, is "more timely", and I expect you to provide details on the computer systems you did the testing on. Thank you Sir!

Plus I would ask for an explanation how "playback software delivery jitter" affects the actual jitter of the soundcard when these are two asynchronous time-independent tasks, the other without participation of the CPU (DMA directly to the soundcard/usb controller). Just a typical marketing nonsense aimed at affluent clueless customers.

[sabrehagen]

I have done double blind tests, 16 in a row for 1/65535 accuracy. I was able to identify the JPLAY version 100% of the time, as though it was night and day. How do I post the results without you all poo-pooing and saying they're fabricated?

Where are the results? I can say I can ABX between two identical files but without proof it's meaningless drivel.

This is why I'm asking the correct method to post my results. If you have trouble understanding "How do I post the results without you [...] saying they're fabricated?", I have serious trouble believing that any results I post will be interpreted correctly.

How do I post the results without you all poo-pooing and saying they're fabricated?

That is the right question! The exact details of your DBT setup are very welcome.

Well, I had the exact same FLAC file used for all tests. A and B alternated between the following two options; played with VLC or played with JPLAY. X was then of course either played with VLC or played with JPLAY. The tests were set out in a table beforehand, and the results recorded. I sat with my headphones on and my friend controlled the computer, out of view. Each time, I could tell whether X was the same as A or B.

I am working from the premise that JPLAY sounds better than VLC. Are you in disagreement with this? Do you agree that VLC, WinAmp, WMP, iTunes, etc all sound the same (of course without any EQ or filters applied)? Should I be testing another piece of software that you all believe sounds better than VLC? I am unaware of whether or not the forum consensus is that foobar2000 is the best sounding player, or otherwise. Could you please enlighten me?

My setup is Windows 7 64-bit PC playing FLAC files through either VLC or PLAY for testing purposes, optical Toslink output to a Beresford Bushmaster DAC, into Bose AE1 headphones.

This post has been edited by sabrehagen: Mar 29 2013, 03:43