IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
RAM access speed tests with a few players, Offtopic - has nothing to do with audio performance
Prince Of All Sa...
post Feb 18 2012, 04:20
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 16-February 12
Member No.: 97186



QUOTE (icstm @ Feb 17 2012, 10:05) *
OK, sounds good.
So, playing devils advocate, though we mostly seem to agree that JPlay does not seem to do much, how is it there has not been a definative post to show that.

Just because the author was not able to show what improvement it DOES make, can someone not post what difference it DOES NOT make?


As mentioned before, the reason it's not up to HA to disprove the claim comes down to Russel's teapot. The burden of proof is on the claimant.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JimH
post Feb 18 2012, 15:29
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 14-July 02
From: Minneapolis
Member No.: 2588



We tried to test that. We tested the "Large Page" memory access they touted was better. It wasn't.

One of their claims is that their memory access is faster in general. Because they don't support ASIO, we were unable to test it, but our own ASIO write speeds did well tested against other players.

Another player claims that special assembler code gave them an advantage in speed, but our tests showed that it was at the slow end of players we tested.

AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, WE DON'T THINK MEMORY ACCESS SPEED CAN AFFECT SOUND QUALITY. But we felt compelled to test.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hellokeith
post Feb 20 2012, 09:44
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 14-August 06
Member No.: 34027



QUOTE (JimH @ Feb 18 2012, 09:29) *
WE DON'T THINK MEMORY ACCESS SPEED CAN AFFECT SOUND QUALITY. But we felt compelled to test.

Jim,

I think the main reason this got moved to Off-Topic is because you haven't addressed the sound quality question. You tested buffers, and showed your product at the top, but you did not show a correlation or non-correlation with sound quality.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Feb 20 2012, 17:44
Post #29





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (JimH @ Feb 18 2012, 06:29) *
our own ASIO write speeds did well tested against other players.

So?


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JimH
post Feb 20 2012, 19:34
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 14-July 02
From: Minneapolis
Member No.: 2588



We have NEVER claimed that memory access speed mattered, but it was a principal claim made by JPlay. Trying to be open minded, we tested.

I agree with you, greynol, that it seems pointless.

I posted this link in the JPlay thread, but in case you missed it....

At ComputerAudiophile.com, user mitchco did a nice test essentially disproving the JPlay claim of any difference in sound produced:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/JR...AY-Test-Results

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kraut
post Feb 21 2012, 00:20
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 225
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85965



QUOTE
Jim,

I think the main reason this got moved to Off-Topic is because you haven't addressed the sound quality question. You tested buffers, and showed your product at the top, but you did not show a correlation or non-correlation with sound quality.


I have to agree with JimH.
The reading comprehension abilities of some posting at certain topics at HA seem to be severely limited - or is it they cannot comprehend context?
Several times he made it clear that this post is a response to claims made by Jplay, and that that IS ALL THAT HE IS DOING....

This posting by JH is not about addressing sound quality issues or anything else beside this precise and very limited issue - speed comparisons to refute certain claims made by Jplay.

How hard is that to understand?

This post has been edited by db1989: Feb 21 2012, 00:32
Reason for edit: removing drama
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Feb 21 2012, 00:46
Post #32





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5141
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



For what it’s worth, I’m inclined to agree with JimH and kraut.

The relation to sound quality lies in the test’s debunking absurd claims about sound quality by the author of jplay. Does that qualify this thread for a place in General Audio? Maybe; but I’m not completely sure, and I don’t want to start a game of ping-pong with it.

What I think is worthy of credit in either case, at least as a token gesture, is the fact that someone did something to obtain concrete evidence against such claims. Sure: we all know they’re nonsense right off the bat, there’s not enough time in the universe to disprove every nonsensical claim ever made, and there have been some quibbles with some facets of the test’s publicity (some of which appear to have been genuine mistakes)—but isn’t more evidence better evidence, at least when the nonsensical claim in question is preying on gullibility at €99 a time? It’s always good to have something else to offer those who are in danger of being misled and/or the most stubborn of fence-sitters for whom ‘common’ sense isn’t quite enough. Isn’t that right in line with the ethos of this site?

This post has been edited by db1989: Feb 21 2012, 00:58
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kraut
post Feb 21 2012, 06:18
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 225
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85965



I appreciate the editing that db1989 undertook.. the value of points I made would have been much diminished by my display of anger and the tone I used.
Those points have now been even more clearly laid out by him.

The simple fact is that Jplay made certain claims; be they as nonsensical as they may, they are used to make a product whose utility is rather doubtful look "better" or "good" in comparison to products who actually deliver the goods.

That is why I appreciate the work done by Jim to prove those developers wrong in that particular claim while at the same time emphasizing the nonsense of the importance of memory access speed in the present computer environment as it relates to audio reproduction off files on harddrive.

This post has been edited by kraut: Feb 21 2012, 06:19
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spoon
post Feb 21 2012, 14:05
Post #34


dBpowerAMP developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2723
Joined: 24-March 02
Member No.: 1615



>"The simple fact is that Jplay made certain claims;"

They were not even on the test as they do not use ASIO, so the test was against other players, many on that list make no claims about better quality, that is my issue with the testing.

If HQPlayer were touting faster transfers, then fine, just include them.


--------------------
Spoon http://www.dbpoweramp.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
monkey
post Feb 21 2012, 17:27
Post #35


Monkey's Audio developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 11
Joined: 15-October 01
Member No.: 298



QUOTE (JimH @ Feb 18 2012, 14:29) *
We tested the "Large Page" memory access they touted was better. It wasn't.


To substantiate this, here are the results from several runs comparing normal memory against large page memory (again, testing ASIO buffer fill performance):

Normal Large Page
1045.6 1145.6
1079.1 1137.1
1162.3 1159.1
942.3 1196.5
1207.2 1076.5
1215.1 1148.4
1148.8 1177.4
1047.2 905.2
1161.9 864.3
1138.4 1164.6
1175.8 1101.1
1169.9 1124.8

Average:
1124.4 1100.0

There's some variability, but overall there is no statistically significant performance difference between the two methods when filling soundcard buffers.

And again, we believe this performance is not related to sound quality. It is simply an empirical refutation of a claim made by JPlay.

This post has been edited by monkey: Feb 21 2012, 17:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JimH
post Feb 21 2012, 17:27
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 14-July 02
From: Minneapolis
Member No.: 2588



QUOTE (spoon @ Feb 21 2012, 07:05) *
>"The simple fact is that Jplay made certain claims;"
They were not even on the test as they do not use ASIO, so the test was against other players, many on that list make no claims about better quality, that is my issue with the testing.

Hi spoon. We didn't realize that until we had tested a couple of other players. We tested other players because we were curious and it was fairly easy. If we had left JPlay off the list, we probably would have been criticized for not testing it.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hellokeith
post Feb 22 2012, 07:47
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 14-August 06
Member No.: 34027



QUOTE (kraut @ Feb 15 2012, 19:31) *
I find it very important that this site stays open to critically investigate any such claims and shoot them down with all the weaponry needed.

Kraut,

Measurements were taken. But I find no critical analysis, as you mention above.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th April 2014 - 23:29