IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

19 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Jplay - just another scam? YES IT IS!
kraut
post Jan 22 2012, 22:59
Post #51





Group: Members
Posts: 227
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85965



QUOTE
But ok, ‘measurements’: What would you say if I told you that some people used spectral analyser which did, indeed produce obviously different images between different players playing identical bitstream?


please supply sources.

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


all I hear from you is a salesman pitch. you still have provided absolutely nothing but talk that there is any veracity to your claims.
There is no reason until you do otherwise to retract my claim that I suspect a polish/dutch axis of scam.
Cable companies used exactly the same line of arguments, and after having tested their claims spending several 100$ only to find out the bogosity of their claims I am not willing to even try any audiophile product without a probable mechanism of why the product could work with supporting data.

You have not done anything of the sort and you arguments as to physical measurements are the same inane bullshit spouted by any type of woo believer, reenforcing only my suspicion as to the type of person we are dealing with.

QUOTE
Once again just read the bloody T of S. #8 specifically.


Measurements are not proof of audibility, but at least they show that a difference that might be audible exists.

This post has been edited by kraut: Jan 22 2012, 23:05
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brand
post Jan 22 2012, 23:04
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 27-November 09
Member No.: 75355



I was just in the middle of RMAA testing my soundcards, so I decided to test JPLAY as well. smile.gif

The soundcard I used for testing is an M-Audio 2496, connected with a short cable from its line out to its line in.
That way, I recorded the outputs of Foobar (regular output, not WASAPI or ASIO) and JPLAY to try to spot some differences.
I also ran RMAA tests at 24bit 44.1kHz and at 24bit 96kHz.

The recorded files from the song sample (Sonny Rollins "Oleo") are named A and B. One of these is from Foobar the other from JPLAY. It would be great if someone could tell which is which in a blind test, before I reveal it.
They were recorded with REAPER (ASIO at 24bit, 44.1kHz). I cropped them later to try to get them to the approximately same length, no other processing.

The two recorded files, the original CD rip sample and the RMAA test results are here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?600mz643ye9iuxh

That JPLAY scored "Very Good" instead of "Excellent" in the 44.1kHz test is just an unlucky coincidence, I think. Looking at the actual numbers it seems like it's all within the margin of error and the imperfections of DAD. Sometimes Foobar scored better at some test, sometimes JPLAY.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kraut
post Jan 22 2012, 23:12
Post #53





Group: Members
Posts: 227
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85965



QUOTE
Looking at the actual numbers it seems like it's all within the margin of error and the imperfections of DAD. Sometimes Foobar scored better at some test, sometimes JPLAY.


Meaning the measurements detect nothing but statistical noise?

No ABX listening test seems to be required after that result.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jan 22 2012, 23:17
Post #54





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (kraut @ Jan 22 2012, 20:22) *
As [josef is] a manufacturer of a product that claims to have superior sound despite in this case not even measurable differnces I do not think the onus is on me to show this product does what it claims it is doing, it is up to [josef] to show in tests whose methodology is above suspicion and whose results are verifiable that there is an audible difference.
This is what I meant throughout, especially with the usual “burden of proof” bit, although I concede that I probably didn’t state it precisely enough (rather than heavily implying it).

It is up to you to prove that a difference (effect, improvement, etc.) exists—not to us to prove the absence of a difference. Google for Russell’s teapot if you want an in-depth explanation of this. Basically, there isn’t enough time in the universe to disprove every possible false (or possibly false) claim, or to make them, for that matter.

QUOTE (kraut)
I am willing to try if there is a likely hood based by some data that the product might be superior to others. not willing to waste my time on spurious claims.
This too.

QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 21:35) *
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
If I had a penny for every time I’ve heard/read an irrelevant analogy… You’re not doing yourself any favours with disingenuous quips like this.

QUOTE (josef)
Look, once again: I have no desire of convincing you of anything: you go on believing that world is flat as far as I’m concerned - I have better things to do than ‘convince’ anyone of anything… I offer you to test the claim yourself (yeah, blind testing of your own) and if you choose to ignore it that's fine - i really don't care...('you can lead the horse to water you can't make it drink'...)
See above, and ironic kudos for the flat-Earth bit!

QUOTE (josef)
But if you dare call me a cheat please put forward some evidence of your own or retract the claim…
This isn’t really what’s happening. You have made a claim, and (in line with my second paragraph above) you are being asked to put forward some evidence or retract the claim. Instead, you seem to be side-stepping around this request by transmuting it into allegations of personal insults and thereby portraying yourself as a victim of a barrage of vindictive tomatoes.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
josef
post Jan 22 2012, 23:17
Post #55





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 22-January 12
Member No.: 96623



Kraut:
> please supply sources.

Sure - here’s what some Russian audio enthusiasts did:
http://soundex.ru/index.php?showtopic=3393...play&st=200
Can you supply your sources wrt ‘axis of scam’ lol? (note: cable company anecdotes do not count…)

Bug80 – sure, anything you want…
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jan 22 2012, 23:30
Post #56





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 20:06) *
Not sure what you mean: If I said to you that thousands of people have downloaded fully functional free trial, tested it (blind or not I have no way of knowing) and hundreds decided to buy would that qualify as ‘proffer’?


Not for sound quality. And as you later claim that this post is NOT about sound quality!, then fine – it is not about sound quality, right?


QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 20:06) *
Or are you suggesting that hundreds of people from all over the world are all foolish idiots?


Oh, are you saying that the number of foolish idiots all over the world is only in the hundreds? wink.gif


But to be serious, we agree that your client base statement does not prove anything about the sound, right?



QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 20:06) *
1. If you think it is ‘normal’ to provide baseless allegations regarding legality of certain product while hiding under a pseudonym then I’m afraid we live in different worlds. In world I live in baseless allegations can and do get prosecuted as defamation.


If you believe in that argument, please, by all means, approach to the police and report it, filing a demand prosecution. Post a link to a PDF copy.


QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 20:06) *
2. It is not me here who has a credibility issue, sorry pal, you got it all mixed-up.


Well, let the audience listen to your product read your posts, and make up their own minds. This far, you have tried the «I am older than you» argument, the «your argument is invalid because I don't know your name» argument, and then you are accusing us of being uncivilized barbarians who want to lynch you. I am not saying that your product sucks because of this – in fact, the product website does cite a few nice ideas I have wished for – but I cannot help but thinking that the advertising is written with the same pen that attempts to trick me using totally irrelevant arguments in this thread.


QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 20:06) *
It is those who claim or insinuate that product is ‘fake’!
So far, not a single piece of evidence was brought up!


Herein, you have to document any claim that the product makes better sound. The burden of proof is on you, just as much as the burden is on me if I claim that I have divine powers. Users here would not need to try to disprove me, but it might of course be that someone would disassemble my Godware and post some sarcasms ...



QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 20:06) *
If we are indeed frauds, you’re all smart people here so it should be really easy to establish that, right?
As in: ‘this product option claims it does this and that but look – it does not’.


What about:
- This product markets itself by use of someone else's logo, and the trademark holder has confirmed it is without his permission
- It claims to fit in CPU cache without mentioning that the OS provides for no way to keep it residing there
?


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Jan 22 2012, 23:31
Post #57





Group: Members
Posts: 1235
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 22:17) *
Kraut:
> please supply sources.

Sure - here’s what some Russian audio enthusiasts did:
http://soundex.ru/index.php?showtopic=3393...play&st=200


It's your product and you don't have anything to put forward other than one test on a Russian forum?

Surely the best thing you could possibly do to sell your product is actually back it up with proper testing and publish the results?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brand
post Jan 22 2012, 23:34
Post #58





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 27-November 09
Member No.: 75355



QUOTE (kraut @ Jan 22 2012, 23:12) *
QUOTE
Looking at the actual numbers it seems like it's all within the margin of error and the imperfections of DAD. Sometimes Foobar scored better at some test, sometimes JPLAY.


Meaning the measurements detect nothing but statistical noise?

No ABX listening test seems to be required after that result.

From my understanding of RMAA test, yes, it would seem so.

Here are the results for those who don't want to bother downloading the files.
Foobar (second run at 44.1 aka "[MME] 2496 WAV+in Foobar-2.htm"):
CODE
Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB    +0.02, -0.07    Excellent
Noise level, dB (A)    -100.3    Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A)    100.8    Excellent
THD, %    0.0007    Excellent
THD + Noise, dB (A)    -89.8    Good
IMD + Noise, %    0.0038    Excellent
Stereo crosstalk, dB    -99.6    Excellent
IMD at 10 kHz, %    0.0036    Excellent

JPLAY (second run at 44.1 aka "[MME] 2496 WAV+in JPLAY Foobar-2.htm"):
CODE
Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB    +0.02, -0.07    Excellent
Noise level, dB (A)    -100.3    Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A)    100.7    Excellent
THD, %    0.0007    Excellent
THD + Noise, dB (A)    -89.8    Good
IMD + Noise, %    0.0038    Excellent
Stereo crosstalk, dB    -99.5    Excellent
IMD at 10 kHz, %    0.0036    Excellent

(Sorry, I don't know how to align those columns for a better view.)
These are the two closest results. The biggest difference was in the first run, with a 1.1dB difference in Stereo crosstalk (-99.7 vs -96.8).

So yeah, I'm pretty sure none of these differences are audible. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kraut
post Jan 22 2012, 23:36
Post #59





Group: Members
Posts: 227
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85965



QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 15:17) *
Kraut:
> please supply sources.

Sure - here’s what some Russian audio enthusiasts did:
http://soundex.ru/index.php?showtopic=3393...play&st=200
Can you supply your sources wrt ‘axis of scam’ lol? (note: cable company anecdotes do not count…)

The source of the suspected scam ask for sources? I am slightly confused
QUOTE
That JPLAY scored "Very Good" instead of "Excellent" in the 44.1kHz test is just an unlucky coincidence, I think. Looking at the actual numbers it seems like it's all within the margin of error and the imperfections of DAD. Sometimes Foobar scored better at some test, sometimes JPLAY.


Those tests (I had a look at the measurements) seem to deflate your claims somewhat...to a large extend.


This post has been edited by kraut: Jan 22 2012, 23:41
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brand
post Jan 23 2012, 00:03
Post #60





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 27-November 09
Member No.: 75355



I now cut the A and B samples I posted before and aligned their start points more precisely.

Uploaded here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?8emcg4cspgq43ki

As you can see they cancel out pretty nicely when one track is phase inverted. The only signal I see in the VU meter is below -80dB, which is expected based on RMAA tests.

This post has been edited by Brand: Jan 23 2012, 00:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
josef
post Jan 23 2012, 00:08
Post #61





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 22-January 12
Member No.: 96623



Probedb: perhaps you missed this – I am no ‘corporation’ – I am a single guy who does this in his spare time – I don’t have equipment to measure if jitter is 2 or 5 picoseconds nor do I make any such claims, lol…

I am just a guy with some background in mission-critical systems software who figured perhaps some well-known (or less well known) software engineering methods of the trade used in e.g. handling of large-volume of real-time transactions were quick turnaround is of paramount importance could be applied to music playback software as digital is highly sensitive to timing too – that’s all, no more, no less, you can choose to try it for yourself and make up your own mind or you can decide not to try and instead bash me: whichever you do I could care less…

Porcus: yes, I like your recent approach of getting to the specific points…
I am getting tired of endless general tirade….
So, to answer your concerns: we removed all logos when Jim asked us to – looking back perhaps we should not have put them there but we believed it’s ok as two products complement each other and we are big supporters of jriver (several people have switched to jriver from foobar as result of our plugin and many more decided to upgrade to mc 17 thanks to NullOutput feature we recommend being used...) But hey, if they want logo off, who are we to argue? Consequenly we also removed Foobar & iTunes logos just to avoid any further claims of 'evil marketing' lol...

Yes, you are entirely correct there is absolutely no guarantee in OS to keep desired piece of code inside cache at all times (actually at any time) – well spotted! But nobody suggested otherwise: what we do in Hibernate mode (again, I’m afraid I am talking in vain as nobody actually tries the product but you’ll see it if you do) is that we effectively manage to keep code inside cache at all times as we eliminate hundreds of ‘not needed’ threads, remove all few remaining core OS threads from ‘playback core’ and run a dead loop that prevents OS from switching us ‘out’. Crude? You bet. But unfortunately is the only way we could achieve this and it is very, very effective….

This post has been edited by josef: Jan 23 2012, 00:14
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ouroboros
post Jan 23 2012, 00:17
Post #62





Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 30-May 08
From: UK
Member No.: 53927



QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 23:08) *
and it is very, very effective….
At doing what - keeping the code in the CPU cache? You may well be right, and I have no doubt it's very clever and well engineered, but that's not the question - the question is "is it very effective at making the music sound better?" You aren't being asked to justify how you achieved your design goal of keeping your code in the cache, you aren't even being asked to demonstrate a reduction in jitter when the bitstream is presented to the DAC by your software, you are being asked to demonstrate that you have achieved something audible in double-blind tests.

This post has been edited by Ouroboros: Jan 23 2012, 01:16
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mudlord
post Jan 23 2012, 00:38
Post #63





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 811
Joined: 1-December 07
Member No.: 49165



QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 10:06) *
Plugin is, in fact, using only documented API functions (as required and as is only possible – I don’t have Foobar source code nor do I need it) and it most certainly does not use 'window procedure hooks that modify user interface behaviors' which is specifically prohibited.
All it does, in fact, is simply catch documented & official ‘play’ event and issue ‘pause’ command – how does that ‘violate’ license??? Furthermore, the playback code itself is not even in the plugin but in a completely separate, isolated process that has absolutely nothing to do with Foobar at all…

I guess the root of your confusion is that Foobar API does not, in fact, provide any functions that allow for replacement of its playback engine? I.e. While multiple ‘output plugins’ are available (WASAPI, KS, Null etc) there isn’t actually an API which would allow developers to write their own ‘output plugin’ as that API is undocumented. And that is precisely why we don’t have such a plugin (although it would be more elegant) as using undocumented code would, indeed, breach sdk license….

You may very well ask why don’t we just use ‘dsp plugin’ mechanism ‘like everyone else’?

Indeed - it’s a valid question but I hope you can see why we can’t use that approach: simply because we claim that music played via jplay sounds better!


Oh of course! But I do think breaking seeking and visualizations is enough to cause violations of the license, since you use a completely seperate process to output audio, which violates FB2K's method of operation, since you are meant to ONLY use the interfaces offered. But then since you use pipes, I guess thats justifiable, right? Of course, for sound quality!

QUOTE
And that, in a nutshell, is why we can’t use ‘dsp plugin’ approach: because we do NOT, I repeat, do NOT, modify music bits in any way! In other words, if we had a dsp plugin that simply passes same bits back to Foobar then THAT would be a scam indeed!

But that’s not what we do and that’s why we HAVE TO stop Foobar playback…


And completely subvert input decoding for those formats EXCEPT on conversion. Because we can't trust FB2K's libflac based decoder, right?

Alas: I must agree with what the mods here said: its ABX test results or die here. Here its about science and objective data, not all claims about "musicality" which I heard before from my own products (which I then directed the end user to do ABX tests, as I do have some shred of honesty).

This post has been edited by mudlord: Jan 23 2012, 00:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kraut
post Jan 23 2012, 01:00
Post #64





Group: Members
Posts: 227
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85965



QUOTE
As you can see they cancel out pretty nicely when one track is phase inverted. The only signal I see in the VU meter is below -80dB, which is expected based on RMAA tests.



which for me settles the claim there are hypothetical audible differences.

For anybody else there is still open the audiophile contention that instruments cannot measure what the ear is capable of hearing. A claim that I find bogus considering my earlier life as a labtech and the instruments I used that definitely measured phenomena not perceivable by any human senses,
alpha, beta and gamma radiation as an example.

anyhow, lets not call it a scam (the fear of litigation strikes my heart) but a product whose claim are unsupported by evidence and therefore...what?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mudlord
post Jan 23 2012, 01:03
Post #65





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 811
Joined: 1-December 07
Member No.: 49165



QUOTE (kraut @ Jan 22 2012, 19:00) *
anyhow, lets not call it a scam (the fear of litigation strikes my heart) but a product whose claim are unsupported by evidence and therefore...what?


exactly. O.O
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kraut
post Jan 23 2012, 01:18
Post #66





Group: Members
Posts: 227
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85965



I took the graphical display of the measurements, and aligned them to the same heights on different tabs, so when clicking from one to the next tab any differences can be visualized immediately. And guess what..the only differences show up in the noise level below -100db, and all it did was move those "spikes", actually more "spikelets" to a slightly higher frequency. As to the rest...there is no there there.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
godrick
post Jan 23 2012, 01:33
Post #67





Group: Members
Posts: 307
Joined: 31-December 10
Member No.: 86948



The only impact of the posts today is that instead of a good attorney being needed to successfully press a "derivative works" IP complaint against jplay, I think a mediocre attorney could easily prevail in summary judgement on such a filing in North America or the EU. Josef the Genius has admitted:
- no change to the bitstream
- no capability to measure jitter
- no knowledge of blind ABX testing or having conducted any such testing to validate his claims
- no certainty that whatever you are doing can remain entirely in the "CPU cache"
- evoking his sales and existence of other companies making similar claims as validation of his claims

Combined with the claims on his website and the trademark/copyright violations already documented, this would be a relatively easy IP win from my experience. Josef, I hope you have deep pockets to defend any such complaint, since, as you've also admitted, the complaint can be made against you personally since you have not used a corporate entity to make, market and represent your product. You may find success in deceiving a few people that ABX testing is fringe or not accepted or unique to HA, but you and anyone you try to pass off as an expert witness would be quickly dismantled in depositions on the subject.

Keep posting, Josef - you tighten the noose around your own neck, legally speaking.

This post has been edited by godrick: Jan 23 2012, 01:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
josef
post Jan 23 2012, 01:33
Post #68





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 22-January 12
Member No.: 96623



Ouroboros: perhaps you think it’s so simple but forgive me for being pedantic: remember, first it was insinuated that we somehow ‘manipulate’ bitstream and therefore ‘trick’ people into hearing a difference – thankfully somebody here was not lazy and did a test which proved that insinuation had no merit…
Then we were asked to provide measurements that demonstrate there is a difference in output between different players playing identical bitstream – we did that too…
Then we got accused of making false/impossible claims i.e. code in cache etc: we answered those too…

All this time I keep asking anyone to provide one piece of evidence that software does not do what it specifies – nobody came forward with anything as it turns out that, satirically, pretty much nobody actually tried it… Please note I make no claims of SQ this or that way as that is not allowed here without ‘blind test’! I think that fetish is a silly rule but ok it’s your forum and I try to abide by rules. Therefore: The software has to do things it promises – that is the ONLY ‘claim ‘ I make! If you have any doubt about that please state it and I will personally demonstrate to you how to measure the effect of each program option! (see below for contact details)

Now, I do happen to believe (as do hundreds of others) that these ‘system & playback optimizations’ have a net positive effect on sq, yes – but no I did not ask all those hundreds of people to send me ABX logs, lol.

If you don’t understand how ridiculous that would look then I’m afraid I can’t help you. Having said that I fully support any initiative you want to come up with: Bug80 offered to do some ‘blind testing’ and I will support him in that – perhaps you want to join? But, again, that is not what this thread is about as it was not me who started it, and no, Sir, I don’t have to prove you anything – those making false personal accusations have to and they have failed, miserably… Remember, we live in democracy ‘innocent until proven guilty’ not the other way round as some here think it should be….

From now on I will only answer specific questions via mail (you can contact me at support@jplay.eu I promise to reply within 24 hours) or if Bug80 or anybody needs any help with their testing which I am looking forward to!
I simply have no time for this circus as my plate is chock full with ton of work that needs to be done this week (yes I do have a day job completely unrelated to this hobby of mine…)
Cheerio and thanks all for your time and passion even if it was a bit misguided at times but ok I guess you have to try everything at least once… (hint: do try it wink.gif…)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jan 23 2012, 01:48
Post #69





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (josef @ Jan 23 2012, 00:33) *
Ouroboros: perhaps you think it’s so simple but forgive me for being pedantic: remember, first it was insinuated that we somehow ‘manipulate’ bitstream and therefore ‘trick’ people into hearing a difference – thankfully somebody here was not lazy and did a test which proved that insinuation had no merit…
Do you mean that your program does not produce any difference beyond the random variation perfectly predicted by the non-deterministic nature of analogue sound output? Do you really think that can be turned round into evidence in your favour? wacko.gif

QUOTE
Then we were asked to provide measurements that demonstrate there is a difference in output between different players playing identical bitstream – we did that too…
What, a link to some forum of unknown and quite possibly completely unqualified Russian individuals, saying something most of us can neither understand natively nor be bothered viewing in cod-mode through Google Translate, and which might be nonsense anyway? And even if it weren’t, which is a big if: this one instance, which I think is with some other player (is it?), is supposed to verify that your player creates an audible improvement (since that’s what you claim, despite you dodging it earlier in favour of some nonspecific “difference”) all the time?

Really?

QUOTE
All this time I keep asking anyone to provide one piece of evidence that software does not do what it specifies – nobody came forward with anything as it turns out that, satirically, pretty much nobody actually tried it… Please note I make no claims of SQ this or that way as that is not allowed here without ‘blind test’! I think that fetish is a silly rule but ok it’s your forum and I try to abide by rules. Therefore: The software has to do things it promises – that is the ONLY ‘claim ‘ I make! If you have any doubt about that please state it and I will personally demonstrate to you how to measure the effect of each program option! (see below for contact details)
You are claiming a significant (i.e. non-stochastic, etc.) difference. That difference has been used, at least on your site—and by implication here—to argue that your player produces superior sound quality and is worth 99 EUR. Given this and things like the above and the rest of the thread, do you expect people not to demand evidence? That is, after all, the requirement of ToS8, which you claim to “try to abide by” but so far have ignored. And, as myself and another member have said, why exactly are you not jumping at the chance to further promote your own financial interests by providing such evidence?

QUOTE
If you don’t understand how ridiculous that would look then I’m afraid I can’t help you. Having said that I fully support any initiative you want to come up with: Bug80 offered to do some ‘blind testing’ and I will support him in that – perhaps you want to join?
Good on Bug80, but you were directed to ToS8 numerous times much earlier in the thread, and yet you did not pick up the lead to blind testing on those occasions.

QUOTE
But, again, that is not what this thread is about as it was not me who started it, and no, Sir, I don’t have to prove you anything – those making false personal accusations have to and they have failed, miserably… Remember, we live in democracy ‘innocent until proven guilty’ not the other way round as some here think it should be….
Oh, so you’re allowed to make pejorative insinuations about people, in this case implying some totalitarian tendency? For what it’s worth, I doubt that’s the case for any of us as individuals, and it’s not really applicable to the running of a forum anyway, but yes: Hydrogenaudio, like any other forum with registration and especially with a set of rules, is something in which membership and all it entails are privileges—subject to the conditions thereof—not rights.

QUOTE
From now on I will only answer specific questions via mail
Fine, see ya! lol

This post has been edited by db1989: Jan 23 2012, 01:51
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Jan 23 2012, 01:59
Post #70





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3361
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



Typical con-man behaviour: when confronted with categorical evidence that his product does not perform as claimed, he retreats to find clientele who are more easily duped.

This post has been edited by Canar: Jan 23 2012, 02:01
Reason for edit: Minor clarification.


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brand
post Jan 23 2012, 02:32
Post #71





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 27-November 09
Member No.: 75355



QUOTE (Brand @ Jan 22 2012, 23:34) *
The biggest difference was in the first run, with a 1.1dB difference in Stereo crosstalk (-99.7 vs -96.8).

Oops, should be -99.7 vs -98.6. But Foobar's first and Foobar's second test yielded a 1dB difference there as well, so yeah, analog noise variation, nothing to do with software. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but didn't want to leave that out.

QUOTE (josef @ Jan 23 2012, 01:33) *
first it was insinuated that we somehow ‘manipulate’ bitstream and therefore ‘trick’ people into hearing a difference – thankfully somebody here was not lazy and did a test which proved that insinuation had no merit…
Then we were asked to provide measurements that demonstrate there is a difference in output between different players playing identical bitstream – we did that too…

So... two opposing pieces of evidence and you don't have a problem with that? Interesting. smile.gif

This post has been edited by Brand: Jan 23 2012, 02:34
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MichaelW
post Jan 23 2012, 02:35
Post #72





Group: Members
Posts: 631
Joined: 15-March 07
Member No.: 41501



QUOTE (JJZolx @ Jan 23 2012, 10:42) *
QUOTE (MichaelW @ Jan 22 2012, 14:15) *
There is a perfectly simple method for establishing that claims of subjectively experienced sound quality improvement are repeatable and based on real differences in the stimulus: it's known as double-blind testing. Reputable vendors use it to test their products.


Can you name a few who state that they conduct such testing?



I was thinking especially of Harman, whose testing of speakers is described by Sean Olive. Some of the other serious speaker firms at least base their designs on the results of proper testing (I think especially of Canadian firms, but I'm sure there are others). For electronics, I guess there is no need--the measured specs required for good enough are well known.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Jan 23 2012, 03:32
Post #73





Group: Members
Posts: 2274
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



Harman is the most famous commercial of DBTs in their audio product research (and their research has been quite influential in the loudspeaker field). Dunlavy also used them. In the electronics realm, it's rarely acknowledged by manufacturers -- TAG Mclaren was one company who published blind comparison of their amps vs others. (They went out of business.)

Of course, LAME development relies heavily on ABX results.

And of course, DBTs are standard in academic research into human audio perception.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Jan 23 2012, 03:36
Post #74





Group: Members
Posts: 2274
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



Josef,

I went to the Russian site you linked to. I don't understand what I'm seeing there, and I can't read Russian so I hope you'll help me out.

I see two spectragrams that appear to show the same thing. Then two spectragrams below that that show different things.

What is this supposed to demonstrate? What exactly was being measured there? If I understand what you wrote, one or more of these is supposed to
show a different spectral output from two bit-identical sources.

This post has been edited by krabapple: Jan 23 2012, 03:37
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bug80
post Jan 23 2012, 07:25
Post #75





Group: Members
Posts: 403
Joined: 23-January 05
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 19254



It seems thar everyone missed the fact that jozef agreed to perform double-blind testing a couple of posts ago. So, how can we help him to set up a test?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

19 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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: 22nd September 2014 - 13:21