IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

19 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Jplay - just another scam? YES IT IS!
mudlord
post Jan 19 2012, 09:45
Post #26





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 818
Joined: 1-December 07
Member No.: 49165



All audio in FB2K is meant to be outputed to its output components.
This component outputs audio via the service. Thus, its broken. since "integration" is severed.

This post has been edited by mudlord: Jan 19 2012, 09:46
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JJZolx
post Jan 19 2012, 09:49
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 411
Joined: 26-November 04
Member No.: 18345



"Meant to be"? smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mudlord
post Jan 19 2012, 09:51
Post #28





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 818
Joined: 1-December 07
Member No.: 49165



Yes, all audio passes from the input decoder services to output/convertor/other process.

Hooking and bypassing said functionality breaks any notion of integration. And violates the FB2K SDK license.
I can't believe you are endorsing shoddy programming.

This post has been edited by mudlord: Jan 19 2012, 09:52
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JJZolx
post Jan 19 2012, 09:57
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 411
Joined: 26-November 04
Member No.: 18345



I'm not endorsing anything, but I don't see the "shoddy programming" angle. I would expect a plugin that claims to enhance sound quality to work exactly as it does. If it didn't bypass the audio sections of fb2k2(or iTunes or JRiver any other player that it integrates with) then it couldn't make that claim even if it wanted to.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mudlord
post Jan 19 2012, 09:59
Post #30





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 818
Joined: 1-December 07
Member No.: 49165



QUOTE (JJZolx @ Jan 19 2012, 02:57) *
I'm not endorsing anything, but I don't see the "shoddy programming" angle. I would expect a plugin that claims to enhance sound quality to work exactly as it does. If it didn't bypass the audio sections of fb2k2(or iTunes or JRiver any other player that it integrates with) then it couldn't make that claim even if it wanted to.


The burden of proof is now on you to prove why it has to take that approach. Plus, how does it "fit within CPU cache" if it relies on external programs to do the decoding?

This post has been edited by mudlord: Jan 19 2012, 10:00
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JJZolx
post Jan 19 2012, 10:12
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 411
Joined: 26-November 04
Member No.: 18345



There are a number of similar programs that exist for the Mac that work similarly with iTunes. Pure Music is just one of them.

QUOTE
* Pure Music handles all music playback
* iTunes acts as database, playlist organizer, etc. but doesn't play the music


jplay appears to work the same as these, except on the Windows platform with several of the popular Windows audio players. I haven't used Pure Music or jplay and I don't care to. I'm just saying that it's not a new concept.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mudlord
post Jan 19 2012, 10:27
Post #32





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 818
Joined: 1-December 07
Member No.: 49165



QUOTE (JJZolx @ Jan 19 2012, 02:57) *
I'm not endorsing anything, but I don't see the "shoddy programming" angle.


I do. If I was programming a scam like this, I would just randomly mess around with code to give the appearance of it doing something. Like running a bitcoin miner thread. Not go to the effort of making a external app that relies on IPC.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
godrick
post Jan 19 2012, 15:13
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 333
Joined: 31-December 10
Member No.: 86948



QUOTE (JJZolx @ Jan 19 2012, 11:12) *
There are a number of similar programs that exist for the Mac that work similarly with iTunes. Pure Music is just one of them.

QUOTE
* Pure Music handles all music playback
* iTunes acts as database, playlist organizer, etc. but doesn't play the music


jplay appears to work the same as these, except on the Windows platform with several of the popular Windows audio players. I haven't used Pure Music or jplay and I don't care to. I'm just saying that it's not a new concept.


Some or many people seem to think the prevalence of such claims enhances their validity. I don't.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JimH
post Jan 19 2012, 17:32
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 14-July 02
From: Minneapolis
Member No.: 2588



QUOTE (godrick @ Jan 18 2012, 20:41) *
Ooops! JimH, I did not mean to exclude you from what I (and no doubt many others) consider to be applications of the highest quiality that seem to be exploited by jplay. Glad to see you defending your IP. It appears the jplay splash page has been changed to remove logos, but replaced with text referencing Foobar2000 and JRiver, so both applications continue to be mocked and exploited.

Perhaps more substantially, there are several significant claims made on the jplay website claiming "integration" with Foobar2000 and JRiver and providing capabilities to overcome claimed deficiencies. To the extent use of any terms or claims are defined in any SDK or licensing terms (I'm not an attorney or software developer), I would find it very hard to believe that jplay would meet a reasonable standard for true integration given what it does and does not.

In thinking about trends, I think computer-based media mangement and playback will only increase, and I would expect others to also exploit the Foobar2000 and JRiver brands to make a fast buck in a manner that will hurt the Foobar2000 and JRiver brands. I hope both Foobar2000 and JRiver have or acquire the ability to claim meaningful control over components or plug-ins to your applications and retain the right to essentially ban crapware tie-ins. Again, I'm no attorney, but I've been involved in enough business disputes in the U.S. that involve IP that under certain conditions IP rights not defended can be lost, and I'd hate to see that happen to Foobar2000 or JRiver. From my experience, I'd look closely at leveraging the concept of "derivative works" in evaluating jplay and similar and your rights. I'm also aware of the risk that if those in your positions give too much attention to marginal operations like jplay you could inadvertently give crapware providers a boost, so a case-by-case decision process seems prudent.

In broad terms, I agree, and thanks for the kind words.

I'm concerned that jplay is claiming to "purify" an already pure bitstream. Either there is no change (but people hear one) or they are "enhancing" the sound (turning the volume up a little, for example).

I don't want to get in a public fight with them, but I'm not happy with the claims they are making. As someone here once said, if two players are playing to the same output, and neither is dropping the ball, the sound will be identical.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
josef
post Jan 22 2012, 17:06
Post #35





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



Hello everyone - I am the guy behind jplay, nice to meet you all!

This thread was recently brought to my attention: I see some passionate posts (always a good thing), some questions (great), some criticisms (unavoidable) and even some rather blatant accusations ('scam'? lol...)...

So perhaps you'd kindly allow me to address these one by one?
First let me address user 'mudlord':

Dear 'mudlord' (I'd rather address you by name but it's ok if you want to hide it) you keep claiming that jplay somehow 'violates' foobar sdk license. Now, I happen to have carefully studied sdk-license.txt before developing foobar plugin and, for the life of me, I just can't see what you are talking about...?

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!

Sure, you may say that is an ‘extraordinary’ claim and I can understand that it sounds ‘strange’ (to say the least, lol). If bits are untouched, that is, ‘bit-perfect’, just how in the world can they sound ‘better’ when played via software A as opposed to software B? Makes no sense, right?

In fact, I believe this forum specifically prohibits any discussion on sound quality so I hope you’ll understand why I will refrain from opening that topic? But I had to mention this claim as otherwise I would not be able to address your concerns:

Simply put, ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof’: Well, you see, if we claim that software can influence sound quality then the only way to support (or, indeed, refute!) such ‘extraordinary’ claim is to let people play some music and judge for themselves!

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! smile.gif

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

Does this make plugin a bit ‘unusual’? Not really: such plugins have existed _for years_ on Mac (e.g. PureMusic, Amarra) – the fact that jplay is the first (and so far the only one) such plugin for Windows is indeed something new – But it’s not a new concept by a loooong shot….

And does it ‘violate’ sdk license? No freaking way….

JimH:

Dear Jim, I see you don’t want to get into ‘public fight’ – good! Personally, I don’t want to get into private fight either….

So let me try to respectfully address what you wrote above: You mention that we claim to ‘purify an already pure bitstream’.
Jim, we made no such silly claim – can you provide a link please?
I guess you must have confused us for someone else….I assume it’s an honest mistake as indeed I have heard such silly claims myself…

You also suggest that we are somehow ‘enhancing’ the sound by turning up volume or whatever…
Jim, we do no such thing: as mentioned above the bits are ‘left alone’ because that’s how I like them, thank you very much.

I digress: latest version does allow user to change volume in a bit-perfect way if hardware allows which is, btw, one of unique jplay features that you may be interested in adding to JRiver too….

So, please: suggesting that we are somehow ‘tricking’ data to fool the user when such ‘trickery’ can be easily tested is a bit, well, naïve?… Several devices allow for comparison of in & out bits: I’d expect you’d tested this before extending such not exactly flattering claims…
But ok, I guess you’re busy (aren’t we all) and were just exploring potential answers - hopefully now you got some? If not, I’ll be happy to elaborate…

Look, no wonder you (and others) are sceptical – Let me assure you, I was _extremely_ sceptical of this myself! I happen to have several decades of software development experience too (yes, I’m that old, lol): to me ‘bits are bits’ was as much a tautology before jplay (actually before XXHighEnd, to give credit where credit’s due) as it is to you now so I do know where you’re coming from and I sympathize…

All I say is listen for yourself: I trust you are intelligent enough to form your own opinion: I have no wish to convince you of anything – In fact, I don’t care if you don’t use it or don’t like it or don’t hear the difference at all – I even wouldn’t care if nobody bought it and I’d have to close website tomorrow: it’s not my day job, it’s just a passion…

So, what do you say: Are things a bit clearer now and can we have a civilized discussion and exchange arguments pro et contra in a respectful manner?
Or is it too late and lynching mentality has completely taken over this forum?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jan 22 2012, 17:21
Post #36





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



QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 16:06) *
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!
You can provide objective evidence for this claim in accordance with #8 of our Terms of Service, or you can stop talking what otherwise appears to be complete nonsense.

QUOTE
Sure, you may say that is an ‘extraordinary’ claim and I can understand that it sounds ‘strange’ (to say the least, lol). If bits are untouched, that is, ‘bit-perfect’, just how in the world can they sound ‘better’ when played via software A as opposed to software B? Makes no sense, right?
Precisely.

QUOTE
In fact, I believe this forum specifically prohibits any discussion on sound quality so I hope you’ll understand why I will refrain from opening that topic?
It does no such thing. It prohibits claims about sound quality that are not backed up by evidence. Yours is such a claim, and therefore unwelcome. I suppose it makes even less sense than some of the others we get, so congratulations.

QUOTE
But I had to mention this claim as otherwise I would not be able to address your concerns:

Simply put, ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof’: Well, you see, if we claim that software can influence sound quality then the only way to support (or, indeed, refute!) such ‘extraordinary’ claim is to let people play some music and judge for themselves!
Fine. I await the test results. Hey, why don’t you proffer them? I mean, ABXing is easy, and you clearly have a financial interest in proving your claims, right?

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! smile.gif
Yes, indeed. Passing the same bits merely by another method. in contrast, is definitely worth 99 EUR.

QUOTE
And does it ‘violate’ sdk license? No freaking way….
I think that should be left to the developers of said SDK to decide.

What else?

QUOTE
Jim, we do no such thing: as mentioned above the bits are ‘left alone’ because that’s how I like them, thank you very much.
So what does your product do to improve quality?

QUOTE
Look, no wonder you (and others) are sceptical – Let me assure you, I was _extremely_ sceptical of this myself! I happen to have several decades of software development experience too (yes, I’m that old, lol): to me ‘bits are bits’ was as much a tautology before jplay (actually before XXHighEnd, to give credit where credit’s due) as it is to you now so I do know where you’re coming from and I sympathize…
Yeah, one day we’ll see the light.

QUOTE
All I say is listen for yourself: I trust you are intelligent enough to form your own opinion: I have no wish to convince you of anything – In fact, I don’t care if you don’t use it or don’t like it or don’t hear the difference at all – I even wouldn’t care if nobody bought it and I’d have to close website tomorrow: it’s not my day job, it’s just a passion…
Users are free to listen for themselves, perhaps double-blind if they’re concerned about falling victim to the placebo effect. I wonder what they’d conclude?

Until you can back up any of your hot air with ToS8-compliant evidence, there’s little to no potential for discussion here.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jan 22 2012, 18:47
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 1959
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 17:06) *
we claim that music played via jplay sounds better!
[...]
In fact, I believe this forum specifically prohibits any discussion on sound quality so I hope you’ll understand why I will refrain from opening that topic?


To supplement db1989 (whom I trust to correct me if necessary):
- Claims of the type 'sounds better than' are welcome provided supported by documentation. Wisely enough, the terms of service do also specify what constitutes documentation.
- Claims of the type 'measures different than' are not ruled out, as long as you do not present it as to be audible by anyone. For example, a claim that «dither algorithm X which claims to be the same as dither algorithm Y, is indeed not – it produces a different output» is not a statement of the 'sounds different than' kind, and TOS#8 does therefore not apply.
- Of course – and it seems to be necessary to reiterate this logic – a statement of the kind 'sounds better than because it measures better than' does inter alia include a 'sounds different than' statement.


QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 17:06) *
But I had to mention this claim


I guess the moderators will allow you – in a thread like this – to confirm that your company does actually make such a marketing claim. You will observe that other participants frequently cite such claims in a way that it is perfectly clear that they do not make the claim, they merely cite it for the purpose of a discussion. Such discussions usually conclude that the claim referred to is certainly (I) unsubstantiated, and possibly (II) totally unreasonable, and maybe (III) a fraud or (IV) a hoax or (V) gullibility or (VI) an(other) unfortunate instance of placebo. And one might of course discuss which of cases (III) through (VI) is more likely.



QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 17:06) *
So, what do you say: Are things a bit clearer now and can we have a civilized discussion and exchange arguments pro et contra in a respectful manner?
Or is it too late and lynching mentality has completely taken over this forum?

QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 17:06) *
(I'd rather address you by name but it's ok if you want to hide it)


While I did appreciate the ancient internet times when signing with name rather than nick was more common, it seems to me to be a very cheap rhetorical move to attack a single participant on the grounds of him/her presenting him/herself just in the standard way – and then afterwards reach for the holier-than-thou. With all due civilized respect, josef, you do have a certain credibility restoration issue to take care of.

This post has been edited by Porcus: Jan 22 2012, 19:03


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
josef
post Jan 22 2012, 20:06
Post #38





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



Db1989 – Why such aggressive, condescending and mocking tone?
Do you honestly believe that it contributes to discussion? If 1989 is year of your birth I could be a father to you, for Christ’s sakes… Please calm down and show some manners…

Now, your post is really confusing but lemme try to address your points (at least those I could figure out):
> I await the test results. Hey, why don’t you proffer them? I mean, ABXing is easy, and you clearly have a financial interest in proving your claims, right?

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’?
Or are you suggesting that hundreds of people from all over the world are all foolish idiots?
If so, would you be so kind to ‘proffer’ that?

> Passing the same bits merely by another method. in contrast, is definitely worth 99 EUR.

Come on - That is really uncalled for…
I see now you never even tried it yet for some reason you bash it so passionately – go figure...
Because if you did you would see that there are quite a few options that affect what is going on in pc during playback.
If you are suggesting that those options are some sort of ‘fake cover’ please provide evidence or stop embarrassing yourself with such ill-advised mockery.

> I think that should be left to the developers of said SDK to decide.

Wrong.
SDK license is a written document supplied with SDK – You can’t ‘decide’ what you want! You need to abide by what is written!
BTW Have you actually read it?

>So what does your product do to improve quality?

Finally a clear question and not an insinuation or insult – perhaps there is hope here after all…
Anyway, glad you asked! Product does exactly what is written on website and what is also explained when you click on each option: Please try and let me know if this is untrue in your opinion.

>Users are free to listen for themselves, perhaps double-blind if they’re concerned about falling victim to the placebo effect. I wonder what they’d conclude?

That is all I’m saying: listen and make up your own mind.
I quoted you 'test results' and I will also tell you that apart from free fully functional trial we also provide full refund warranty.
If you are curious, so far our refund rate is 0,2%.

Porcus:

Sorry ‘Porcus’ but I have to disagree with you on two major points:

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.

2. It is not me here who has a credibility issue, sorry pal, you got it all mixed-up.
It is those who claim or insinuate that product is ‘fake’!
So far, not a single piece of evidence was brought up!
Why?
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’.

I see you too haven’t even tried it – I encourage you just like db1989 to do and report back what _exactly_ does not perform as specified. (as mentioned, all options explain what they do and if you have any questions I’d be glad to help)

And please do keep out all that TOS stuff: This post is NOT about sound quality!
Let me repeat – it is NOT about sound quality!
It does NOT matter what you or I or anyone else thinks whether it is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ or ‘different’ or ‘same’ or whatever! Let’s keep that out shall we?

The ONLY thing that matters here are false accusations/insinuations being made that product is a ‘fake’ i.e. that it does not do what it says!

I’ll be awaiting your findings with great interest!

This post has been edited by josef: Jan 22 2012, 20:24
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jan 22 2012, 20:28
Post #39





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



QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 19:06) *
Db1989 – Why such aggressive, condescending and mocking tone?
It’s kinda one of my things. Tee-hee!

In seriousness, though, it’s a bad habit and not one I cultivate deliberately; but I might be forgiven somewhat for having little patience for discussions like this, given how often they arise on HA and how few real answers to questions are usually forthcoming from the claimants.

QUOTE
Do you honestly believe that it contributes to discussion?
I believe that outlandish claims should be challenged. How I do it is another matter, and you might want to stop using the latter as a means to dance around the former.

QUOTE
If 1989 is year of your birth I could be your father, for Christ’s sakes…
This is irrelevant.

QUOTE
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’?
Why the ironic quotation marks? It’s a real word.

QUOTE
Or are you suggesting that hundreds of people from all over the world are all foolish idiots?
I think the number of idiots in the world is far greater*, although admittedly perhaps only a fraction of them have bought JPLAY. Which is not to say that everyone who has is an idiot: perhaps they were just not aware of the large amount of doubt surrounding claims such as its own. *(I may well be amongst that number, for all I know, but at least I’m open to the possibility unlike the majority!)

QUOTE
> Passing the same bits merely by another method. in contrast, is definitely worth 99 EUR.

Come on - That is really uncalled for…
I see now you never even tried it yet for some reason you bash it so passionately – go figure...
Because if you did you would see that there are quite a few options that affect what is going on in pc during playback.
I don’t need to try it. You said yourself that your program doesn’t change the bitstream at all, and I don’t believe that the processes that you circumvent can (except in abnormal circumstances) either.

QUOTE
If you are suggesting that those options are some sort of ‘fake cover’ please provide evidence or stop embarrassing yourself with such ill-advised mockery.
Well, you’re putting words in my mouth here, but I won’t comment on the degree to which I agree with them. Asking me for evidence whilst offering none yourself, the claim that I’m embarrassing myself has a certain irony to it.

QUOTE
> I think that should be left to the developers of said SDK to decide.

Wrong.
SDK license is a written document supplied with SDK – You can’t ‘decide’ what you want! You need to abide by what is written!
BTW Have you actually read it?
I’ve read what users with actual connections to foobar2000 (unlike my superficial one) have to say, and my guess is that they have a better idea than a third party such as yourself. They can comment on your view of the situation.

QUOTE
>Users are free to listen for themselves, perhaps double-blind if they’re concerned about falling victim to the placebo effect. I wonder what they’d conclude?

That is all I’m saying: listen and make up your own mind.
[. . .]
I’ll be awaiting your findings with great interest!
I explained above why I have no desire to. Those with more energy than me can try this if they want to. I’ll be awaiting their findings and your reaction.

Besides, the burden of proof is with the claimant. Why are you so unwilling to provide evidence, except for admonitions to read statements on your website that also lack evidence and read like textbook examples of placebo and/or snake-oil marketing? I don’t care how many people like it. If you and they don’t have evidence for its supposed superiority, it does not belong here. And that isn’t me being nasty: that’s our rules.

This post has been edited by db1989: Jan 22 2012, 20:42
Reason for edit: additions after first and fifth quotations
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
josef
post Jan 22 2012, 21:02
Post #40





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



ok - i see you really don't want to try it yourself at all yet demand 'evidence'...
btw - what are you afraid of? that you may actually notice a positive difference?

sorry couldn't resist - never mind that:
but now please help me i am really curious (and i really am not trying to be condescending) - can you elaborate what specifically do you mean by 'evidence' and how do you envision it presented to you?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kraut
post Jan 22 2012, 21:22
Post #41





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



QUOTE
Or are you suggesting that hundreds of people from all over the world are all foolish idiots?


Only someone who has not followed the cable, capacitor, pennies on top of speakers, green edged cds and other idiot tweaks in discussions in hi end audio can pose such a question.
We are not only talking hundreds, we are talking tens of thousands of idiots who could hear - unfortunately never in a blinded test - audible differences of all kind of tweaks.

As 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 you to show in tests whose methodology is above suspicion and whose results are verifiable that there is an audible difference.
If you cannot do that you are nothing but the proverbial vacuum cleaner salesman who with sordid tricks convinces the housewives of the superiority of his product.
I do not see any probability that your product does what it claims it can do, there is no measurement that demonstrates a difference in bit transmission or a difference in the d/a conversion, your claims are even weaker than the claims by cable manufacturers, who at least have some data regarding the differences in ohms/ft and capacitance to show the probability that audibility might be possible.

After your responses all I can say that you have me not convinced of the non existence of a polish/dutch scam axis.

QUOTE
ok - i see you really don't want to try it yourself at all yet demand 'evidence'...


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 post has been edited by kraut: Jan 22 2012, 21:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tpijag
post Jan 22 2012, 21:50
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 2353
Joined: 19-May 08
Member No.: 53637



QUOTE
but now please help me i am really curious (and i really am not trying to be condescending) - can you elaborate what specifically do you mean by 'evidence' and how do you envision it presented to you?

Why do you even have to ask this? Read the bloody T of S and be done with it. Standard protocols. Double blind test whose methodology allows review and supports reliable, valid replication.

QUOTE
sorry couldn't resist - never mind that

While we take a moment to let Therapists worldwide cringe at that statement, why not just say what you mean and let is stand on it's own without the backstep. It's rhetorical cuteness does not mask it's passive aggressive root.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bug80
post Jan 22 2012, 21:57
Post #43





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



Josef, you seem like a decent person. I am sure that you will agree with me that "thousands of people bought this" is not a proof that something works.

These people might HEAR a difference. In fact, I am pretty sure they do, otherwise they would not buy it. But this does not proof that there IS a difference. This is also a widely known fact in the science of audio. It is called the placebo effect. And it is a strong effect!

So the question is: are you willing to take the challenge to *really* test your product using scientific methods?

[edit]
By the way, the fact that people suffer from placebo does not make them idiots. I fooled myself many times. That is why I do blind tests when I want to be sure.
[/edit]

This post has been edited by bug80: Jan 22 2012, 22:00
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kraut
post Jan 22 2012, 22:09
Post #44





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



QUOTE
By the way, the fact that people suffer from placebo does not make them idiots


No, what does make them idiots is in persisting that it is not a placebo effect despite the evidence.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MichaelW
post Jan 22 2012, 22:15
Post #45





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



@josef

I'm not sure if you're a troll, or who you say you are. Hiding behind a nick makes it hard to tell.

On the assumption you are the developer, you really are wasting your time here. Everyone here knows about testimonials from satisfied users, often found in fuel-saver adverts. 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.

If, on the other hand, you are really the developer, but one of the snake oil merchants who thinks it's fun to troll HA, well, you must have an impoverished life.

Oh, and I'm probably old enough to be your father, if it makes a difference.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
josef
post Jan 22 2012, 22:35
Post #46





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



Kraut: Sorry but you seem to be missing the point: it is one thing to bash the product – if you don’t like it for whatever reason (it ‘doesn’t work’, it’s ‘wrong color/taste’, ‘it’s just not your day and you hate whole world’..) that’s your right – nobody stops you from criticizing!

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’…

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

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’?

Do these really sound so illogical to you?

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?

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

Would that qualify or is methodology not ‘above suspicion’?

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'...)

But if you dare call me a cheat please put forward some evidence of your own or retract the claim…
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JJZolx
post Jan 22 2012, 22:42
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 411
Joined: 26-November 04
Member No.: 18345



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'm just curious, because I have a difficult time believing that many audio hardware or software companies conduct any sort of blind testing or ABXing of their products. Outside of HA, I don't think I've ever seen it discussed or even hinted at in the context of commercial product development.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tpijag
post Jan 22 2012, 22:44
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 2353
Joined: 19-May 08
Member No.: 53637



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?

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

QUOTE
What would you say

Would you please consider dropping hypothetical expressions ? Say it or not.

This post has been edited by tpijag: Jan 22 2012, 22:45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
josef
post Jan 22 2012, 22:44
Post #49





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



Michaelw: I assure you I am not a troll am indeed the developer – again I respond here not because I care whether somebody likes or not the product – I don’t give a damn, I made the product for my own selfish enjoyment of music and I really don’t have time for this childish bs….

I am here precisely because I am a person of flesh & blood and we creatures don’t take lightly when some ‘virtual nicknames’ think that they can just go around calling people liars without any consequences…
If indeed you are even older than me I’m sure you understand what I mean…

Bug80: yes, of course, sounds interesting – what kind of scientific method do you have in mind?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bug80
post Jan 22 2012, 22:51
Post #50





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



QUOTE (josef @ Jan 22 2012, 22:44) *
Bug80: yes, of course, sounds interesting – what kind of scientific method do you have in mind?

Double-blind ABX testing.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

19 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th November 2014 - 22:54