JPLAY Responds: An Open Letter

[Julf]

Here's a bit of psychological insight for you - you deflect as a tactic to avoid answering questions directed at you.

Pot. Kettle. A rather darkish colour.

Now say why my view of my customers motivation for being reticent about Jplay is wrong? Every unbiased reader will know exactly the thought process involved when they have spent money on a product & then are given a suggestion that buying some playback software for an extra €100 will benefit the sound. Yes they will try it if it is free to trial but are already predisposed to NOT spending the extra money UNLESS the playback software actually delivers the goods.

One simple answer - perhaps your customers are somewhat typical audiophiles who have a nagging feeling (or obsession) that their system could possibly be even better, and who get gratification from improving their system (despite the fact that their systems already are way beyond what they themselves can hear). In that situation, if somebody they see as an authority and expert comes along and tells them that for a mere €100 their system can sound even better, don't you think that they are tempted to a) agree with the assessment that it does indeed improve the sound, and b) spend that €100 that is a small fraction of their total system cost.

 

[Groucho]

Now say why my view of my customers motivation for being reticent about Jplay is wrong? Every unbiased reader will know exactly the thought process involved when they have spent money on a product & then are given a suggestion that buying some playback software for an extra €100 will benefit the sound. Yes they will try it if it is free to trial but are already predisposed to NOT spending the extra money UNLESS the playback software actually delivers the goods.

I think there's a simpler explanation: we are conditioned to expect a result for every action we perform, and are programmed to not waste time on effort that achieves no results. So when we are persuaded to try a piece of free or cheap software, even though it is cheap we have to go to some effort to install it and run it. Circularly, our mind tells us that there must therefore be an effect, which is what we perceive. Changing cables is another example, as is fitting 'Bybees' whatever they are.

 

[Julf]

I think there's a simpler explanation: we are conditioned to expect a result for every action we perform, and are programmed to not waste time on effort that achieves no results. So when we are persuaded to try a piece of free or cheap software, even though it is cheap we have to go to some effort to install it and run it. Circularly, our mind tells us that there must therefore be an effect, which is what we perceive. Changing cables is another example, as is fitting 'Bybees' whatever they are.

Indeed. I assume it is a case of the original placebo effect. If somebody recommends you a medicine, and you try it, you will probably think that it works. I guess by jkeny's logic, you wouldn't, because you would be predisposed against spending money on medicines?

 

[1rsw]

Strange that JPlay has become so polarizing. I can think of no other product in high end audio that has undergone such scrutiny and probably more important has had such intense demands for "proof". Funny too that that product is pretty much pocket change compared to most. In the bigger picture, I also don't get guys that have this driving need for proof/measurements as it pertains to high end audio. As a means to design a proper high end system....it simply does not work. No matter how wise you think you are, you just are not going to have all the whys and hows for getting to that audio place most of us are trying to journey to. That is another subject I suppose but it does seem to touch on what is happening here.

BUT...the main reason I felt compelled to comment is my experience last night and how I am left feeling about it. I bought JPlay last year and go back and forth about using it. The reason I bought it is simple...it sounds better. Same reason I bought most of my gear and why I believe any audiophile should be driven to add something to their kit. If you're reasons veer too far from that premise, something else is obviously at play. Anyway, the reason I've gone back and forth about using it is it can be quirky. Most of those have been ironed out, it's gotten miles better. Still a slight lag but it's real slight now. Since I have recently gotten most of my system settled where I like it I decided to plug JPlay back in last night. Well, as soon as I reboot I get this popup from JRiver about how it's a hoax etc, I'm sure y'all have seen it. Oh my. I'm 51 years old, been around a lot of business's both big and small. This is by far the most childish, irresponsible,, unprofessional and manipulative play I have come across. I could go on and on about why and it's certainly consistent with how I've seen JRiver represent themselves on the web. Honestly I could care less what those guys think about JPlay, I've been around audio long enough to know what sounds better and what doesn't. Thing is, even if JRiver felt JPlay wasn't offering better sound they have no business sending the message in that manner. Leaves me with a real bad taste, real bad. Hopefully they care how this customer feels. Real bad form, guys. About as bad as it gets and I am biting my tongue out of respect for WBF.

I have no "side" in the matter. I have my opinions (mainly that JRiver just simply does not have the knowledge base to understand why/how JPlay sounds better but actually thinks they have all the answers so believes it can't be .... and is having a very long temper tantrum as a result. Pretty obvious, actually.) on the matter but in the end don't feel at all motivated to jump in and support one or the other. I just don't care enough beyond what drives me in this hobby....that is does my system sound the way I think it should or how can I make it sound better.

 

[jkeny]

Strange that JPlay has become so polarizing. I can think of no other product in high end audio that has undergone such scrutiny and probably more important has had such intense demands for "proof". Funny too that that product is pretty much pocket change compared to most. In the bigger picture, I also don't get guys that have this driving need for proof/measurements as it pertains to high end audio. As a means to design a proper high end system....it simply does not work. No matter how wise you think you are, you just are not going to have all the whys and hows for getting to that audio place most of us are trying to journey to. That is another subject I suppose but it does seem to touch on what is happening here.

BUT...the main reason I felt compelled to comment is my experience last night and how I am left feeling about it. I bought JPlay last year and go back and forth about using it. The reason I bought it is simple...it sounds better. Same reason I bought most of my gear and why I believe any audiophile should be driven to add something to their kit. If you're reasons veer too far from that premise, something else is obviously at play. Anyway, the reason I've gone back and forth about using it is it can be quirky. Most of those have been ironed out, it's gotten miles better. Still a slight lag but it's real slight now. Since I have recently gotten most of my system settled where I like it I decided to plug JPlay back in last night. Well, as soon as I reboot I get this popup from JRiver about how it's a hoax etc, I'm sure y'all have seen it. Oh my. I'm 51 years old, been around a lot of business's both big and small. This is by far the most childish, irresponsible,, unprofessional and manipulative play I have come across. I could go on and on about why and it's certainly consistent with how I've seen JRiver represent themselves on the web. Honestly I could care less what those guys think about JPlay, I've been around audio long enough to know what sounds better and what doesn't. Thing is, even if JRiver felt JPlay wasn't offering better sound they have no business sending the message in that manner. Leaves me with a real bad taste, real bad. Hopefully they care how this customer feels. Real bad form, guys. About as bad as it gets and I am biting my tongue out of respect for WBF.

I have no "side" in the matter. I have my opinions (mainly that JRiver just simply does not have the knowledge base to understand why/how JPlay sounds better but actually thinks they have all the answers so believes it can't be .... and is having a very long temper tantrum as a result. Pretty obvious, actually.) on the matter but in the end don't feel at all motivated to jump in and support one or the other. I just don't care enough beyond what drives me in this hobby....that is does my system sound the way I think it should or how can I make it sound better.

Yep, well stated & that is my opinion all along.
Seems like a good place to leave this thread!!

 

[Julf]

Strange that JPlay has become so polarizing.

Not so strange. I can think of no other product in high end audio that has had such strong advocacy (by a small handful of people) in so many forums despite the total lack of either objective, independent support for their claims, or any sort of rational explanation for the effects claimed.

In the bigger picture, I also don't get guys that have this driving need for proof/measurements as it pertains to high end audio. As a means to design a proper high end system....it simply does not work.

Audio equipment is, in general, designed by engineers, applying well-known engineering principles built on evidence-based applied science. Are you saying that high end audio isn't, but is instead based on random fiddling around until something sounds "right"? Maybe involving the entrails of chicken?

No matter how wise you think you are, you just are not going to have all the whys and hows for getting to that audio place most of us are trying to journey to.

So what you are saying is that high end designers don't actually know what they are doing?

The reason I bought it is simple...it sounds better.

... to you. Nothing wrong with that, and good for you, but it doesn't make it "better" in an absolute sense. It makes it better to your ears, taste and perception.

Thing is, even if JRiver felt JPlay wasn't offering better sound they have no business sending the message in that manner.

Well, maybe JRiver feels the unproven claims JPlay keeps making are at least as offending?

 

[1rsw]

Huh what?! Not sure I get your motivation for manipulating my post, perhaps I was not able to articulate well enough? Either way, I'd prefer folks take my words at face value, not this posters "interpretation"....

 

[Julf]

Huh what?! Not sure I get your motivation for manipulating my post

Manipulating? How is quoting passages in order to respond to them "manipulation"?

perhaps I was not able to articulate well enough?

Perhaps. Or perhaps I am misreading what you are trying to say.

Either way, I'd prefer folks take my words at face value, not this posters "interpretation"....

Feel free to correct any misinterpretations - I have quoted your words literally in each instance, to show what I was responding to.

 

[1rsw]

Don't have the energy to try and rephrase it all, sorry if I was not clear. Some folks will grasp it, some won't.

An example of manipulation:

I said: No matter how wise you think you are, you just are not going to have all the whys and hows for getting to that audio place most of us are trying to journey to.
You felt compelled to post this: So what you are saying is that high end designers don't actually know what they are doing?

Anyway, I don't care much if JRiver was offended by unproven claims (unproven claims??!! Seriously?! In high end audio??!....pretty much 99% of it....) or not. I did not buy their product to experience popups of their opinion, If they care to guide me to better sound there certainly seems more appropriate means. There are many amp designers who disagree on philosophy, claims, architecture etc. There are many high end designers that do not spell out engineering and in fact go to great lengths to hide it in some cases. You don't see this kind of stuff occurring with them.

 

[Julf]

An example of manipulation:

I said: No matter how wise you think you are, you just are not going to have all the whys and hows for getting to that audio place most of us are trying to journey to.
You felt compelled to post this: So what you are saying is that high end designers don't actually know what they are doing?

Notice the question mark? That makes it a question.

 

[Don Hills]

Don, the difference is so obvious, these details do not matter. It is not at all a matter of interpretation. Only a blind person would not see the difference.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't care who you are, that's some funny stuff right there.

Tim

 

[rdsu]

Maybe this could be the explanation about small buffers!?

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/12/126193.html

Hi JE,
the issue is not about day to day consistancy, but about "how can different programms that all send the same bits to the DAC sound different?" Is this what you are really after?

The insight is to note that in my previous post I was talking about things that affect the sound that are NOT changes to the bits, but things like ground plane noise. I was trying to show that what is happening inside the computer (processor, memory acceses etc) can change the ground plane noise. Not just the amplitude but also the spectrum of the noise. I'll give some specific examples later.

Not all programs that read files and send bits to a DAC do it exactly the same way. Some may have several buffers the data goes throuigh on it's path, some may only have one or two. Some may be built using a "layered" hierachical approach with different software "modules" that call each other, where others may be fairly "flat" with just one routine that does all the processing.

The exact sequence of instructions and memory accesses is guaranteed to be different between the programs. Since it is these instructions and memory accesses that cause the ground plane noise, I hope you can see that differences in how a task is done can produce different noise.

And BTW this CAN be measured. I've built a little ground noise analyzer that can easily see the difference in the noise from different programs doing supposedly the same thing.

Now for a concrete example. Let's take a simple program that is just coppying audio data from a file to a buffer and then to an simple output port. It has two threads, one reading the file and putting the data in the buffer, and one taking data out of the buffer and putting it on the out port using an external clock to time the opperation. The first thread waits until the buffer is empty then fills it up and goes back to sleep. (in reality there would be two buffers used in a ping pong arrangement, but that is irrelevant to the issue at hand).

So lets take this program and make two copies, one which has a small buffer and one which has a large buffer. The total amount of processing is exactly the same, the code is exactly the same, but is the ground plane noise the same? NO!

In the case of the small buffer the first thread spends a fairly short period of time waiting since the buffer empties out quickly. It spends a small amount of work often. With the large buffer each time it wakes up it has to handle a lot more data, but it waits a much longer time between sessions.

So why does this matter? If you look at the "work performed by the thread" over time the large buffer version shows a very "bursty" activity, but the small buffer shows a much more uniform activity. If you look at this in the frequency domain the small buffer version is dominated by relatively low intensity at high frequencies, mostly above the human hearing range. But when you look at the large buffer version you see higher intensity at much lower frequencies that are right smack dab in the middle of the human hearing range. This latter noise is going to have a much bigger affect on audibility.

And note this was exactly the same code, just different buffer sizes. Think what can happen when you are comparing different programs that use very different program architectures.

As an analogy, think about getting a group of people from point A to point B, either using a two seater sports car or a 30 person bus. The sports car has to go much faster and more often, the bus can only take a few trips and lumber along. But the result is the same. All the people get from poingt A to point B in the same total amount of time. But if you stand at the side of the road and have to put up with the noise, is it the same?

I hope that makes sense.

John S.

Full topic: Computer Audio Asylum Music Software

 

[jkeny]

Yes, some good posts in that thread & if you read closely you will see this statement in John Swenson's post And BTW this CAN be measured. I've built a little ground noise analyzer that can easily see the difference in the noise from different programs doing supposedly the same thing. Yes, I know, I would like to see these measurements also but I've no reason to doubt him - he is a well recognised audio engineer.

Another side to this is to read this thread which will bring you through the development of an open source audio playback engine & what changes have audible effects on the sound http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=119543

 

[rdsu]

Another side to this is to read this thread which will bring you through the development of an open source audio playback engine & what changes have audible effects on the sound http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=119543

Thanks, I will try it...

 

[amirm]

Maybe this could be the explanation about small buffers!?

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/12/126193.html


Full topic: Computer Audio Asylum Music Software

Thanks. I read through the thread. His theory is fine. But every theory needs to be put to test and JS doesn't seem to know that a test has invalidated his theory. That is, he thought the null tests were done in digital domain. They were not. As was explained close to the end of the thread, the null tests were done at the output of the DAC. He did not respond once that point was made. In this thread, that is the data we started with. It is in that light that we remain skeptical. That you can make differences in PC is a given. What is not is that it makes its way through a DAC in a high fidelity system (i.e. DAC with proper isolation and reclocking).

Upstream measurements such as what he suggests are not useful. If we made such measurements, we would be horrified how bad the PC is in that regard outside of whatever these players are doing. What makes the system performant is an architecture where by the time the analog signal comes out of the DAC, those factors have been filtered out. We can't ignore that filtering in one instance and then accept it as a given in all other cases. Any counter argument needs to show what happens at the output of the DAC. That is what we hear. We don't hear the PC ground, USB data, etc. It is possible for those factors to impact the analog output of the DAC. That is the impact we need to demonstrate. Not the fact that they exist up stream.

 

[jkeny]

Amir,
Can you specify what you consider "proper isolation" in a DAC & maybe give some examples?

Edit: I see Barrows posted at the same time as me with the answer!! But he then goes on to say "What I do not accept though, is the idea that somehow SW players are making the data sound different, while it remains bit perfect..." I don't understand the logic here? If different SW players can give rise to different spectra of noise then how can they NOT make the sound different?

 

[barrows]

Amir: Mostly agreed... But. I have found better sound, anecdotally, when the playback computer (server) is designed specifically to introduce less noise-through both software and hardware choices, regardless of the "isolation" inherent in the interface between computer and DAC.
So far, the methods of "isolating" the DAC where it matters (at the DAC ground plane for example) if used at all, are imperfect. That is, the isolating devices (be they ADUM chips, opto couplers, etc...) all have some degree to which they allow some level of noise to pass. The same can be said for power supply decoupling on the PCB at the DAC chip, and the analog output stage as well. These are all pathways for possible noise intrusion. No "isolation" scheme is 100 percent effective, so even with well engineered USB DACs, server noise levels, in my experience, do still appear to matter.
Secondly, there is airborne noise, broadcast RF, from the computer/server. In a high end system, this may be a factor as well, as there are plenty of potential pathways for airborne RF to be picked up and mixed with low level analog signals.
Personally, I accept that noise levels (RF, ground plane noise, electrical noise) can, and does effect the analog output of the system, and that minimising such noise through intelligent software and hardware solutions is a worthwhile venture, even with well engineered USB DACs featuring "isolation". What I do not accept though, is the idea that somehow SW players are making the data sound different, while it remains bit perfect...
I would like to see measurements: perhaps a playlist made up of multiple tracks, each playing digital black, at all sample rates, and then a second playlist with say, a 5 kHz sine, and then measure both the DAC PCB ground plane, and have a complete spectrum analysis of the analog output as well.

 

[barrows]

Amir,
Can you specify what you consider "proper isolation" in a DAC & maybe give some examples?

Edit: I see Barrows posted at the same time as me with the answer!! But he then goes on to say "What I do not accept though, is the idea that somehow SW players are making the data sound different, while it remains bit perfect..." I don't understand the logic here? If different SW players can give rise to different spectra of noise then how can they NOT make the sound different?

John: What I am saying, and what I have always maintained, is that I accept that noise produced in the computer/server can couple to the interface/DAC/analog stages and affect sonics negatively. This noise coupling is the only mechanism (given a bit perfect player) which I believe can affect playback sonics from the computer/server side. Many appear to suggest that even in a bit perfect environment there are "other things happening" to the data, which effect sonics (other than noise). When it comes to jPlay, there is a fundamental problem for me, as using jPlay appears to require a higher power processor, and, hence, more noise rather than less (in comparison to say, an Atom running Voyage/MPD).

 

[jkeny]

Thanks. I read through the thread. His theory is fine. But every theory needs to be put to test and JS doesn't seem to know that a test has invalidated his theory. That is, he thought the null tests were done in digital domain. They were not. As was explained close to the end of the thread, the null tests were done at the output of the DAC. He did not respond once that point was made. In this thread, that is the data we started with. It is in that light that we remain skeptical.

OK but let's look at the Mitcho Null test you are referring to. Firstly it's not a -144dB null as stated by Jaundiced ear in that AudioAsylum thread - (I would like to see Diffmaker produce a -144dB null in the analogue domain) & why Swenson probably thought it must be null testing in the digital domain.

Mitchco's Jplay Vs JRiver null test gives a -90dB null result but here is the kicker - he is using the inbuilt soundcard in his Dell to do the ADC - come on now - you don't seriously suggest that this is a valid test, do you? (According to him, the noise floor of his Dell souncard's ADC is apparently -86dB)

Edit: Sorry made a mistake - Jaundiced ear actually references 2 of Mitchco's tests & asks Swenson if he has read them. The first is this one in which -144dB is the null Mitcho measures & this is a null in the digital domain as Swenson has stated: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/520-fun-digital-audio-%96-bit-perfect-audibility-testing/

The second null test referred to is the Jplay Vs JRiver test to which I refer to above http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/513-jriver-mac-vs-jriver-windows-sound-quality-comparison/