[gevorg]

So many emotions here and no substance.

Timing difference is jitter for audio playback. I too thought that since JPLAY is bitperfect, if there any difference that it makes it would be in the jitter which may help some DACs. Unfortunately, JPLAY does not even improve jitter:


Baseline ASIO:




JPLAY's "ULTRAstream Kernel Streaming 2-sample buffer":



It was already done on analog outputs, and not surprisingly, there was no difference:


Frequency Response:




Noise:




THD:

Yup... People with toy test equipment and a sound card! The net is full of clueless experts...

As expected, attacking the system/messenger rather than the message. Show us better than "toys"! Or maybe this something that should be done by JPLAY's magicians developers. On second thought, why would they shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[Music Alchemist]

As expected, attacking the system/messenger rather than the message. Show us better than "toys"! Or maybe this something that should be done by JPLAY's magicians developers. On second thought, why would they shoot themselves in the foot.

 
In case some haven't read it, here is the response by the JPLAY developers:
 

JPLAY Responds: An Open Letter, Josef Piri and Marcin Ostapowicz
  'Simpler is better' is an old rule frequently quoted by designers of audio-equipment. However, some say we should completely forget this rule when it comes to computer audio: They say, computers are so 'fast' and audio reproduction such a relatively 'easy' job for a computer, that any computer, regardless of hardware or software used, will sound absolutely identical provided the data is 'bit-perfect' (as in: digital audio bits are not modified by equalization, digital signal processing, etc). And they add that once a computer outputs 'bit-perfect' data then all those who claim to hear a difference between software players or operating systems or computer hardware are ‘delusional’ at best and, at worst are 'scammers' and 'hoaxsters'!
 
We at JPLAY believe the old rule 'simpler is better' should not be ignored for computer audio—to the contrary: We believe that the less work a computer has to do the better it will serve as a digital audio transport.
 
Why? Because neither Windows nor the MacOS are designed for 'real-time' operation: In other words, any task involving time is a 'best-effort exercise' as opposed to a 'guaranteed execution'.
 
Unfortunately, for digital audio, timing is an essential requirement: the official standard for CD playback says 32 bits must be played precisely every 22 microseconds: if this timing is 'off', even by a very, very small amount, the output, by definition, is no longer in line with the technical specification for CD playback. In other words: digital playback must not only be 'bit-perfect' but also 'timing-perfect'. That is why many modern DACs often showcase 'jitter' measurements (denoting a DAC’s timing precision) at the _pico_second level (1 picosecond is only 0.000001 microseconds!).
 
And that is what JPLAY is all about: improving timing.
 
What JPLAY does is simply 'slow down' any task in the computer not related to audio (the average PC can easily have hundreds of those). Even more extreme, in JPLAY’s ‘Hibernate mode’ many tasks are stopped altogether, rendering the computer unusable for any 'normal' work and in effect, 'brute forcing' Windows to treat audio-playback as the only remaining job—all in order to give audio the best chance of 'perfect timing' possible!
 
While some audiophiles will manually optimize the Windows OS on their servers, JPLAY adds to that process by increasing the computer's timer resolution accuracy to the maximum possible. JPLAY uses special ultra low-latency RAM to store music samples and massively pre-queues them so the sound driver can access them faster. It also leverages the lowest latency networking available (in a unique 'StreamerMode' mode involving two PCs) to utilize the smallest playback buffers of any software player on the market. This is all done in a fanatical attempt to attain the absolute minimum number of computer cycles needed to accomplish 'perfectly timed' digital audio playback.
 
It’s important to note that the corporation accusing JPLAY of being a 'hoax' does not, in fact, deny JPLAY is performing this massive "audiophile re-programming" of Windows. No—Instead, this corporation denies that, despite JPLAY’s actions, JPLAY has any impact on sound quality whatsoever. Their "proof" is that JPLAY does not have any 'technical measurements' to demonstrate an improvement in sound quality.
 
Sure, we don’t have all the 'technical measurements' we would like: The simple fact is, while there are plenty of DAC measurements regarding jitter, when it comes to using a computer as a digital transport, there simply aren’t any! Nobody has quite figured out how to measure ‘computer jitter’ (or 'computer noise'), which others propose is the "real" cause of the sonic differences in software and/or hardware.
 
While we’re certain technical measurements will come in time, computer audio is still a new field—and while we're certainly looking forward to working with anyone advancing the state of art, we do believe we have the best measurement equipment on the planet: the ears of thousands of passionate and discerning audiophiles who have tested dozens of JPLAY versions by ear alone…
 
All of them simply cannot be wrong: 'Simpler IS better' with computer audio.
 
P.S. A free downloadable trial of JPLAY is available at www.jplay.eu. Please listen for yourself and decide.

 
Note that I am not taking sides here; just being thorough with information.

 

[gevorg]

^^ Yes, they claim that somehow JPLAY improves timing, but so far real world measurements prove otherwise, JPLAY does not make any difference. Contrary to what JPLAY say in the so called rebuttal, there are actually ways to measure jitter as shown in many Stereophile publications (for example, just look at how jitter of Asus Xonar compares to Auralic Vega). JPLAY's complete refusal to show any of their own measurements is no better than say, AudioQuest, claiming the same about $5000 ethernet cables. How far will they push their baseless arguments? Magic Pebbles?

 

[Music Alchemist]

^^ Yes, they claim that somehow JPLAY improves timing, but so far real world measurements prove otherwise, JPLAY does not make any difference. Contrary to what JPLAY say in the so called rebuttal, there are actually ways to measure jitter as shown in many Stereophile publications (for example, just look at how jitter of Asus Xonar compares to Auralic Vega). JPLAY's complete refusal to show any of their own measurements is no better than say, AudioQuest, claiming the same about $5000 ethernet cables. How far will they push their baseless arguments? Magic Pebbles?

 
On my system, to my ears, JPLAYmini sounds maybe ten or twenty percent better than foobar2000, which sounds a little dull and one-dimensional in comparison. It's a rather noticeable difference. I would suggest comparing yourself with lots of your own music. If you don't hear a difference, that's just more fuel for your side of the argument...but I don't assume that all the measurements we have (or rather, the measurements taken by your cited individual) represent all there is to know on the matter.

 

[gevorg]

^^ Yes, they claim that somehow JPLAY improves timing, but so far real world measurements prove otherwise, JPLAY does not make any difference. Contrary to what JPLAY say in the so called rebuttal, there are actually ways to measure jitter as shown in many Stereophile publications (for example, just look at how jitter of Asus Xonar compares to Auralic Vega). JPLAY's complete refusal to show any of their own measurements is no better than say, AudioQuest, claiming the same about $5000 ethernet cables. How far will they push their baseless arguments? Magic Pebbles?

On my system, to my ears, JPLAYmini sounds maybe ten or twenty percent better than foobar2000, which sounds a little dull and one-dimensional in comparison. It's a rather noticeable difference. I would suggest comparing yourself with lots of your own music. If you don't hear a difference, that's just more fuel for your side of the argument...but I don't assume that all the measurements we have (or rather, the measurements taken by your cited individual) represent all there is to know on the matter.

Did you quantify those 10-20% when comparing JPLAYmini via ABX test?

 

[Music Alchemist]

Did you quantify those 10-20% when comparing JPLAYmini via ABX test?

 
I already mentioned that I have no way of doing a scientific listening test with my current equipment due to the fact that it takes a few seconds for songs to start playing in JPLAYmini, plus I can't use both programs at the same time. The 10-20% was just a rough estimate of the degree of difference I perceived, not the number of times I guessed right in an ABX test.

 

[gevorg]

Did you quantify those 10-20% when comparing JPLAYmini via ABX test?

I already mentioned that I have no way of doing a scientific listening test with my current equipment due to the fact that it takes a few seconds for songs to start playing in JPLAYmini, plus I can't use both programs at the same time. The 10-20% was just a rough estimate of the degree of difference I perceived, not the number of times I guessed right in an ABX test.

I see, I missed that. No way I though you did anything scientific (which would involve a greater sample size, multiple people involved, etc), just a simple at-home comparison that would alleviate at least some bias/etc. Anyway, for each their own, its just arguments like "I only trust my ears, do not do ABX, and don't trust measurements" can be applied to anything in audio, even AudioQuest's $5000 ethernet cables. There gotta be something that keeps our sanity in check.

 

[Music Alchemist]

I see, I missed that. No way I though you did anything scientific (which would involve a greater sample size, multiple people involved, etc), just a simple at-home comparison that would alleviate at least some bias/etc. Anyway, for each their own, its just arguments like "I only trust my ears, do not do ABX, and don't trust measurements" can be applied to anything in audio, even AudioQuest's $5000 ethernet cables. There gotta be something that keeps our sanity in check.

 
The ironic thing is that I have a thread for those who claim to hear differences between lossless formats, including high-res. Not a single person has ever been able to demonstrate that they could reliably hear a difference. So I know how ABX tests are supposed to work; it's just that I'm not able to do it between two different programs until I get more equipment. And Fidelizer is even more challenging, since it takes a minute or two to apply the changes to the system and you have to restart the computer to reset them to normal. I'm thinking I'd need two otherwise identical computers to properly test with and without.

 

[brat]

 
If you have are those issues there is probably something wrong with your system. JRiver is a very nice, very full featured mid-fi program. Fine for many people but not all. Like the difference between beer and champagne.

Dedicated PC transport (i5 + 16GB RAM, WIndows 8 on SSD)--> AudioQuest Cinnamon firewire--> Weiss DAC202U--> Job225 or HK990 or MiniHybrid or Aspen Soraya amps--> PSB Synchrony One speakers
I want champage, but JPlay is more sparkling wine to me.
You mentioned "mid-fi" and I'm interested to optimize my computer transport further, which are the "hi-fi" programs?

 

[bobsherman]

Well,
 
There will be a new JPlay version. That is if you are actually a JPlay user. If not you will be able to try the demo when it is released. HQPlayer is excellent. And there is also XXHighEnd which is also excellent.

 

[Music Alchemist]

I've also heard impressive things about Bug head Emperor. Some people like it even more than JPLAY.

 

[bobsherman]

  I've also heard impressive things about Bug head Emperor. Some people like it even more than JPLAY.

True, but from what people are saying JPlay 6 is as good or better. I have not tried BHE yet. There is also MQn which is reported to be up there also sound wise. I have not tried it, but there are plenty of people with good ears that love it.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  True, but from what people are saying JPlay 6 is as good or better. I have not tried BHE yet. There is also MQn which is reported to be up there also sound wise. I have not tried it, but there are plenty of people with good ears that love it.

 
When does JPLAY 6 come out? Can you link me to the info you read about it? Can we get early access to the trial version?
 
(Edit: Never mind. I found the thread on their forum. But still link me to impressions if you can.)
 
Also, what would you say would be a proper way to measure the difference JPLAY makes?
 
I heard from a few JPLAY users that the Musica Pristina music servers sounded even better than all this software, partially due to its proprietary software environment. They're crazy expensive, but I do want a dedicated music server someday whether or not it sounds better.
 
(Edit 2: Haha! I just saw one of your posts on another site.)

 

[bobsherman]

   
When does JPLAY 6 come out? Can you link me to the info you read about it? Can we get early access to the trial version?
 
(Edit: Never mind. I found the thread on their forum. But still link me to impressions if you can.)
 
Also, what would you say would be a proper way to measure the difference JPLAY makes?
 
I heard from a few JPLAY users that the Musica Pristina music servers sounded even better than all this software, partially due to its proprietary software environment. They're crazy expensive, but I do want a dedicated music server someday whether or not it sounds better.
 
(Edit 2: Haha! I just saw one of your posts on another site.)

The best way to measure is by listening. There is the beta thread on the JPlay forum.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  The best way to measure is by listening. There is the beta thread on the JPlay forum.

 
I meant scientifically measure and prove it. If you say a sound card, etc. is not good enough, then surely you know of better equipment and techniques.