Skip to main content

Topic: RAM access speed tests with a few players (Read 8408 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
RAM access speed tests with a few players
Reply #25
OK, sounds good.
So, playing devils advocate, though we mostly seem to agree that JPlay does not seem to do much, how is it there has not been a definative post to show that.

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


As mentioned before, the reason it's not up to HA to disprove the claim comes down to Russel's teapot. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

  • JimH
  • [*][*][*]
RAM access speed tests with a few players
Reply #26
We tried to test that.  We tested the "Large Page" memory access they touted was better.  It wasn't.

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

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

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


  • hellokeith
  • [*][*][*][*]
RAM access speed tests with a few players
Reply #27
WE DON'T THINK MEMORY ACCESS SPEED CAN AFFECT SOUND QUALITY.  But we felt compelled to test.

Jim,

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

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
RAM access speed tests with a few players
Reply #28
our own ASIO write speeds did well tested against other players.

So?
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • JimH
  • [*][*][*]
RAM access speed tests with a few players
Reply #29
We have NEVER claimed that memory access speed mattered, but it was a principal claim made by JPlay.  Trying to be open minded, we tested. 

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

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

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


  • kraut
  • [*][*][*]
RAM access speed tests with a few players
Reply #30
Quote
Jim,

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


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

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

How hard is that to understand?
  • Last Edit: 20 February, 2012, 06:32:39 PM by db1989

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
RAM access speed tests with a few players
Reply #31
For what it’s worth, I’m inclined to agree with JimH and kraut.

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

What I think is worthy of credit in either case, at least as a token gesture, is the fact that someone did something to obtain concrete evidence against such claims. Sure: we all know they’re nonsense right off the bat, there’s not enough time in the universe to disprove every nonsensical claim ever made, and there have been some quibbles with some facets of the test’s publicity (some of which appear to have been genuine mistakes)—but isn’t more evidence better evidence, at least when the nonsensical claim in question is preying on gullibility at €99 a time? It’s always good to have something else to offer those who are in danger of being misled and/or the most stubborn of fence-sitters for whom ‘common’ sense isn’t quite enough. Isn’t that right in line with the ethos of this site?
  • Last Edit: 20 February, 2012, 06:58:25 PM by db1989

  • kraut
  • [*][*][*]
RAM access speed tests with a few players
Reply #32
I appreciate the editing that db1989 undertook.. the value of points I made would have been much diminished by my display of anger and the tone I used.
Those points have now been even more clearly laid out by him.

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

That is why I appreciate the work done by Jim to prove those developers wrong in that particular claim while at the same time emphasizing the nonsense of the importance of memory access speed in the present computer environment as it relates to audio reproduction off files on harddrive.
  • Last Edit: 21 February, 2012, 12:19:13 AM by kraut

  • spoon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
RAM access speed tests with a few players
Reply #33
>"The simple fact is that Jplay made certain claims;"

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

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

  • monkey
  • [*]
  • Developer
RAM access speed tests with a few players
Reply #34
We tested the "Large Page" memory access they touted was better.  It wasn't.


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

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

Average:
1124.4  1100.0

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

And again, we believe this performance is not related to sound quality.  It is simply an empirical refutation of a claim made by JPlay.
  • Last Edit: 21 February, 2012, 11:27:51 AM by monkey

  • JimH
  • [*][*][*]
RAM access speed tests with a few players
Reply #35
>"The simple fact is that Jplay made certain claims;"
They were not even on the test as they do not use ASIO, so the test was against other players, many on that list make no claims about better quality, that is my issue with the testing.

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

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

  • hellokeith
  • [*][*][*][*]
RAM access speed tests with a few players
Reply #36
I find it very important that this site stays open to critically investigate any such claims and shoot them down with all the weaponry needed.

Kraut,

Measurements were taken.  But I find no critical analysis, as you mention above.