Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Computer Audio Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: Correct. But?

Posted by Ryelands (A) on December 23, 2009 at 03:14:15

In Reply to: RE: Correct. But? posted by fmak on December 22, 2009 at 22:14:50:

I have no bias.

On several occasions and despite requests to behave better, you have questioned the motives and ethics of the program's author. If that doesn’t suggest a degree of antipathy, I don't know what might.

You need to read cPlay's version Readme for these stepchange improvement claims.

The Readme files for cPlay series 2 have expanded from version to version but the core text has not changed. It starts with “The new 2.x series of cPlay represents a step change in processing performance”. In other words, there are significant differences between cPlay series one and series two, some of which are described as “important factors for high quality audio playback”. That seems a reasonable point. I can find no claims about incremental sound quality enhancements in the files.

I have the equipement to hear very subtle changes in sound, and this is what I hear with versions of cPlay.

That is a solipsistic argument and thus, because it is (logically) impossible to refute, essentially meaningless. In any case, you have AFAIK much the same equipment as cPlay’s author so I’m not clear what your point is.

As you seemed not to know why there are processor-dependent versions of the software (“How does ssse4 or whatever help audio performance?”), one wonders if the subtle changes you detect, though too subtle for the rest of us, are not, pace Dawnrazor, as much down to inconsistent use of the various versions as anything else.

Typically it takes me several months to come to conclusions about adopting software/hardware.

Sadly, it takes you rather less time to air strident but muddled remarks on software you do not intend to adopt. It is easy to show that these do not withstand scrutiny. That wouldn’t matter except that they inform what verges on an idée fixe.

It is interesting that there are no actual audio reviews of this player, just claims by a few.

It is unusual for emerging hobby projects to receive reviews in the mainstream audio media but there are links to some on the cMP^2 web site. I don’t think they are very helpful but reviews they are.

Certainly the statements about -145 dB resamplers and that the system beats the dCS one costing $67000 is just DIGITAL FANCY.

I can’t comment on resampling but find nothing in the cMP^2 documentation to the effect that “the system beats the dCS one costing $67000”. The closest it comes to that is a note on the web site:

The best of these [CD Transports] are magnificently engineered and perform superbly but can cost as much as $20,000

and another that:

[The text] describes how to build and configure a PC system costing around $1,000 (including a quality soundcard and case) that does not merely match but exceeds the performance of the very best CD transports.

Which last seems a bit of harmless hyperbole and too diffuse to be worth getting excited about.

True, there is (Chapter 3) a description of tests on a Scarlatti reclocker on a setup that probably cost as much as my house but, as they were performed using Foobar (cPlay had yet to be written), they may be irrelevant here.

Claiming 51 pS jitter in a PC system without sophisticated dejitter measures is another [DIGITAL FANCY].

For long enough your complaint was that there were no measurements to back claims about the cMP^2 project. That was clearly misleading and you have since segued into reporting that proffered measurements are fanciful on the tenuous grounds that you know better and that unspecified but “sophisticated” dejitter measures are needed.

This seems to miss the point that the project comprises a lengthy series of more or less “sophisticated dejitter measures” in software and hardware. Of course, it’s perfectly fair to debate the efficacy of those measures but, absent competent measurements to the contrary and/or a critique of the test methodology, your remark is bluster, no more.

No one has addressed these points which I have made on the package.

I certainly have. Time and again.

Yes, some cPlay versions don't work on some PCs and cics was unable to diagnose cures.

No, it was you that gave up, not cics. Your remarks about mysterious “cures” are disingenuous: you just don’t seem happy configuring software. It’s a common problem.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---