http://www.junilabs.com/en/products/audioplayer.html
http://www.junilabs.com/en/products/audioplayerfaq.html


From the site:
Optimizing a Single Audio File
It is possible to optimize an audio file to improve sound rendering. Optimization does not alter the content of the file; rather, it operates on a completely different level.
An optimization operation typically takes about 2 minutes. Optimization sensitivity is influenced by the electromagnetic environment surrounding the computer. For optimal results, it's advised to turn off any potentially interfering equipment nearby (such as cell phones or switch mode power supplies) and close unnecessary applications.
Lap allows you to choose the number of successive optimizations to be performed. You can select from predefined values (1, 3, 6, 12, 24...) or input another value via the keyboard. Selecting infinite launches an unlimited number of optimizations, ending only when the user selects to terminate.
It is also possible to optimize an already optimized file to further refine sound rendering. Individual file optimization proves more effective if the installation of Junilabs Audio Player has been properly optimized. Refer to details in the previous paragraph.

I tested it with 6x Lap (as recommended by the author) and observed the following results:
- A significant, easily noticeable difference in sound. The optimized file appears more compact and better defined, though I leave the final evaluation to you.
- The size of the original and optimized file remains identical.
- Since optimization takes 2 minutes regardless of file size, it seems a mandatory pause is implemented after processing.
- Copying the optimized file to another location results in loss of all optimization effects.
I would prefer if people refrained from commenting on this unless they have tested it themselves.

 

wow what a very fancy snake oil

is that straight up malware btw?

 

You must have the .NET Framework 3.5 installed in order for it to work.
Also check if the wave.exe file is present in "x64" folder, some AV software detects it as "suspicions", but it's virus free, I tested it with ESET.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2024

Since there are 0 testers, it can be assumed that this technology is too advanced at this time.
In terms of developer competence, he is the manufacturer of High-End Audiophile DACs, such as The Jundac 6 - Price: €2,200 excluding shipping.

 

that technology is completely obsolete by today standards,
player UI/UX itself is mediocre at best, and that fancy processing is irrelevant nowadays with SSDs and ECC RAM,
and since it doesn't even utilize ASIO, relying on outdated WASAPI/WDM/MME, it cannot technically sound more accurate or better in any way,
oh and "bit perfect" audio primarily depends on DA converters and speaker design (AD with DSP most speakers utilize nowadays), with various filters providing various balance between accurate transient response vs. accurate frequency response

 

figures, this fits to the nonsense he wrote about digital signals last week.

 

It's interesting that you have an opinion even though you didn't manage to start the program. Do you believe that technology doesn't work with SSDs? Why?
As far as I know, the optimization is achieved through a special order of writing data to the disk and has nothing to do with ECC RAM. This technique was invented by Hiroyuki Yokota more than a decade ago and is widely accepted among audiophiles (there's been extensive discussion for years about it on Hi-Fi forums). With this method, sound quality is proven to improve without DSP, utilizing a modified way of copying. In this particular case there is a claim that with each new lap, the sound quality continues to improve, albeit to a lesser degree. Yokota recommended up to two passes, so perhaps this software has made some improvements to that technique. He also suggested that the effect weakens with time, which is explicitly denied here.
It's unclear to me why people aren't interested in sound improvement that costs them nothing. The program is free, there's no increase in file size, the process is simple and quick, and the effect is permanent and significant. On the other hand, people are willing to invest money in hardware to enhance the sound quality... Why are people so reluctant to even try something that doesn't fit into the stereotypical mainstream way of thinking and won't harm them?

 

That's what the author states on his site. The same was the case with Hiroyuki Yokota's program (RewriteData). This occurs when you revert to Windows' default method of writing data. If you took the time to try the program, you might find yourself laughing at your own post.

 

I did,
order of writing data with SSDs is precisely bullshit because it's handled by SSD controller chip itself,
and of course it has to do with RAM because any interaction of data on PC goes through RAM, and also apparently that player loads file into and through RAM by the very design of software being used on a computer,
decades ago, disk fragmentation was relevant (also reason why badly designed software like ProTools refused to record on fragmented disk),
it's unclear to me how people can notice difference on two exactly same files, being played through exactly same processing chain,
that program is free because it's fraudulent, targeting people that are also willing to spend extra $$ on gold-plated USB cables and other nonsense,
I wonder why people are so eagerly promoting such obsolete piece of software nonsense without any objective measurements and benchmarks, maybe R2R should reverse engineers this nonsense and nail it in the coffin...

you wrote "A significant, easily noticeable difference in sound. The optimized file appears more compact and better defined" then play those both files in a DAW on phase-invert test, on what difference you'll hear

 

Sounds like a bitcoin miner in disguise :D

 

in my tests, 6x optimized file is exactly same audio as original file,
as you can see on phase invert test, result is perfect null on Master bus

 

Surely not. The sad thing is that some people "believe" that bit identical data may sound different because it is written "differently" to some kind of memory.

What about testing different file systems for sound quality? I'm on macOS using APFS, does it sound clearer than NTFS on Windows? You say that "reverting to Windows' default method of writing data" leads to loss of "optimization". What about chipsets, m.2 or SATA, SSD or HDD? The developer advises to turn off all unnecessary equipment around your computer, so what about the biggest source of emf, the computers power supply itself? That makes no sense at all.

So obviously you claim to be able to hear a difference between bit identical files that have been "optimized" by writing them to SSD with an "audiophile" writing method. And as the developer sells high end audiophile DACs he has to be competent.

 

There seems to be a misunderstanding. The optimized and source files are bit-identical. Therefore, the null test has no meaning. The difference lies in how the file, recorded on the disk in a special way, is loaded into memory differently than usual, adapted to the configuration of the system on which the optimization was performed. All this is done to reduce the jitter that occurs during data reading, and this occurs in memory. (These are not my claims but the author's). I simply assert that it can be heard because I have ear-checked it. I asked the members of this site to listen and try to hear any possible differences. It seems that people are ready to resort to all kinds of things except for that.

 

Sure it is, as it is bit identical. But the OP claims he can hear a "significant, easily noticeable difference in sound". A simple DAW like Reaper may not be advanced enough, so the "optimization" is lost during reading the file.

It's simply the good old "you can't measure it, but i can hear it, because i'm an audiophile" thing.

 

Pure nonsense, bit identical is bit identical.

 

Snake shit with oil
Easily noticeable sound in difference, where 6x optimized ones perfectly nulls with original. Wtf?
Make 20 copies of file, optimize 2 of them, mix up them, rename and find these two best ones in blind test or with HOFA blind test plugin. Either snake oil in ears or marketing hype

 

Being sarcastic doesn't help matters, and maintaining a sincere tone might align better with one's character. Simply stating that you couldn't hear any difference would have sufficed.

 

It seems that some people fascinated by science do not distinguish between a record on a disk and the sequence of loading that record into memory and then reading the thus modified record from memory by the corresponding audio software. Due to their disposition, they express this misunderstanding by disputing the differences in sound, without even attempting to hear them.

 

I do distinguish, it's my CS background after all. How the memory is handled is so many steps removed on how the file is organized on disk it simply doesn't make sense.

Unless your system is chocking on basic file playback and you're streaming shit straight from disk this will not make any difference. Not now, not ever, no way, no how.

If your system is having issues with playing back simple audio files, then you will have a slew of other problems before you could even in a theoretical-handwavy-thought-experiment manner to consider what it means to objective audio "quality", which is not defined here in any way or worm anyway.

Run an ABX test on a large enough dataset on a large enough people with controls, otherwise you're pissing in the wind here.