|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
129.33.19.254
In Reply to: RE: PC or...... Pono posted by Tony Lauck on April 07, 2014 at 08:48:21
The majority of people who optimized their - dedicated to audio playback - computers, started with a general purpose (non-optimized) computer, so they really have a point of reference. They use optimized setups, because it sounds better than non-optimized - simple as that.What you, and some other excessively prolific (albeit devoid of relevant experience) poster here, have - is just a non-optimized setup, without optimized alternative to compare against.
Considering that you seemingly pride yourself, among other things, on being motivated by logic - the stuff that you post sometimes sounds truly bizarre.
Edits: 04/07/14Follow Ups:
Check your reading comprehension. I am not denigrating myself. I may be opening other people to denigrating me, but what do I care if they do.
Incidentally, I have optimized my computer, at least to the point of what I considered diminishing returns. I did this when I got the new Windows 7 machine and until I did that I did not find that it sounded as good as the older PIV WXP system. In the end, it sounded at least as good, and eventually better after I got a new DAC. When I got the new DAC I also did considerably more testing and optimization of the computer.
I also do things which improves the sound further by having the computer do more than just be a transport. This includes a modest amount of digital room correction. This is something that some people have denigrated as degrading the sound. The fact of the matter is that it is quite possible to compare the sound with and without digital room correction (and was something that I did very extensively when setting up the convolution file). I found two large benefits to enabling this, the first being that it evens up the bass, as can be heard with a walking bass line of a plucked string bass. (It also makes drums sound considerably more realistic with the drum head vibration modes easier to discern.) The other difference appears with large scale acoustic recordings such as symphony orchestras, where the room walls appear to disappear and the sound stage goes beyond the boundaries of the room. It is easy to do comparisons by turning this correction on and off. There is no doubt that the degradation caused by the extra DSP processing is less than the overall acoustic benefits. Alternate ways of doing things might be better, such as adding a serious amount of bass traps (not practical in this room) or adding a hardware parametric equalizer (which might itself degrade sound quality). There are always tradeoffs.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
but why consistently question and downplay the efforts of those who get better results by lowering the influences of their computers, their hardware and their Operating Systems?
" This includes a modest amount of digital room correction. This is something that some people have denigrated as degrading the sound."
Not a bad idea.
"There is no doubt that the degradation caused by the extra DSP processing is less than the overall acoustic benefits. Alternate ways of doing things might be better, such as adding a serious amount of bass traps (not practical in this room) or adding a hardware parametric equalizer (which might itself degrade sound quality). There are always tradeoffs."
Like you say there always trade offs. The room does cause more problems that many people realize. I was never big on tone controls. I do use room treatment, but it is not practical for everybody. I think DSP is not a bad idea at all.
the best results are down in separate hardware. It also depends on the room.
"the best results are down in separate hardware."
I think you are correct where DSD is involved, because the software approach requires a second level of delta-sigma modulation with extra high frequency noise. I'm not sure that this applies for PCM files, where the 24 bit PCM file can be converted to 32 bits and processed with very high accuracy by the convolution engine and then the 32 bit PCM sent to the DAC.
When I get a chance I will try running the Room EQ convolution off line and playing the convoluted files directly. That way there won't be any real-time processing affects of the computer to affect sound quality.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Obviously, there's a trade-off - but I don't see a reason why, as is your experience, in a particular room/system flattening of frequency response wouldn't outweigh the "impurities" introduced.However, it's entirely separate issue from having an optimized, dedicated to audio playback computer. It potentially introduces higher (not by much, I'd bet) requirements for processing power and memory, nothing else.
Edits: 04/07/14
Actually the room EQ raises the processing anti quite a bit as a function of the sampling rate. Not such a problem when running PCM up to 192/24, but doing the room EQ at DSD sampling rates (without down sampling) uses major amounts of processing power and makes it essential that the computer is completely dedicated to audio otherwise there will be glitches. (This is because I have a second generation core i5. With a faster processor this might not be such a problem.) Again, the tradeoff is is between (1) no room EQ, (2) downsampling to 352.8 for room EQ, and (3) doing room EQ at 2822.4. The latter sounds best if it's a cool day, but not on a hot summer day because I have yet to solve the CPU fan problem, where the RPMs reach audible levels on hot conditions.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Have you tried a high performance heatsink-fan?
Several years ago I replaced a stock Intel HSF with a Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus. I think the Plus has been replaced with EVO but it's the same idea - a monster heatsink with heat pipes and a large fan that will revolve slowly.
The downside is size, you need a case that is large enough since the HSF sticks out quite a bit.
There are better ones available but for less than $30 it's doing a good job.
not picking up on the sarcasm are we?
Did you notice that there's someone in this forum, who combines two precious qualities - being clueless, and being unable to learn in principle? Even after 2 week-long suspensions in recent months?
Have you ever noticed that people who are predisposed toward anger and rage often miss the sarcasm?
N/T
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: