Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

SSD vs memory card?

4.244.177.7
Posted on July 12, 2009 at 20:08:26
barondla
Audiophile

Posts: 346
Location: midwest usa
Joined: May 26, 2007
 Would the same files on an SD memory card sound similar to the same files off a ssd in a computer? If so, would be simple to take the flac files (on SD card) out of the Sansa Fuze portable and plug them into the computer for a comparision to the HD. Inexpensive way to try solid state memory.
thanks
barondla

RE: SSD vs memory card?, posted on July 12, 2009 at 21:24:30
mäç
 Contrary to audiophile folklore, all bits read off of physical media are buffered. Therefore, playback will "sound the same" regardless of where your musical bits are stored.

RE: SSD vs memory card?, posted on July 12, 2009 at 21:40:07
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 13711
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 "Contrary to audiophile folklore, all bits read off of physical media are buffered. Therefore, playback will "sound the same" regardless of where your musical bits are stored. "

Ah, and all copper cables sound the same. ;-)

But one can't dispute the fact that SSD is TOTALLY quiet compared to spinning disk. That was my main motivation for experimenting with SSD in my music server.

RE: SSD vs memory card?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 06:23:27
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 Mac is right that all computer music is "played" out of a RAM buffer, not a hard drive, solid state or otherwise. Still, the presence of a spinning hard drive (not to mention a fan and a power supply a....) inside your computer has two ways to potentially impact sound -- 1) by generating electronic noise or interference that could get out of your computer and into your analog signal. 2) By affecting the timing of the data (jitter). Both issues can be addressed more effectively through the electronic isolation of a good modern DAC. A ss drive is an attempt to eliminate the noise and timing errors, and would be just the beginning, at best. Better, and much less expensive is to simply leave them behind. Of course it's not as sexy as a ss hard drive. If you'd rather head down a whole new tweak and upgrade path, have fun.

P

SD even HDSD limited to 1Mb/s, posted on July 13, 2009 at 07:45:48
Gordon Rankin
Manufacturer

Posts: 2373
Joined: June 9, 2000
 Gang,

SH and even SDHC cards are really limited in speed. You may not really have good luck using these for audio.

Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
RE: Whole new tweak and upgrade path?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 08:04:03
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 3233
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
Contributor
  Since: January 16, 2010
 Seems to me that folks have been attempting to understand and optimize the path from pits to playback for quite a spell now. Nothing really new about it, domestically it started with the CDP-101... And it's an honorable pursuit with a rich historical precedent. Look at the rest of the system, the analog topology hasn't changed for over half a century but we still don't have it nailed down. So, for most of us, both are essentially the same process: Try to find stuff that plays well together and that we like and tweak it a little.

I agree with you that an external converter is literally and figuratively in a position to isolate upstream gear if there are no actual data errors, but clearly it 'taint easy and AFAIK currently none actually do. Meanwhile changes in the chain change the sound and are targets for optimization. Unfortunately I think the weakest link is usually recording and mastering and it's going to take one spectacular DAC to isolate that out of the chain from performance to perception.

Rick

RE:Whole new tweak and upgrade path?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 09:34:17
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 13711
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 "Of course it's not as sexy as a ss hard drive. If you'd rather head down a whole new tweak and upgrade path, have fun."

As I already mentioned, the SSD was put into my Mac Mini primarily to make it totally quiet. You can't dispute the fact that SSD is totally quiet and free of any mechanical vibration or resonances vs a spinning HDD.

I also run an external DAC which attempts to "decouple" that section of the audio chain from the computer unlike using an internal sound card and all the digital noise surrounding it. Furthermore, I run the DAC off a dedicated Firewire port to minimize potential interaction with USB connected devices. Firewire is also less prone to jitter compared to typical USB I/O. (Notice I said "typical" as some high-end outfits have strived to minimize jitter through innovative but proprietary USB methods).

The beauty of computer audio is that there are so many ways to accomplish the same thing. And no one has come up with an undisputed "best practice" for assembling such a system. Some people think they have it all figured out, but they don't. ;-)

RE:Whole new tweak and upgrade path?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 10:05:14
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 As I already mentioned, the SSD was put into my Mac Mini primarily to make it totally quiet. You can't dispute the fact that SSD is totally quiet and free of any mechanical vibration or resonances vs a spinning HDD. "

I can't. I can only suggest that putting the computer in a separate room and connecting it to your DAC and audio playback system wirelessly would have accomplished the goals of both physical and electrical isolation in a much simpler, less expensive and more elegant manner. MHO, of course, as I don't "have it all figured out." The above, however, works like a charm at a fraction of the cost of a SS hard drive.

P
RE: SSD vs memory card?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 10:42:39
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 813
Location: DUS
Joined: July 11, 2007
 Hi there.

There is only one acceptable solution to me.

"RAM playback"

If you load everything into RAM speed is no longer a subject.

I wouldn't accept any player without that feature. (You might use a RAMDISK in case the player won't supply full file buffering)

Even the fastest SSD is 5 times slower than RAM. From a speed perspective there are no alternatives to RAM.

One problem remains though: All the devices still consuming power.

This led me to my (for now) reference solution (based on Linux):

A headless client. No local storage (beside RAM) at all. Boot from LAN. Data load (bulk-load, no stream) over LAN right into RAM. Control from Remote clients (iPhone or Firefox).
RE:Whole new tweak and upgrade path?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 10:47:12
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 4560
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "I can only suggest that putting the computer in a separate room and connecting it to your DAC and audio playback system wirelessly would have accomplished the goals of both physical and electrical isolation in a much simpler, less expensive and more elegant manner."

If you don't mind the RF coursing through your body and your audio components. My wireless Internet is enabled only when I have guests who want to use it.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: SSD vs memory card?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 10:56:25
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 4560
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "No local storage at all. Boot from LAN. Data load (bulk-load, no stream) over LAN right into RAM."

If you have hi-res files and lengthy playlists, this may require multiple gigabytes of RAM and even a 64 bit operating system. And you will want a gigabit LAN so it won't take forever to load your music.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE:Whole new tweak and upgrade path?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 11:05:39
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 13711
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Yup, there's no perfect solution but several ways to accomplish computer based music playback.

RE:Whole new tweak and upgrade path?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 11:09:54
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 5228
Joined: June 1, 2002
 Some of us don't wanr RFI or the limited resolution of wireless; we play 24/192.

RE: SSD vs memory card?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 11:11:58
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 13711
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 There is only one acceptable solution to me.

"RAM playback"

If you load everything into RAM speed is no longer a subject.

Speed has never been a subject for a music player. The slowest of the slowest spinning hard disks are more than adequate in terms of speed.

I wouldn't accept any player without that feature. (You might use a RAMDISK in case the player won't supply full file buffering)

Even spinning hard disks have onboard solid-state cache, so what is the point?

Even the fastest SSD is 5 times slower than RAM. From a speed perspective there are no alternatives to RAM.

Again, what is the point? Speed IS NOT the issue.

One problem remains though: All the devices still consuming power.

This led me to my (for now) reference solution (based on Linux):

A headless client. No local storage (beside RAM) at all. Boot from LAN. Data load (bulk-load, no stream) over LAN right into RAM. Control from Remote clients (iPhone or Firefox).

Well? Is the server or whatever you're using still consuming power? How did you eliminate "devices consuming power"? I'd like to know that trick. ;-)

RE:Whole new tweak and upgrade path?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 11:12:43
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 5228
Joined: June 1, 2002
 I actually switch off modem and PC when I do serius listening on my main system. This makes a discernable (improved) difference even though I have separate regenerators for digital and analog boxes.

I don't do wireless whatsoever!

RE: SSD vs memory card?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 11:53:39
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 813
Location: DUS
Joined: July 11, 2007
For how long have you been around?

Did you find the final, one and only explanation why we're facing the so called (by Mr. Gordon Rankin himself) "timing" issues inside a PC?

For sure every change will have this or that impact due to whatever reason.

There is no right or wrong.

My idea is to at least limit the physical effects of HDD at the audio server to a minimum by avoiding potential sources for problems.
Others are running battery supplies on eSata drives. I just avoid this kind stuff.
RE:Whole new tweak and upgrade path?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 12:10:54
Dynaudio_Rules
 If you don't mind the RF coursing through your body and your audio components. My wireless Internet is enabled only when I have guests who want to use it.


RF will be coursing through your body regardless...

Broadcast:
# Longwave AM Radio = 148.5 - 283.5 kHz (LF)
# Mediumwave AM Radio = 530 kHz - 1710 kHz (MF)
# Shortwave AM Radio = 3 MHz - 30 MHz (HF)
# TV Band I (Channels 2 - 6) = 54 MHz - 88 MHz (VHF)
# FM Radio Band II = 88 MHz - 108 MHz (VHF)
# TV Band III (Channels 7 - 13) = 174 MHz - 216 MHz (VHF)
# TV Bands IV & V (Channels 14 - 69) = 470 MHz - 806 MHz (UHF)

Not to mention your neighbors Wi-Fi signals, Cell Phone signals and every other electronic emission coming from within and from outside your home.

If your audio system sounds better just by turning off your Wireless router then well....
RE: Been there. Done that. - - pics, posted on July 13, 2009 at 12:18:43
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 13711
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 As Gordon mentioned some SD memory cards can be pretty slow relative to other storage devices.... but, you don't need speed for a music server.

A hi-res 24bit/96Khz file as downloaded from HDTracks.com has a playback data rate of ~4608 Kbps or in the neighborhood of 0.5 MB/s (not even 1 MB/s). People, music file storage media speed is not the issue

The following table lists some common ratings and their respective minimum transfer rates for SD cards. (table stolen from wikipedia)


My Mac Mini and striped SD cards:


Creating the striped RAID group with Mac OS X built-in "Disk Utility":


The striped RAID set called "RAID0x7" online and ready to use:


Not that speed is the isssue but - Writing a 2GB file to a single 4GB Kingston SD card took ~3min 9sec

Writing a 2GB file to 7 4GB Kingston SD cards in a striped RAID set took ~1min 0.3sec. One of the benefits of striping is increased capacity of the volume and a side benefit is increased speed, not that we need speed in this case.


Did it sound any better than playing music off the internal spinning HDD? Maybe but not by much. You decide for yourself. ;-)
RE: SSD vs memory card?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 12:19:11
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 13711
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Sure, there is no right or wrong to achieve the same end-result but for the life of me, I couldn't understand your obsession with disk speed. See my post further up.

RE:Whole new tweak and upgrade path?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 12:22:38
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 13711
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Tony said: If you don't mind the RF coursing through your body and your audio components. My wireless Internet is enabled only when I have guests who want to use it.


Dynaudio said: RF will be coursing through your body regardless...

Abe says: But due to inverse square law and various obstructions in the way, all that RF throughout the world will be very weak compared to any RF device you have turned ON within YOUR OWN HOME. ;-)

To each his own. I have and need my wifi setup in my home and it's turned ON most of the time.

Moose and Bears..., posted on July 13, 2009 at 12:51:57
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 4560
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009



I live in a rural area. All the broadcast signals come from antennas many miles away. There are no wireless routers in range. In the past I have experienced interference from a cell phone sitting next to my tape deck so I keep it far away from all of my audio gear. Disruptions while listening to music are visual, not electronic. They include a neighborhood groundhog and occasional wild turkeys, deer, moose and bears.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Moose and Bears..., posted on July 13, 2009 at 13:12:11
Dynaudio_Rules
 Nice....

In that case just your surrounds should give you a peace of mind that makes your music sound better.

I live in a similar environment, except its Cows and Horses and the deer that seem to think I plant a certain flowers and plants as a buffet for them.

I'm actually very close to pulling the plug to going off grid...
RE:Whole new tweak and upgrade path?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 13:14:29
Dynaudio_Rules
 Tooshay...:-)

Either way, have fun and enjoy....
RE:Whole new tweak and upgrade path?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 13:23:08
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 Good point. I don't listen to audiophile music, so I sometimes forget about such things. With a library on HD that is about 99% redbook ripped to lossless, "hi-res" isn't much of a priority.

P

Too funny. Let me guess - quality of power feeding HD or SSD doesn't matter, either?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 13:31:14
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 3323
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Just one more question - have you ever LISTENED to different options you're talking about?

RE:Whole new tweak and upgrade path?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 13:36:29
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 I suppose if I did mind the RF coursing through my body it would require a bit more than a lack of wireless in the house...like moving the house to a remote island devoid of modern technology. Even then...

But I don't mind. And I have no adverse effects in my components, no audible change whatsoever from the pre-wireless set up. That could just be my personal limitations, though. I don't hear differences between digital cables either. Or black CDs. Or black helicopters. :)

You guys seem almost offended that I offered an alternative to the SS drive, or that I seem to think it is a more efficient, effective solution. I meant no offense, so let me clarify:

OP: If you don't listen to hi-res audiophile recordings, and don't mind RF (other than the RF that is around us all the time in the modern world anyway) coursing through your body, wireless can isolate your system from the noise, both physical and electronic, of your computer very easily and inexpensively, making the entire question of solid state drives unnecessary.

Better?

P
Have you ever listened to the same system with network functions enabled and disabled?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 13:38:12
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 3323
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 I highly recommend you do that. If you don't hear any difference, I suggest you start upgrading your system, and continue to do so until you realize that for AUDIOPHILE computer system, you CANNOT have any network functions enabled, including WiFi.

RE:Pulling the plug, going off grid, posted on July 13, 2009 at 13:41:38
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 13711
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Are you really close to going off grid? If so, I envy you! Not so much for audio reasons but because it all seems very cool, very independent, and I've been playing with photovoltaics and batteries since I was a kid. Wind power, creek/river power, and other sources are of great interest to me as well.

Unfortunately, it would be a royal hassle for me to fight my HOA in order to put solar panels up on my roof. Some HOAs even prohibit the use of clothes lines to dry clothes outside. There was a segment on the Sunday Morning show just last week about citizens battling their HOAs for the "right" to conserve energy.

Have fun!

RE: Have you ever listened to the same system with network functions enabled and disabled?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 13:54:46
drrd
Audiophile

Posts: 136
Joined: January 5, 2007
 Network playback on my system sounds better than off main or usb drive :)

RE:Pulling the plug, going off grid, posted on July 13, 2009 at 13:59:11
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 3233
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
Contributor
  Since: January 16, 2010
 Maybe you could convince them that they were objects 'd art. That'd probably be OK.

I used to live in an area where several hams for some inane reason choose to live in a development with those sort of restrictions, especially no antennas. But being red-blooded, patriotic Americans they were proud to display old glory atop their shunt-fed flag poles.

Rick
RE:Pulling the plug, going off grid, posted on July 13, 2009 at 14:59:07
Dynaudio_Rules
 I think the first order of business in my home is to reduce our electrical consumption to a point where it is both livable and within the limits of a reasonable amount of solar panels. The back side of my home is in Sun all day with no obstructions so I should be able to get a pretty good supply of electricity year around. In the Fall season and early spring we get a fairly constant eastward wind with occasional strong sustained gusts. I'm looking for a vertical wind turbine to take advantage of seasonal winds.

Only thing is, our electricity is so cheap right now that it would take a very long time to re-coup the costs [if prices remain constant]. Also we are still 50/50 about whether or not this will be our permanent home...small things to consider.
RE: Have you ever listened to the same system with network functions enabled and disabled?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 15:42:43
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 Of course I've listened to my systems with the network disabled. And thank you for indulging in the oldest form of audiophile arrogance on record, the "if you don't hear what I do, your system simply isn't good enough" tactic. It helps me understand what I'm dealing with, and it is pretty amusing. My systems are more than revealing enough to expose subtle differences between masters, to allow me to hear mic type and placement, to discern if a guitar player's finger has just a touch of nail in the stroke and whether he is playing a dreadnought or a small body (and I know exactly what these things sound like). But when I do not "hear" digital cables, black cds, and the horrifying groan of a system straining to draw on a very small fraction of its capacity to play a music file and manage its network functions at once, it is the resolution of my equipment that is at fault. Sorry, but I'm afraid it will require more than system upgrades for me to hear what you hear. It will require that I embrace your illusions. More importantly, it will require that I stop listening to music and listen to equipment long enough to imagine them.

I'm 58. I don't have the time.

P

RE: Too funny. Let me guess - quality of power feeding HD or SSD doesn't matter, either?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 16:16:28
mäç
 Yeah, but I use a Squeezebox, so most of the fringe, audiophile discussion doesn't apply.

Yes, it is., posted on July 13, 2009 at 16:25:14
DSG
Audiophile

Posts: 253
Joined: March 9, 2005
 The recording is the limiting factor and nothing one does afterwords can completely remedy problems with compression, poor miking, etc. in the recording process and reproduction. Perfection is impossible. That is why my criteria is simple: "Am I enjoying the music?" If so, then nothing else is needed. I have just been working on making listening more pleasurable by going to a remote controlled Mac based music server and experimenting with some different cables and a tube integrated may be next. This hobby is really fun if one does not obsess about it.

RE:"Am I enjoying the music?", posted on July 13, 2009 at 18:38:16
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 3233
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
Contributor
  Since: January 16, 2010
 Excellent criterion. In the final analysis, what else matters?

I've hardly touched my systems now in twenty years (except for using computers as sources). I found it a very distinct threshold and after achieving it anything else has been much mellower. Although it's still fun trying stuff and tinkering I don't miss the angst at all!

Cable-wise the final thing that really 'locked in' the sound for me was changing the interconnect cables. And to a lesser extent the speaker cables. Surprising what a difference they can make, maybe small potatoes in the overall energy but very significant to satisfaction. And talk about a return on investment, I've got about $2 in each of them. And it was fun tinkering with them so that doesn't count as an expense.

I eschew tubes simply because I like the long term stability (and low Zout) of solid state. But I did grow up in the tube era and used to build SE (and P-P) amplifiers when I was in high school, but I couldn't afford good output transformers... I think the guiding principle should be: if it seems like it would be fun, do it. After all, it's a hobby!

Rick

RE: Been there. Done that. - - pics, posted on July 13, 2009 at 18:43:29
barondla
Audiophile

Posts: 346
Location: midwest usa
Joined: May 26, 2007
 Striped raid is interesting. What is the Dlink box called that you have everything plugged into? Those parts sticking out don't look like SD cards. Please explain more.
thanks
barondla (I sure seem to ask questions that gets everyone fired up).

RE: Been there. Done that. - - pics, posted on July 13, 2009 at 19:08:18
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 13711
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 You're correct, those are not SD but USB thumb drives but same concept with flash memory. The DLink box is just a powered USB hub.

RE:Pulling the plug, going off grid, posted on July 13, 2009 at 20:29:44
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 13711
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 I've read about flagpole antennas and have seen VHF/UHF "vent" antennas that slide over an existing rooftop vent. I don't have a lot of time for HAM radio these days so I'll just live with my inconspicuous and not very high up long wire for HF. For VHF/UHF I have the antenna in the attic and also keep a radio in the truck.

RE: SSD vs memory card?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 20:45:30
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 813
Location: DUS
Joined: July 11, 2007
Obsession for disk speed? It's rather an obsession for lowest disk impact?
RE: Too funny. Let me guess - quality of power feeding HD or SSD doesn't matter, either?, posted on July 13, 2009 at 21:48:44
Dawnrazor
Audiophile

Posts: 8984
Location: N. California
Joined: April 9, 2004
 You mean like flac sounding different from .wav and linear psus making a difference???


No one here remembers the bending of our minds
yeah, exactly like that., posted on July 13, 2009 at 23:34:58
mäç
 Not.

I do find it amusing how the mature audiofool seems to always take the path of greatest resistance, which almost universally entails solving fabricated scenarios/problems.

Maybe you (guys) ought to try spinning CDs? No computers, operating systems, WiFi, SSD, etc. involved. Oops, wrong forum. :)

RE: Too funny. Let me guess - quality of power feeding HD or SSD doesn't matter, either?, posted on July 14, 2009 at 05:52:29
aljordan
Audiophile

Posts: 1062
Location: Southern Maine
Joined: November 4, 2003
 Hi Dawnrazor,

With Squeezecenter, you can set the server to decompress FLAC before it sends the data across the network to the playback client, so it is similar to CPlay decompressing FLAC into memory before playback.

Can you hear a difference between a FLAC file and a WAV file played from CPlay? I can't. Although I can sometimes hear slight differences between a FLAC and WAV file played back through some other media players, I've never had a clear preference between one and the other unless the FLAC compression level was too high.

Alan

RE: yeah, exactly like that., posted on July 14, 2009 at 12:17:31
GCrouser@hvc.rr.com
Audiophile

Posts: 245
Location: NY
Joined: January 18, 2006
 I learned over a decade ago that the various transports serving the "buffered bits" to my DAC sounded different. No audiophile cult talk here, just affordable "mid fi" equipment, & no BS (unlike your statements). Just using observational data & experience to make my statements. Which is probably impossible for you with your head up your a!!.

If you believe that bits are bits, & it all sounds the same, what can you possibly add to the conversation ? The answer is nothing. You comment here solely to disagree & tell people that they're wrong. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but what's the point ? It's been heard here before, many times. You just like arguing ? If so stick round DON"T RUN AWAY, which is what I'm betting you'll do. Oh yeah, try to have a well formed argument instead of quoting basic theory. That's a sure sign that you're inexperienced & subsequently quite clueless.

Good luck,

G
A+. That's much more articulate than I could ever do., posted on July 14, 2009 at 12:45:22
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 3323
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 You see, my problem is lack of patience in these situations (probably subconciously I don't feel they deserve or appreciate any explanations) - I slip into spewing obscenities too quickly, too often.
RE: yeah, exactly like that., posted on July 14, 2009 at 14:16:09
mäç
 You're right. I cannot possible add anything to the conversation (that will appease you), as it's obvious *your* head is not situated such that common sense makes any.

I suggest you put your decades worth experience aside, pull your head and listen... again. I have no clue what type of bit streaming you (think you) were doing over a decade ago, but I can assure you that things have changed in the last decade.

RE: yeah, exactly like that., posted on July 14, 2009 at 17:12:49
GCrouser@hvc.rr.com
Audiophile

Posts: 245
Location: NY
Joined: January 18, 2006
 I don't need or desire appeasement from you (or anyone else).

Regarding your use of the term "common sense":

The idea that the Earth was flat, was once considered "common sense"

The idea that the Sun revolved around the Earth was once considered "common sense"

Fortunately those who thought differently than you, used their eyes & heads & applied their observational data & played a small part in raising mankind up from the Dark Ages.

Are you telling me that "bits weren't bits" 10 years ago when they were going via 75ohm coax from various CD & laserdisc transports to a DAC, but now those 21st century bits that come out of my DVD player or PCI soundcard are ?

Interesting. Please enlighten us with more info about these new 21st century bits. They sound like they're impervious to all the changing variables involved in comparing the sound between various digital components.

G
RE: A+. That's much more articulate than I could ever do., posted on July 14, 2009 at 17:22:31
GCrouser@hvc.rr.com
Audiophile

Posts: 245
Location: NY
Joined: January 18, 2006
 Thanks,

Obscenities ? Sadly I missed them. Did they get filtered & rejected by the Mods ?

I love how if one hears differences in digital gear it's "fringe, audiophile" talk. I never go back & forth to see if things sound different. I despise that. Life is too short. But you try something new & it's either better or worse or the same. Then quacks call you a quack. Strange world we live in.

G

silly willy, posted on July 14, 2009 at 17:35:31
mäç
 > Are you telling me that "bits weren't bits" 10 years ago when they were going via 75ohm coax from various CD & laserdisc transports to a DAC, but now those 21st century bits that come out of my DVD player or PCI soundcard are ?

I guess that depend on your perspective. My original reply to the OP stated that they are in fact the same, regardless where they are stored - on a SSD, hard disk or elsewhere.

You should read, then (attempt to) comprehend prior to putting your hoof in your mouth. Sorry, but your post brings nothing remotely constructive to the conversation.

You didn't answer the question - what's your PERSONAL experience with the matters you attempt to discuss?, posted on July 14, 2009 at 18:35:53
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 3323
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Did you run any tests, comparing SD card to SSD? I guess we all know the answer to that one. So, what we have here is cheap second-hand "sciense" in place of experience and knowledge - and you consider THAT constructive contribution?

?, posted on July 14, 2009 at 20:07:49
Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 2930
Joined: February 3, 2001
 1 Mb/s? It's MB (B -- bytes, not b -- bits) and the transfer rate of today's memory cards are way higher than that. Possible speed will depend on the class of the card (4, 6, 10, etc), but you can actually get 30 MB/s from an SD-HC card (Sandisk Extreme III SD-HC). With Sandisk's Extreme IV CF cards, 45 MB/s is possible. But as Abe shows above, it's really not a speed issue.

You know what they say about ASSuming., posted on July 14, 2009 at 20:33:30
mäç
 n.t.

RE: Have you ever listened to the same system with network functions enabled and disabled?, posted on July 14, 2009 at 20:39:10
mäç
 Agreed. WiFi enabled gives much more "air" to the sound.

RE: silly willy, posted on July 15, 2009 at 06:28:56
GCrouser@hvc.rr.com
Audiophile

Posts: 245
Location: NY
Joined: January 18, 2006
 No, you said: "Contrary to audiophile folklore, all bits read off of physical media are buffered. Therefore, playback will "sound the same" regardless of where your musical bits are stored."

You're going to talk about my comprehension ? You don't even know what you said. Or you're a liar.

Since you're unaware of what you've said or are foolish enough to try & lie about it, discourse is not possible with you.

Goodbye,

G
Next time, place "n.t." in the subject line - that's how normal people behave here., posted on July 15, 2009 at 07:54:38
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 3323
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 This way, everybody understands there's no need to open your message. However, by now everybody realizes there's no need for that anyway.

RE: A+. That's much more articulate than I could ever do., posted on July 15, 2009 at 10:57:14
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 And I love how when someone states, with the support of all measurement, logic and engineering in their corner, that digital data that is exactly the same should sound exactly the same when converted by and played through exactly the same equipment, they are referred to as "flat earthers" or characterized as "believing everything sounds the same," called narrow-minded if they haven't tried whatever is the latest audiophile fad, or told their equipment must not be good enough if they haven't heard what you've heard.

You hear something. Great. But try to understand the skeptics POV for a moment -- audiophiles have been "hearing something" immeasurable by modern instruments and unconfirmed by independent testing, from black boxes to black arts to pet rocks on their preamps, for as long as there have been audiophiles.

Does that mean that you DON'T hear something? Not necessarily. But it DOES mean that that your position is the one with credibility problems, and that when you say those who disagree with you have nothing to add to the conversation it smells of defense, not confidence.

The DO have something to add. It's called an alternative point of view. People come to places like this asking questions. They deserve answers, including the answers with their roots in facts, even if those facts are contrary to "what you hear," but is as of yet unmeasured, undiscovered and unconfirmed by anything other than the legendarily unreliable ears of the audiophile faithful.

P
RE: A+. That's much more articulate than I could ever do., posted on July 15, 2009 at 12:04:38
riboge
Audiophile

Posts: 312
Joined: June 25, 2008
Contributor
  Since: January 15, 2010
 Dear Baloneous,
Leaving aside issues of credibility, your position has semantic and conceptual problems. You say "digital data that is exactly the same should sound exactly the same when converted by and played through exactly the same equipment" but this leaves out the role of software altogether (and possibly glosses over possible differences in some of the equipment, like cables). Are you saying that software that does the converting or the playing should have no influence on the sound, that the state of rfi and emi and degree of stress on the processor when a pc is involved, etc, etc, should have no influence? To put it another way, what is the meaning or sense of "exactly the same" for digital data when we all know what comes down the wire is not even data per se but complex electronic impulses comprising signals and noise that have to be interpreted to identify/extract the data, digital or otherwise, and that can possibly influence how this is done and other things downstream in known and unknown ways even with asych usb or whatever. So what in theoretical terms is the exact same data may vary in practical and audible terms from player to player thru the same downstream async equipment as if the bits were different or the handling of them varied. Addressing plausibility rather than credibility, I'd say this is what is most plausible, while predicting the exact same sound despite player differences is not so plausible to anyone familiar with how things go in the real world.

A useful test..., posted on July 15, 2009 at 12:38:16
Scrith
Audiophile

Posts: 912
Location: Los Angeles
Joined: July 19, 2005
 Before becoming obsessed about the differences between storage devices, just try comparing a free RAM Disk (the storage device with the highest possible performance) to the worst possible device you can imagine (many here claim that a hard drive is about as evil as it gets, storage-wise). If you don't hear a difference (and I recommend a semi-blind test with a friend, for example, or you'll probably end up with the results you expect)...you're done. And you'll have learned a valuable lesson about the claims people make here based on hearsay and subjective tests. :-)

RE: A+. That's much more articulate than I could ever do., posted on July 15, 2009 at 14:00:36
GCrouser@hvc.rr.com
Audiophile

Posts: 245
Location: NY
Joined: January 18, 2006
 OK, 1st of all you're now creating a sane comparison when you say the following: "when converted by and played through exactly the same equipment...",

You have inserted language after the fact & it has nothing to do with my statement. I object to people judging audio quality by quoting system specs & digital theory & not doing any listening. Period. Oh, & calling me delusional for reporting what my senses tell me.

Next, please explain to me how I am an audiophile. Explain to me how I'm the type of person that utilizes "black boxes to black arts to pet rocks on their preamps," Explain to me a useful fact about me & what I believe & value. I can tell you I'm no rich audio snob. I can tell you I haven't bought any speaker cable or interconnects in over a decade. I can tell you that I'm infuriated by the average price of components reviewed in the magazines. But you know what ? You still don't know shit about me.
But you're assuming a lot.

You're STUPID in 2 ways:

1)Assuming you know anything about me.

2)Lumping all so called "audiophiles" in the same category. (you're all alike with your weird voodoo shakti stone stabilizers, green markers on your CD's etc.)

How did your mind get so fried that you think you know me, & than throw me in a broad over-exaggerated stereotypical category ?

As a Father of a foreign-born adopted child, I see the ridiculousness of stereotypes all too often. It's a sure sign of being too lazy to use one's brain.

I don't presume to know anything about you, but it seems you're a typical American ASS that watches too much TV & believes all the gossipy headlines & never stops to think for himself. One who is ever so eager to jump to ill-formed, half-baked conclusions.

Or maybe not. I try not to make assumptions & I definitely believe that there are probably "unmeasured, undiscovered and unconfirmed" aspects of digital audio.

Goodbye.

G
"you're a typical American ASS" (quoting you), posted on July 15, 2009 at 15:26:00
mäç
 That's a little harsh, no? It's obvious that you're a highly uneducated audiofool, but there's really no need to resort to name calling.

RE: "you're a typical American ASS" (quoting you), posted on July 15, 2009 at 16:16:55
GCrouser@hvc.rr.com
Audiophile

Posts: 245
Location: NY
Joined: January 18, 2006
 Just speculating. I could be wrong. Thought I made that clear when I said "or maybe not" I certainly don't presume to know it all. Which is why I value real world observations & try not to make half baked assumptions.

Stereotypical assumptions are offensive to those who like to use their brain. Assume to think for me by thinking you know what I value ? Assume that I'm an "audiofool" because I get offended if the scientific method isn't followed ? C'mon. More assumptions, & they really are offensive.

Remember, this started when you said: "Contrary to audiophile folklore, all bits read off of physical media are buffered. Therefore, playback will "sound the same" regardless of where your musical bits are stored."

I disagree with this statement & instantly I'm tossed into the "audiofool" category. You've been asked to detail how you've arrived at this bit of knowledge & you've not done so. You assume this as fact. I've observed this to not be fact. I've followed basic scientific experimental procedures, to arrive at these conclusions. The funniest aspect of this farcical discourse is that you likely consider yourself on the side of "science". All you've done is quote theory. There are a lot more variables involved in the real world that render your glib statement as not just insufficient but wrong.

And now you call me "highly uneducated". You have measurements to back up your claim ? Well sir, I give in. You're obviously the one with the best working brain. Guess I'll go watch TV now.

Goodbye.

G

You singled YOURSELF out to be an "audiofool", posted on July 15, 2009 at 17:18:33
mäç
 ...by responding to my post (that was not directed at you). Oops, your hoof is in your mouth again.

>> And now you call me "highly uneducated". You have measurements to back up your claim ?

You have provided the measurement to that claim in the form of your preceding posts.

>> Guess I'll go watch TV now.

Or maybe try Nintendo. :)

RE: A useful test..., posted on July 15, 2009 at 18:50:58
barondla
Audiophile

Posts: 346
Location: midwest usa
Joined: May 26, 2007
 Why does a free RAM Disc have the highest possible performance?
thanks
barondla

RE: You singled YOURSELF out to be an "audiofool", posted on July 15, 2009 at 19:09:20
GCrouser@hvc.rr.com
Audiophile

Posts: 245
Location: NY
Joined: January 18, 2006
 Have a nice day !

Bye !

G

RE: A+. That's much more articulate than I could ever do., posted on July 15, 2009 at 19:50:04
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 Wow. You got all that out of my 4 paragraphs? All I'm really assuming about you is that you're the guy who wrote this:

"I love how if one hears differences in digital gear it's "fringe, audiophile" talk."

...the rest was a pretty broad response to the way quite a few people on this board, no need to name names, respond on a daily basis to having their personal "hearings" challenged by data, generally held beliefs, scientific observations, personal opinions...pretty much anything. I do understand that my post fell below yours, but you were the inspiration, not the sole object. If you really don't run with that crowd, I apologize. Seriously, I'm sorry you took it all personally and understand why you did. It wasn't meant that way.

P

RE: A+. That's much more articulate than I could ever do., posted on July 15, 2009 at 19:58:36
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 "Are you saying that software that does the converting or the playing should have no influence on the sound, that the state of rfi and emi and degree of stress on the processor when a pc is involved, etc, etc, should have no influence?"

Yes, with proper isolation to keep the noise from the computer out of the audio system and with well-implemented digital to analog conversion that sufficiently reduces pre-conversion timing errors, that's exactly what I'm saying. The zeros and ones going into the DAC will be exactly the same and they should produce exactly the same sound, all other things being equal. And I am not alone in this belief. Outside of the audiophile world, such a view of digital data is pretty much considered a given.

P

RE: Too funny. Let me guess - quality of power feeding HD or SSD doesn't matter, either?, posted on July 15, 2009 at 20:09:37
Dawnrazor
Audiophile

Posts: 8984
Location: N. California
Joined: April 9, 2004
 Hey Alan,

You are right of course. I found that out a bit after I posted this on digital where a thread covered that option.

You may remember that I was a staunch .wav supporter, but now with cplay I think flac is a viable option.

But I still think that mac (j mac?) is kidding himself if he thinks that the sb3 some how rises above all audiophile concerns as he proposes...


No one here remembers the bending of our minds
RE: A+. That's much more articulate than I could ever do., posted on July 15, 2009 at 20:13:34
riboge
Audiophile

Posts: 312
Joined: June 25, 2008
Contributor
  Since: January 15, 2010
 You just keep hiding the real issue in your wording. Who knows what "proper isolation to keep the noise from the computer out of the audio system and with well-implemented digital to analog conversion that sufficiently reduces pre-conversion timing errors" comprises? There is no reason to think we have that yet. In fact, there is every reason to think we don't, exactly because what should be cases of the same bits reaching a dac from different players and thus sounding the same do not sound the same. No one disputes the principal you bits are bits folk maddingly perseverate on. It is the fact that in practice we just don't seem to have that so far due to unidentified influences, poor isolation or whatever. That is what is currently of greatest interest. What makes bits is bits not true even though its seems it should be?

flac is now a viable option..., posted on July 15, 2009 at 20:24:21
mäç
 >> but now with cplay I think flac is a viable option.

Lol. I wager most SB owners have always found it a viable option.

>> But I still think that mac (j mac?) is kidding himself if he thinks that the sb3 some how rises above all audiophile concerns as he proposes...

I think audiophiles, like yourself, will always have concerns about everything. Otherwise, you'd have no problems to solve and thus, no purpose in your audiophile life.

RE: A+. That's much more articulate than I could ever do., posted on July 15, 2009 at 20:54:38
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 "No one disputes the principal you bits are bits folk maddingly perseverate on."

Sure they do. Because you know, as well as I do, that we don't simply believe that bits is bits. We believe that they sound the same (or, to put a finer point on it, they don't "sound" at all). We believe that you guys are hearing what you've talked yourselves into hearing. We believe that in blind listening tests carried out to a statistically significant sample, your differences would vanish. Actually, we're sure of it.

Is that wording real enough for you?

P

RE: A useful test..., posted on July 15, 2009 at 21:14:26
Scrith
Audiophile

Posts: 912
Location: Los Angeles
Joined: July 19, 2005
 Because it is faster than any other device (all other devices must do something, usually requiring some sort of bus or port and the accompanying controller chip(s), in order to transfer the data to RAM, whereas with a RAM disk the data is already there) and uses zero additional power.

The purpose...., posted on July 15, 2009 at 22:23:48
alan m. kafton
Dealer

Posts: 4157
Joined: April 7, 2000
 ....for many of us is to find the best quality playback, and more greatly enjoy the musical experience. Why do you mock that?

"We believe....", posted on July 15, 2009 at 22:31:59
alan m. kafton
Dealer

Posts: 4157
Joined: April 7, 2000
 ....and that's all you are relying, is your belief system. Which in turn presumes that "blind listening tests carried out to a statistically significant sample" would eliminate the differences. But you haven't conducted such tests. Which proves exactly nothing to the contrary of so many that have actually experienced what they speak to.

Your answer is (mostly) to mock this experience, because no one has "proven it" to you. Again, do your own heavy lifting. Or not. You have chosen not, and the circular argument continues, ad nauseum. Your words are "real", as is your provocation....but it, too, proves nothing.

If you're not contributing anything of substance, why do you show up, other than to mock those who are enjoying the results of their real experience?

RE: A useful test..., posted on July 16, 2009 at 06:26:46
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 4560
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 You won't get a completely accurate comparison unless the devices that the RAM disk has replaced have been removed from your system, or at least spun down. So, for example, if the motor used to spin some rust creates electrical noise and happens to spin up while music is copied off of the hard drive to the RAM disk, if it remains spinning during your comparison it may still affect your music.

Also, and now it gets more controversial, some people suggest that having more RAM is bad because the power consumed by this memory is creating electrical noise. Given that a system runs with a certain size RAM without a RAM disk, it may require more total RAM memory if a RAM disk is to be successfully used, and this configuration may not sound as good. In any event, the resources used by the RAM disk are not "free" although in many configurations they may have zero marginal cost. (This discussion is not academic to those playing hi-res music. I have at least one recording that requires more RAM than my processor can address. But if all you want is enough music for a fair test, then most any system will be able to conjure up enough memory to play one or two tracks.)



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: The purpose...., posted on July 16, 2009 at 06:32:19
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 4560
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 Methods and people are mocked. Seldom does anyone mock the goal.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Mr. Kauffman..., posted on July 16, 2009 at 06:36:34
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 ON EDIT: I got the name wrong. I believe I am addressing Mr. Kaufton?

Sorry to put this out of thread context. For some reason I wasn't getting a message box at the bottom where this belongs.

Why do I post here? For the same reason you do: To discuss hifi and express my opiniions. We happen to disagree on some of the fundamentals and I have tried to avoid saying so as directly as I did below. I was accused of being intellectually dishonest, so I said it plainly. I'm sorry it offended you, but there really is no alternative. I don't believe you hear what you think you hear. I'm not calling you a liar or saying you are delusional. I believe psychological bias is an incredibly strong force.

Have I done the "heavy lifting?" As silly as I think it is to refer to auditioning components within a hobby in which that activity is clearly a big part of the fun as "heavy lifting," I'll play along: Yes, I have. I have owned auditioned and worked with an awful lot of gear over the years from the mainstream, high-end and pro markets and those experiences have formed my point of view. I didn't just come here to read your observations and counter them. I have my own observations, based on my own experiences. Do I think I need to try everything the community comes up with to continue to validate that point of view? No, I don't. I think the penchant for psychological bias in the audiophile community is well-established and I can skip quite a few personal trials without invalidating my point of view.

Am I here (mostly) to mock your experience? How silly. I'm here for discussion, just like you are. We disagree, fundamentally, and no matter how I try to temper my language, it will ultimately be clear that I do not believe you hear what you think you hear, and you will feel mocked, regardless of my intent.

I could take the scientific approach: I could post studies going back to the 70s and continuing to very recently that put most of the effects of jitter below the threshold of audibility, studies that show that even very good audiophile systems exhibit distortions at levels so much higher than the things that could cause many of the differences in software, drives, cables, computer power supplies, etc., that audiophiles imagine they hear that they would surely be buried deep in the noise floor. I could link you to blind AB/X listening tests showing that many of the huge differences audiophiles have heard in the latest tweak have proven to be undifferentiated when they can no longer see what they are listening to.

But it's getting late; it's time for me to get to work and experience tells me it would change nothing. Just for giggles, though, here's one paper that goes to the heart of the disagreement; it simply challenges how well we humans can know what we're hearing when we know what we're listening to.

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

Last but not least, before you conclude that I am a troll, I'd ask you to take note of where I am posting in AA. I expected that there would be quite a few members here, in the computer audio section, who might share or appreciate my point of view. If I were simply looking for disagreement to mock, I'd go where the vinyl and valve boys roam. And the thing is, I still suspect there are many here who share or appreciate my point of view, though they were probably shouted down long ago.

P
A troll's fate is ceaseless heavy lifting. nt, posted on July 16, 2009 at 06:47:02
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 4560
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Mr. Kauffman..., posted on July 16, 2009 at 06:55:23
theob
Audiophile

Posts: 1959
Location: NE usa
Joined: November 4, 2000
 Not trying to pick a fight or prolong one (I'm just curious)but how many hours a day do you do serious listening?

RE: Mr. Kauffman..., posted on July 16, 2009 at 07:05:34
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 It varies from week to week, but on average, I'd say 4 - 6 hours a week of very serious listening, as in seated, isolated, dedicated listening, not background.

P

RE: A troll's fate is ceaseless heavy lifting. nt, posted on July 16, 2009 at 07:07:31
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 And the inarticulate without a serious position are doomed to post name-calling subject titles without supporting text.

P

Another split hair. [nt], posted on July 16, 2009 at 08:12:23
alan m. kafton
Dealer

Posts: 4157
Joined: April 7, 2000
 nt

RE: Distortion, posted on July 16, 2009 at 08:30:02
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 3233
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
Contributor
  Since: January 16, 2010
 "even very good audiophile systems exhibit distortions at levels so much higher than the things that could cause many of the differences in software, drives, cables, computer power supplies, etc., that audiophiles imagine they hear that they would surely be buried deep in the noise floor"

You know, that seems reasonable but I don't think it's true. My experience is that distortions are very unequal and that sometimes just the tiniest thing will make a significant difference in where reproduced sound falls on my enjoy...annoy scale.

Simple cases, like threshold perception levels of single tones in the presence of Gaussian noise really are only predictive if the distortion is of that nature, say an idle tone. The real distortions we deal with are complex, dynamic things and so are the receivers they affect. This makes measuring them in a meaningful fashion difficult.

Frankly, I think most of the 'legitimate' arguments amongst audiophiles relate to assumptions regarding audibility of distortions that while perfectly logical, reasonable, and possibly supported in the industry are in fact incorrect, incomplete or over-scoped.

For instance... THD. The much maligned THD. In it's day it had two very important things going for it: It was predictive and it was easy to measure. Measuring only took a notch filter and the distortion components were usually at the loud end of things caused by non-linearity in the tubes and saturation in the transformer. What it measured happened to map fairly well to what was heard so it was a fine tool. Nowadays it doesn't do so nearly as well.

Fortunately we all have much improved tools sitting around our houses: computers running FFT programs with data from sound cards. That tells you far more than THD ever could, ah technology. But on the dark side FFT analysis produces it's marvelous look-way-down-into-the-noise performance by narrowing noise bandwidth at the expense of transient response. This technique, like THD also maps to our hearing to some extent for certain sorts of distortions, but clearly not for say random short events.

In a long-winded way, I'm saying that unless your measurement paradigm very closely models the way our hearing and perception actually work, any conclusions or assumptions based on measurements will likely fall on deaf ears...

Rick

RE: Mr. Kauffman..., posted on July 16, 2009 at 08:51:37
theob
Audiophile

Posts: 1959
Location: NE usa
Joined: November 4, 2000
 Do you think that those who listen to that much daily might be more sensitive to subtle variations (that may or may not show up in double blind tests)?

Baloneous Monk, posted on July 16, 2009 at 09:23:09
riboge
Audiophile

Posts: 312
Joined: June 25, 2008
Contributor
  Since: January 15, 2010
 [can't seem to follow up in the original place]
Yes that's real: really bigoted and also disingenuous since you don't just say 'I don't believe you' when you respond to those that hear differences, even though that is all you have to say.

There is no scientific basis for CONCLUDING that those who hear and report differences are merely misled by psychological factors. Past studies, etc, only raise the POSSIBILITY of it, at least some of the time. There is no possibility of proving your position at all since a negative can't be proved. So your position is not science but unsupportable belief like religion. I think I'll call you Baloneous Monk, the proselytizer who crashes secular discussions.

RE: Distortion, posted on July 16, 2009 at 10:11:14
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 Good points. Of course that is the reason why, particularly in the case of otherwise immeasurable "improvements," the ultimate measure is the blind AB/X test, designed and executed in a controlled environment. While such tests can be used to determine preference, they are perfect in these cases, because more often than not we simply need to establish if the change is audible before moving on to preference. Audiophiles continue to come up with a long list of reasons why AB/X testing should not apply, but the objections are all addressable, the conditions are all controllable, and the real problem, I think, is that while AB/X testing can very easily model how our hearing, and even our listening actually works, it doesn't model the way our perceptions work. Quite deliberately, it removes the psychological bias of sighted listening and fails to give us the results we want. So we shoot the messenger.

And before the tirade of excuses followed by the accusation that I listen to test results, not music, follows, let me just make one thing clear: I'm not saying I, or even those who believe they hear the immeasurable should subject themselves to blind listening tests. I don't have the patience to listen for the differences between SS and spinning drives when I could be listening to music. I think the developers and vendors who claim to create great audible advantage where none should logically exist and none can be measured are the ones who should conduct such tests. The burden of proof is theirs. And I suspect that if they really thought such tests would provide evidence of the sonic superiority of their products, that's exactly what they would be doing. It would be a great investment.

Follow Sean Olive's blog. You'll find a man with the discipline and the courage to challenge his company's conventional wisdom, and look at its products through an uncolored lens. It's a trait that doesn't seem to exist in the "high end."

MHO. YMMV. yaddayadda etc.

P

RE: Mr. Kauffman..., posted on July 16, 2009 at 10:17:27
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 I think those who listen that much daily can, and have been included in double blind tests, rendering the point moot.

P

RE: Mr. Kauffman..., posted on July 16, 2009 at 10:30:01
theob
Audiophile

Posts: 1959
Location: NE usa
Joined: November 4, 2000
 ok thanks for the answer. I do respectfully disagree that all who do hear a difference are deluding themselves. For example those who are familiar with Taguchi design of experiments (for determining statistically significant differences) often make use of the 'noise factor' that is those things that cannot be controlled by the experimenter (like temperature, ambient atmospheric pressure, etc). These factors must be identified prior to experimenting so that the experiment can take into consideration. One big such factor in listening tests is powerline condition (distortion levels, noise levels, absolute value of voltage) which I believe significantly affects these tests. When my powerline is amiss I can't determine differences but when it's optimum I can. Just a bit of science to consider.

RE: Mr. Kauffman..., posted on July 16, 2009 at 10:41:26
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 I don't think I've ever said that all who hear a difference are deluding themselves, I certainly didn't mean that. What I AM saying, without reservation, is that psychological bias is powerful, well-documented, and particularly prevalent in the audiophile endeavor. Some may very well hear a difference that is real. But if they think they are immune to sighted bias and that everything they hear in sighted tests is real, they are deluding themselves.

By the way, your hypothesis that small changes in power line condition can mask otherwise audible affects is another variable that could be confirmed, or not, in AB/X testing. I wonder if any of the companies selling expensive power conditioning equipment have done so?

P

...melt into the sea..., posted on July 16, 2009 at 10:46:07
Scrith
Audiophile

Posts: 912
Location: Los Angeles
Joined: July 19, 2005
 Good grief. Well, most desktop systems use hard drives that don't stop spinning unless the computer goes to sleep, so your first point is moot for most of the computer users out there, I'd imagine. Obviously if you are using some special-purpose computer with no hard drive, or it is set up in such a way that it puts the hard drive to sleep while playing back music, such a test is not going to be very interesting for you, because you aren't using a hard drive for music playback anyway (and I guess your OS doesn't use a paging file located on a hard drive).

The second point is only interesting for those who would add RAM in order to be able to create a larger RAM disk. Obviously all I was suggesting was a test to see if using a RAM disk (and I think it was implied that one should not add additional RAM to their system to do such a thing) sounded any different than using a hard drive. If one can't discern a difference between the two, using an SSD or some other memory-based storage device instead of your hard drive isn't going to improve your sound at all. However, somebody with a lot of extra time on their hands could certainly argue that adding an SSD or memory-based storage device to a system that already has a hard drive is going to make it sound WORSE, due to the additional power requirements, driver software, etc.

RE: ...melt into the sea..., posted on July 16, 2009 at 11:00:35
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 4560
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 No paging file. Not appropriate for an audio based system. Not necessary for an ordinary desktop either, if there is sufficient RAM and there are performance and security benefits.

I have an external adapter that connects to the computer with a USB 2.0 connection and has its own external power supply and power switch. It comes with a slot that you can drop a SATA hard drive, and makes it possible to use ordinary hard drives as off-line storage. The normal procedure is as follows:

1. boot up computer without a drive in slot
2. make certain power switch on the adapter is off
3. insert SATA drive into the slot
4. turn on the power switch
5. wait for the system to find and recognize the drive
6. copy data on/off the drive as desired
7. use the Safely Remove Hardware feature of Windows to flush data
8 turn off the power switch
9. remove the drive

It would take some hacking of the O/S to eliminate the boot disk, but it is possible to boot off a RAM disk, so one could probably arrange things to work with every peripheral except the sound card powered down. I'm not suggesting that this would be the way to go for normal operation, but it might be. It is certainly something that should be considered when coming up with a test.

Personally, I think the best results are likely to be a RAM only system that is booted over a network and which does minimal processing, i.e. has a real-time kernal. One would start there playing out of RAM with the network powered down and then add in network access from a server located in another room to see if this causes any audible degradation. I believe people are working in this direction.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Mr. Kauffman..., posted on July 16, 2009 at 13:56:55
theob
Audiophile

Posts: 1959
Location: NE usa
Joined: November 4, 2000
 thanks for the civil give and take

Fake give and take, posted on July 16, 2009 at 15:43:18
riboge
Audiophile

Posts: 312
Joined: June 25, 2008
Contributor
  Since: January 15, 2010
 Theob, do you really think that because he said "Some may very well hear a difference that is real." just now that he will start this way in his next post about someone's report of different software, for instance, sounding different thru the same asyn dac? A maybe-real difference heard requires an explanation more open than 'bits is bits' and offers no basis for not believing the report.

RE: Fake give and take, posted on July 16, 2009 at 16:05:21
theob
Audiophile

Posts: 1959
Location: NE usa
Joined: November 4, 2000
 No I don't. But I just wanted to share some of my experiences that could in fact cause any double blind test to give bad results. But I guess he believes that these 'noise conditiions' must also be determined by double blinds as well. Hey I tried.

RE: Mr. Kauffman..., posted on July 16, 2009 at 19:14:20
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 Same to you.

P

Page processed in 0.131 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2010, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]