Originally Posted by cer
slim.a, most of your assumptions are purely theoretical. What does this "energy spike" caused by a regular HDD look like? Can you cite some valid research about its supposed effect on USB power and asynchronous USB converters? I'm not trying to open the usual can of worms (if these "spikes" really exist, can it actually be audible).
If Teralink measures better than Musiland, we can state, that on that particular case, other factors (not adaptive vs asyncronous) are more important.
Cer, I really don't care proving if what I stated has impact on the sound or not. I have neither the time, the experience nor the tools to conduct a valid experience.
If you read the following article : http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/pa...rge-Foster.pdf
or these (Information for prospective students
). They went into a lot of trouble just to generate a perfect 7khz square wave to do their tests. They realized that the rise time of 7khz square wave generated by a digital device running at 16/44.1 was 1000 slower than what was needed for their experiment. What they realize is that human hearing was a lot more precise than we thought it was.
Also, you didn't realize that you also used theoretical assumptions based on your knowledge when you said that internal hard drives were better than external hard drives, and that those spikes do not matter, ... etc
So we are given the choice between:
1) reading carefully and critically what the reviewer said and try to understand what might affect the sound or not in other systems as well
2) believing that we have figured out everything, that bits are bits, that most changes/tweaks are inaudible, ... and that we should think that the reviewer was crazy to notice any difference
Personally, I prefer to choose option 1. Of course, I do not believe all I read, but when there is a difference, I try to understand where it comes from even if it doesn't fit a certain "logic". Most people are unaware about the importance of the Time domain performance and they believe that the best way to evaluate a DAC is through a RMAA graph (which is mainly limited to the frequency domain measurement).
I have also heard a lot about placebo effect. And in my personal opinion, those who live and listen by measurement graphs live in a placebo world. I tried to like the EMU 0404 usb for more than a year simply because it measured near to perfect and much better than CD performance. However, during that period, I would get tired/bored after only a few minutes. It was until I started trusting my ears (instead of a limited set of measurements) that I started to enjoy music (and not just sounds).
Hopefully, we will have in the future tools and theory that are good enough to skip the subjective reviewing part. Until that happens, subjective listening is essential in assessing the performance of equipment.
So the fact that the 6moons reviewer brought up a few parameters that affect the sound should not bring criticism but curiosity. Of course, it is simpler to laugh at people who say things that seem "outside of the box", but it would be more constructive to investigate those issues instead of plain criticizing.
If some many "gold ears" hadn't complain about how horrible sounding transistor based amps sounded in the late 60s and early 70s, we would be listening to horrible equipment now. The "thd war" led companies to use high level of negative feedback to generate vanishingly low thd measurements. What they didn't seem to realize is that most system were not fast enough to do the corrections in real time. So they were creating problems elswhere (Time Intermodulation Distortion). So at that time, one could have said: since the THD measurement is only known form of distortion, those new amps shoudl be better sounding...
While I might have digressed from the subject of the discussion, it was to point out that when differences are heard, it is more constructive to study why and how it was possible rather than stating the same remarks : "Seriously, folks...", "Bits are bits",...