[WindowsX]

I read archimago's measurements about Rasberry Pi 3 today here.
 
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/01/measurements-raspberry-pi-3-as-usb.html
 
I'm surprised about his later paragraphs about CRAAP config. He said optimizing OS with CRAAP config like get better sound like this.
 
Lower clock speed --> less power use --> less CPU noise --> better sound!
Better aligned clock speeds --> less random & periodic jitter --> better sound!
Less power use --> less strain on power supply --> less noise & jitter (cuz it's like that) --> better sound!
 
He also mentioned about better sound with streaming audio too in this line.
 
for audio streaming, it's still just as responsive (while sounding better of course!).
 
I tried to look for measurements between default config and CRAAP config in his website but couldn't find any measurements or scientific explanation to from him. Here's the reasons for his explanation.
 
And of course it'll sound better due to all the above reasons reducing noise and jitter! (Cuz it's like that...)
 
Not that I disagree and I know these aren't his comments. But the fact he put it on his website means he agreed to put it on at least. Coming from archimago, I expect showing measurements between using and not using CRAAP configuration like other tests he's been doing so far but I didn't see one this time. What do guys think about CRAAP config for Rasberry Pi 3?

 

[watchnerd]

The CRAAP configuration was him joking around.
 
 
The pre-CRAAP system is already dramatically underutilized and exhibits no obviously audible measurable noise from the Wifi and CPU.
 
I'm willing to bet that the reason he didn't measure it is that he doesn't think it will measure different in a way that actually matters.
 
Underclocking the system might measure slightly better, but noise and jitter are already so low as to be moot.
 
That's why it's a joke and has a joke name.
 
If you really want to know why he didn't measure it, post in his comments and ask him.

 

[WindowsX]

Well, joking aside, There's about -10db difference between Pi3 and Surface Pro in stereo crosstalk at 20-25Hz. Noise level on Pi3 is higher than others at about 3db at 50Hz. Some would say it's insignificant but I don't think so.

Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[watchnerd]

 
Noise level on Pi3 is higher than others at about 3db at 50Hz. Some would say it's insignificant but I don't think so.
 

 
They're all below -130 dBFS.
 
Why do you think that is audible?
 
That's below the noise floor of CD.

 

[WindowsX]

   
They're all below -130 dBFS.
 
Why do you think that is audible?
 
That's below the noise floor of CD.

 
I don't think it's audible but changes above 3db is significant. Just saying. By the way, I'm sure over 10db difference in stereo crosstalk at 20-25hz is audible and important yet you ignored this.

 

[watchnerd]

   
I don't think it's audible but changes above 3db is significant. Just saying. By the way, I'm sure over 10db difference in stereo crosstalk at 20-25hz is audible and important yet you ignored this.

 
I ignored it because the whole topic of crosstalk is controversial in therms of preferences.

 

[WindowsX]

Surely objectivists love to make rules suiting their own ideas.

 

[spruce music]

You're mixing your own multi-miked recording.  You wish to put the bass player way over on the far left, and a trumpet far to the right.  Do you know how much level difference (or channel separation) is required to get maximum left and right imaging?  HINT:it isn't nearly as much as you probably think. HINT #2:  Our directional acuity goes down below 80 hz so what is needed or even possible at 25 hz is smaller still.  See if you can answer the question.  If you can't, I can provide some examples to let you hear the results for yourself.

 

[WindowsX]

  You're mixing your own multi-miked recording.  You wish to put the bass player way over on the far left, and a trumpet far to the right.  Do you know how much level difference (or channel separation) is required to get maximum left and right imaging?  HINT:it isn't nearly as much as you probably think. HINT #2:  Our directional acuity goes down below 80 hz so what is needed or even possible at 25 hz is smaller still.  See if you can answer the question.  If you can't, I can provide some examples to let you hear the results for yourself.

 
So any measurements that proved to be significant will be eliminated by such explanations like we don't need that much from real observations. Cool! It's very convenient to be objectivist. Sign me up!

 

[spruce music]

  Surely objectivists love to make rules suiting their own ideas.

No, objectivists love to have ideas that match what really works.  That match genuine perception.  That match how hearing works.  Apparently we do so well at this, you think the ideas came first.  When in fact the data and evidence is what informed those ideas.  
 
You really should sign up.  Much better than mystery and imagination if you want to get things done.  Or do you now wish to ignore evidence, ignore perception and ignore everything other than the rather childish idea everything you can imagine matters in the utmost?  Choice is yours, what works however isn't your choice as you'll find reality intrudes.

 

[WindowsX]

 
No, objectivists love to have ideas that match what really works.  That match genuine perception.  That match how hearing works.  Apparently we do so well at this, you think the ideas came first.  When in fact the data and evidence is what informed those ideas.  
 
You really should sign up.  Much better than mystery and imagination if you want to get things done.  Or do you now wish to ignore evidence, ignore perception and ignore everything other than the rather childish idea everything you can imagine matters in the utmost?  Choice is yours, what works however isn't your choice as you'll find reality intrudes.

 
FLAC and WAV really sound different. Many sound engineers prefer wav format over aiff/flac. Can objectivist explain why flac and wav sounds different with data and evidence?

 

[spruce music]

   
FLAC and WAV really sound different. Many sound engineers prefer wav format over aiff/flac. Can objectivist explain why flac and wav sounds different with data and evidence?

They don't sound different.  Other than sighted listening do you have any evidence they do?  Logically they should not sound different at all.  So someone making the claim that somehow despite all logic they do differ has the burden of proof upon themselves.  So what do you have?

 

[WindowsX]

I don't have data or evidence that may satisfy you. It probably don't sound logically to any of you anyway. I also have this scenario from real life. I burned WAV files into CD and tried comparing between playing WAV files to USB Audio in Esoteric D-02 and CD playback from Esoteric P-02. Despite having the same information with bit-perfect transport, Esoteric P-02 sounds so much better than USB Audio input feeding from file that writes onto CD.
 
What do you think about it?

 

[spruce music]

 

I have taken files in wav and FLAC form.  Played them back and recorded the results.  They null very deeply right near the thermal noise floor of the gear.  They null completely as far as the data is concerned.  Digital audio is the data and clocking.  As I was using asynch USB for playback the clocking was the same, the data was the same and the results were within limits of noise floors the same.  Blind testing showed I couldn't hear a difference.  Same for a few people I know.  Logic of what is involved said there should be no difference.  Of course that is wav vs Flac.
 
You now have shifted to USB wav vs disc rendered wav.  So you say they sounded different.  Is this a sighted evaluation or impression or one done unsighted?  If the former, then I consider you to have no evidence whatsoever.  Why would it sound better from disc than from USB sourcing?  Again you are the one claiming an unlikely to be so event.  Do you have anything beyond subjective data on the subject?

 

[WindowsX]

From small group of participants like 4 people doing informal blind testing, none of them guessed incorrectly from 5 tries. They're elder people and not really familiar with blind testing so we meant to do that in lighted heart manner. But data we found from recording didn''t show any significant result too.
 
There're a few more things audiophiles can perceive difference but there's no measurement to back up their claim. I'm sure if you can try listening to highend equipment in good systems yourself, you'll be able to tell apart too.