[spongezone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelamvr6 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That would be attributable to poor sound subsystem design or sound subsystem malfunction, not to the superiority of solid state hard drives for sound reproduction. Unless I misinterpreted, Patrick was referring specifically to the quality of the data output from the disk(s). He didn't mention hearing hard drives spin for example, he spoke of the sound being "edgy". I can't believe that anyone discussing the kinds of differences claimed in this thread would be using a notebooks built-in sound subsystem. I would consider it a given that notebook computers' built-in sound subsystem would be disqualified as completely inappropriate when discussing such matters.

Actually, I was going to mention the choice of the words "smooth" and "edgy" rather than hearing the quiet clicks and beeps associated with hard drive and CPU noise, but I assumed I would get flamed. I agree with you about this.

 

[Patrick82]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelamvr6 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why do you believe that you would be the only human impervious to placebo effect? Do you at least admit that it is at least possible that you are imagining these differences?

It's always possible. How I avoid placebo is by throwing away all the subtle differences and only focus on the huge improvements that I'm sure are true. That's what I did 5 months ago, I wasn't sure I could hear a difference between FLAC and WAV, so I just forgot about it. I did that with the harddrives too, the difference was small and I wondered if it was real, but I didn't want to believe it so I just forgot about it. Later I was using 7 harddrives and I wondered why it sounded so horrible. When I removed the harddrives the difference was night and day.

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick82 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's always possible. How I avoid placebo is by throwing away all the subtle differences and only focus on the huge improvements that I'm sure are true. That's what I did 5 months ago, I wasn't sure I could hear a difference between FLAC and WAV, so I just forgot about it. I did that with the harddrives too, the difference was small and I wondered if it was real, but I didn't want to believe it so I just forgot about it. Later I was using 7 harddrives and I wondered why it sounded so horrible. When I removed the harddrives the difference was night and day.

7 hard drives? That is a lot.

But as mentioned before in this thread, if that number of hard drives were enough to change the output of your power supply enough to cause problems with the data output of your hard drives, the system would crash well before you had a chance to notice inferior sound quality.

 

[Purgatos]

Does the computer case make a difference to the sound too Patrick? How about the monitor?

 

[rain_uk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejarzo /img/forum/go_quote.gif But that ignores the fact that transports in CD players are, in fact, prone to vibration and send errors on to the DAC quite frequently

Can't argue with that, but using a CD player can eliminate a lot a factors which may affect the sound when using a PC such as player software and memory errors and the RFI, it's only my opinion but when I burn Flac or Wav files onto a CDR and use a nice stand alone player I enjoy the sound more... placebo it may be but it works for me

Today I purchased a good quality 'Roberts' portable radio, I had to turn off the PC while auto-scanning for stations, the RFI is quite abundent from my PC it seems

 

[Patrick82]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purgatos /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does the computer case make a difference to the sound too Patrick? How about the monitor?

Yes, I'm using Magix levitation feet under everything.

A year ago I tried Solid-tech Feet of Silence under the computer case but wasn't sure there was a difference, but later I tried it again and heard a difference, so I bought more Magix for my computer.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick82 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm using an external DAC and the issue still remains.

That's why this entire argument is 100% bunk.

1) You're using digital output, no amount of blitter effects a digital output

2) You're using a Benchmark DAC, notorious for it's ability to stop all forms of jitter.

3) I converted my Dolby Digital .wav file to FLAC and ran my PC at 100% load (2 copies of Prime95). I loaded up the .flac file in foobar2000. I sent the digital output to my receiver, and guess what. It decodes the signal without errors!


My guess is 1) your decoder is bad (not likely), 2) you haven't setup your sound card properly for digital output (not likely), 3) you're just hearing whatever you want to hear because you can see it says "FLAC" on your media player.

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rain_uk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can't argue with that, but using a CD player can eliminate a lot a factors which may affect the sound when using a PC such as player software and memory errors and the RFI, it's only my opinion but when I burn Flac or Wav files onto a CDR and use a nice stand alone player I enjoy the sound more... placebo it may be but it works for me Today I purchased a good quality 'Roberts' portable radio, I had to turn off the PC while auto-scanning for stations, the RFI is quite abundent from my PC it seems

How often do you open up a word processing document or spreadsheet and find random errors, or that numbers change before your eyes? Likely never.

Does PC player software necessarily introduce more errors (or worse errors?) than the error correction required in a dedicated CD player to make it workable as an "on the fly" device? Basically, all it has to do is transfer data--and if that's a hopeless task for audio software, no software of any sort would work!!!!

RFI.....well, I guess that might be some problem for internal cards, but for external devices, that should not be a big issue.

What is so superior in the way a dedicated player handles data transfer compared to a PC? It's not as if the player isn't controlled by a variety of microprocessors within and sitting right next to the transport.

If a dedicated player is so superior in the way it handles data, why did PC designers bother to make systems better? Remember, when it comes to redbook CD, we are talking very early 1980's technology.

 

[mofonyx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif 2) You're using a Benchmark DAC, notorious for it's ability to stop all forms of jitter.

Well pointed out!

 

[philodox]

Aphex944 - Well put.

This reasoning is what leads me to believe it is either a decoding setting, replaygain or some other software problem. Well, either that or placebo.

----------

rain_uk - At least I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

----------

sejarzo/nelamvr6 - Yes transports do have error correction, but it has much less of a negative impact than you would think. Data coming from a harddrive may be technically superior to that coming from a transport, but good luck getting it out to your DAC without being seriously comprimised. Any half decent transport buffers the data it retrieves and with current technology the data lost is minimal in any case.

Computers use switch mode power supplies and both noise and RFI are an issue. Every listening test I have ever seen [including my own] shows that with a dedicated transport and DAC coax is preferable to optical. With a computer setup you will probably find that optical is superior as it helps get around the noise/RFI issues. If we are talking one box dedicated sources you need not worry about cables and can bypass SPDIF entirely. This is my preference as SPDIF is a terrible standard.

Redbook may be an old format, but the technology has improved significantly in the past 25 years. I'm not sure where you are going with that argument in any case as your computer source material ultimately comes from redbook anyways...

 

[003]

If Patrick is pulling all your legs, this thread is funny. If he's serious -- it's even funnier.

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif sejarzo/nelamvr6 - Yes transports do have error correction, but it has much less of a negative impact than you would think. Data coming from a harddrive may be technically superior to that coming from a transport, but good luck getting it out to your DAC without being seriously comprimised. Any half decent transport buffers the data it retrieves and with current technology the data lost is minimal in any case.

I don't have any trouble at all getting my data to my DAC, it travels via ethernet to my Squeezebox.

Quote:

Computers use switch mode power supplies and both noise and RFI are an issue.

ONLY when using analog circuitry built-in to the computer case. This is not the case with Patrick. He said himself he is using an outboard DAC. RFI and noise cannot have any impact on digital data, it is either a 1 or a 0, period. There is no such thing as an audiophile grade 1. A 1 is a 1, a 0 is a 0.

Quote:

Redbook may be an old format, but the technology has improved significantly in the past 25 years. I'm not sure where you are going with that argument in any case as your computer source material ultimately comes from redbook anyways...

Not germane to the discussion. Patrick stated that flac files were brighter than wav files of the same source, he didn't mention the source of the files, but it really doesn't matter. I feel safe to stipulate that the files were both ripped from redbook CD's if that will help the discussion.

 

[rain_uk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejarzo /img/forum/go_quote.gif How often do you open up a word processing document or spreadsheet and find random errors, or that numbers change before your eyes? Likely never. .

I open a large xml file a few times a week and often it doesnt open correctly, second try it usually does though..

 

[Bizzel]

That could be due to insufficient memory. Perhaps on the second try, your OS has already freed more resources after the first attempt fails? That or you have a faulty component somewhere.

 

[spongezone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rain_uk /img/forum/go_quote.gif I open a large xml file a few times a week and often it doesnt open correctly, second try it usually does though..

That's more than likely a bug in the program you're opening it with. Failing that, its an OS issue. Either way, its irrelevant to this debate, minus adding more insanity to it