[Zan.Tiago]

I'm looking at putting the music library Into an SSD drive.
Lots of people have mentioned this is a vast improvement to an external HDD which I'm currently using. I'
m also told its best to run JRiver from a different drive. I was wondering if I should run JRiver from a 32GB usb flash drive and the music library from a 256GB SSD via a thunderbolt cable.

Does anyone have experience of this and is it worth doing.

 

[Slogra]

Ofcourse not!

It can be a huge improvement in speed, but that will not improve sound quality.

Also if you move the hdd a lot, then an ssd also a big improvements because it can take shocks a lot better.

 

[Zan.Tiago]

Ofcourse not!

It can be a huge improvement in speed, but that will not improve sound quality.

Also if you move the hdd a lot, then an ssd also a big improvements because it can take shocks a lot better.

Thanks!

 

[PurpleAngel]

I'm looking at putting the music library Into an SSD drive.
Lots of people have mentioned this is a vast improvement to an external HDD which I'm currently using. I'
m also told its best to run JRiver from a different drive. I was wondering if I should run JRiver from a 32GB usb flash drive and the music library from a 256GB SSD via a thunderbolt cable.
Does anyone have experience of this and is it worth doing.

I can't see putting music audio files on an SSD (SATA or NVMe) and using a separate storage device for JRiver, to offer improvements in audio quality.
I'm all for putting music audio files on an SSD, I think putting your OS and programs and stored data (like music files) all on an SSD drive, for speeding everything up.
Using a NVMe SSD for a boot (and storage drive, hooked up to the PCI-E bus, is great for the speed of the OS or and other program and for storage for data
I do not see anything wrong with running JRiver (or other music program) from the same storage device as the music files are stored on.

 

[Roseval]

This is part of the “software induced jitter” theory.
Each electrical component does what it is supposed to do but also delivers a by-product like EMI, RFI, ripple on the groundplane, etc. This is assumed to influence the DA process.
All these claim of dramatic improvement in sound quality are based on assumptions that e.g. a SSD is more quiet (electrical) than a HD.
Of course you should use audiophile grade SATA cables as well

I would say reduction of “electrical noise” is something that can be measured e.g. the noise level and or the jitter performance should improve by applying this tweaks
Never have seen measurements proving this.

Most of this recommendations are a matter of listening with one’s eyes.
If you see something changing, you will hear a difference simply because our perception works that way.

 

[u2u2]

I don't think there is any difference on a good system that a person is capable of perceiving in respect to the quality of playback. I keep my iTunes and CD rips on good quality hard drives (Thunderbolt 2 connections in my case). My higher quality digital purchases are all on a motherboard mounted SSD. Only reasons are the SSD is fast and there is no mechanical wear which equals reliability. Plus it keeps the listening environment quieter. No HD sounds, no computer and drive fan noise (I do use a nMP because the fan is dead quiet, and passive cooled external HDs with heavy sound isolating cases - the SSD is still better). Great for open back headphones. Never had an SSD fail but have lost many spinning HDs. The stuff I listen to most gets the benefit of pricier storage. I also backup those costly files to two external SSD drives. The speed and reliability more than offset the upfront costs. Can't comment on JRiver as I run Audirvana from the same SSD. Totally worth it, but not purely for playback quality.

 

[PurpleAngel]

I would expect any program that plays a music audio files, would load the audio file onto the main RAM anyway.