Does CPU cache relate to sound quality?

[NAIDIVER]

Someone told me that more cpu cache is better. That's why i7 ( 8mb cache ) sounds better than i3 and i5 ( 6mb cache )

 

While another theory is lower cache sounds better.

 

What is right and what is wrong?

[panosm]

in my opinion it does. tried low power i3,i5 and i7 CPUs and the I7s where better. Though there is not a day to night difference.

[NAIDIVER]

in my opinion it does. tried low power i3,i5 and i7 CPUs and the I7s where better. Though there is not a day to night difference.

 

Unfortunately i can't afford three of them for testing. v_v,

[elcorso]

Someone told me that more cpu cache is better. That's why i7 ( 8mb cache ) sounds better than i3 and i5 ( 6mb cache )

 

While another theory is lower cache sounds better.

 

What is right and what is wrong?

 

The computer that gives you better Latency. Lower is better.

 

Unfortunately the "DPC Latency Checker" app worked perfect until Windows 7 included.

 

DPC Latency Checker

 

Roch

[NAIDIVER]

The computer that gives you better Latency. Lower is better.

 

Roch

 

Lower is better, do you mean lower latency or lower cache.

Normally i will reduce latency (in bios setting) as much as my pc can go.

[elcorso]

Lower is better, do you mean lower latency or lower cache.

Normally i will reduce latency (in bios setting) as much as my pc can go.

 

Lower Latency. Then, I would go to to the highest cache.

 

Roch

[NAIDIVER]

Lower Latency. Then, I would go to to the highest cache.

 

Roch

 

Yes. That's what i plan to do.

Could you explain me a little bit more? ... How higher cache improve the sound?

I don't how it works in Technical term.

[elcorso]

Yes. That's what i plan to do.

Could you explain me a little bit more? ... How higher cache improve the sound?

I don't how it works in Technical term.

 

I'm pretty long to be a computer expert, but I've had the opportunity to listen to digital music through various computers.

 

My summary would read as follows: A fast CPU can generate less heat and EMI noise than a slow one, especially in programs such as HQ Player running under upsampling and filters with complicated algorithms, and heat & EMI can result in noise in reproduced music, like drop-outs, etc. And cache is part of the CPU speed.

 

Roch

[ElviaCaprice]

I agree, but it depends on what your intending to do? Resample/upsampling or ASIO. If ASIO/optimized Windows as I do, I barely run 1 percent of my CPU on two cores for all my audio from DSD to DXD. Thus if ASIO run lowest power possible and you can use a very cheap CPU/Motherboard.

[NAIDIVER]

I'm pretty long to be a computer expert, but I've had the opportunity to listen to digital music through various computers.

 

My summary would read as follows: A fast CPU can generate less heat and EMI noise than a slow one, especially in programs such as HQ Player running under upsampling and filters with complicated algorithms, and heat & EMI can result in noise in reproduced music, like drop-outs, etc. And cache is part of the CPU speed.

 

Roch

 

I see most of hi-end audio pc such as. PPA streacom, Small green Pipeline V3, are based on high performance pc.

 

That's why i turn to look at high performance pc with some doubt.

 

Can it beat $3000 cd player?

[NAIDIVER]

I agree, but it depends on what your intending to do? Resample/upsampling or ASIO. If ASIO/optimized Windows as I do, I barely run 1 percent of my CPU on two cores for all my audio from DSD to DXD. Thus if ASIO run lowest power possible and you can use a very cheap CPU/Motherboard.

 

Have you experienced trying compare the best low performance pc to some commercial digital audio products, aurrender or Auralic for example.

[ElviaCaprice]

Have you experienced trying compare the best low performance pc to some commercial digital audio products, aurrender or Auralic for example.

 

None, since versatility plus video playback are heavy priorities of mine.

[panosm]

I compared my media center using the dac on my tube preamp through usb against a modded marantz SA15 and a not moddet Marantz SA11 and the result is like that, multiple people involved, marantz (both) playing SACDs media center HiDef flacs:

 

1. Media center

2. Modded SA15

3. not modded SA11

[NAIDIVER]

I compared my media center using the dac on my tube preamp through usb against a modded marantz SA15 and a not moddet Marantz SA11 and the result is like that, multiple people involved, marantz (both) playing SACDs media center HiDef flacs:

 

1. Media center

2. Modded SA15

3. not modded SA11

 

Wow! Interesting!

What do you use, cpu, mb, ram, psu and others such as usb card?

[panosm]

The PSU is a home build battery based 12V/15A linear supply.

MB: MSI Z87I Gaming AC (MS-7887)

CPU: QuadCore Intel Core i7-4790T, 2700 MHz (27 x 100)

USB, just a standard card with replaced capacitors to oscons and its own 5V low noice reg directly at 12V

2 clocks one for the MB one for the USB, both Dexa Neutron stars

[NAIDIVER]

The PSU is a home build battery based 12V/15A linear supply.

MB: MSI Z87I Gaming AC (MS-7887)

CPU: QuadCore Intel Core i7-4790T, 2700 MHz (27 x 100)

USB, just a standard card with replaced capacitors to oscons and its own 5V low noice reg directly at 12V

2 clocks one for the MB one for the USB, both Dexa Neutron stars

Dexa Nuetron stars!!!

I've never heard its sound.

Is it much better than OCXO?

[panosm]

It is an Ocxo. A good one

[mansr]

If the computer is fast enough to play your music without drop-outs, more cache will not improve anything.

[panosm]

I always enjoy my self reading replies from people that stick to theory that they did not try. I have tried as I wrote and it is a difference

[mansr]

I always enjoy my self reading replies from people that stick to theory that they did not try. I have tried as I wrote and it is a difference

 

You said the i7 was better. Better by what metric, and by how much? Got any graphs you could show?

[panosm]

No! It just sounds more correct, more relaxed if you prefer

[audiventory]

If the computer is fast enough to play your music without drop-outs, more cache will not improve anything.

 

It's fully correct.

 

If claimed "more cache - better sound always", as minimum, need theoretically define that technical parameter improve sound due infinite cache extention?

 

As example:

 

1. Sound quality can't be other if technical parameters same for 2 cases.

There is not esoteric.

 

2. We connect measurement apparatus to output of audio apparatus.

 

3. We increase cache.

What must be changed? Spectrum? Phase response? Other?

[mantleovmygt]

I would go to to the highest cache.

[Pepsican]

The computer that gives you better Latency. Lower is better.

 

Unfortunately the "DPC Latency Checker" app worked perfect until Windows 7 included.

 

DPC Latency Checker

 

Roch

 

 

For audio recording yes, for palyback there is no difference. Why? Buffering. That is required for the various reclocking exercises so there is no gain due to faster response times. Also, with low-latency the CPU checks more frequently for new jobs, which increases the spikes due to increases in clock speed even when idle.

[yincr]

The question is, for all that say that having more cache/processing power is not important, have they tried it?, or is just a technical opinion?.