Computer Storage - Best Practices

[mansr]

31 minutes ago, manisandher said:

The 9/10 ABX result hasn't been debunked, and won't be

It has also not been confirmed, and won't be. A single test result proves nothing. That's all there is to say until substantial new information is obtained. Unfortunately, hauling my lab gear to your place isn't practical.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

That’s sounds so familiar.  Subjectivists too argue the same. The difference will only audible in their setup.  

It doesn't have to be my gear. The problem is that Mani doesn't have any.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

oh no - this single test result "proves" to xx level of significance that he could hear a difference in the 2 regimes

 

what we don't know was the cause - unfortunately, software settings differed, and that appears likely to have been the reason; it is certainly the most parsimonious mechanistic explanation

 It's also possible that he simply got lucky. Given the odds involved, I'd consider that the more likely explanation.

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, sandyk said:

IF the saved files were identical then they would sound identical. Clearly there ARE differences that the Checksums and other Binary checks are presently incapable of showing.

Does "identical" have a different meaning down under?

[mansr]

8 hours ago, STC said:

Too bad.  You took part and allowed the single test to proceed. It is no use now to cry that the methodology was invalid, especially when it was conducted by an objectivist. 

I never said it was invalid, although I would have liked for some aspects to have been better controlled. Given the surprising outcome, the next step should be an attempt to replicate the result in a more controlled environment. Until that happens, all we have is an unexplained anomaly.

[mansr]

19 minutes ago, marce said:

Yeah right....

Without all this science and engineering we wouldn't be talking on this forum or listening to digitally stored music or all the rest of it, why do audiophiles bash it so much?

[mansr]

2 hours ago, moriez said:

I sincerely like this informative post and in full agreement with the last sentence. Just.. it's out of context and simply not what the thread is about! Don't you want to get my point? The majority of contributers in this specific thread are-interested-in-best-practices-for-computer-storage. Not much else I think.

They are apparently not interested in learning that most aspects of storage devices are simply not relevant for sound quality.

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, abulr said:

and from the side that believes for example "SD Card is far superior than SSD" for SQ... does anyone have a thought as to why? I'll start... is it possible that one bus is more error-prone on reproducing these 0's and 1's?...

The error rates of typical storage devices are vanishingly low. If they were not, nothing would work reliably.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, alfe said:

Then explain why for the last generation oHDD we moved from RS codes to LDPC codes.

To achieve said low error rate at the external interface, presumably. As long as the drive responds correctly to ATA commands, nobody needs to care how it manages to do this. The type of error correcting codes used internally isn't going to influence the sound when an audio file is played back. You know this.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, alfe said:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269889887_Performance_Comparison_Between_Low-Density_Parity-Check_And_Reed-Solomon_Codes_Using_Wireless_Image_Transmission_System

How is that relevant?