Computer Storage - Best Practices

[numlog]

heres some posts related to SSD vs HDD debate:

 

 

[numlog]

Romaz comments are kind of confusing when Optane is also a type SSD, so do we have a better term to describe the technology or how its different to traditional ''SSD''?

I thought it was similar to NVMe but apparently not.

Very interested to try it now as I noticed the exact same thing with ''SSDs'', NVMe was also harsher than SATA SSD. 

[numlog]

In regards to SSD vs HDD,  I was reworking the external supplies for my PCIe SATA/USB cards and drive, adding pre-regulators before primary regulators, either with similar ultra low noise types (lt3045, TPS7A4700) or standard (LM350) .

 

Previously when used with the SSD, the drive supply's regulator would run cool (except during writing), only with HDD would it run warm/hot during playback. This was obviously bad yet HDD still sounded best, balancing the load with a pre-regulator should make it even better... right?

Well apparently not, with pre-regulators added to drive, USB and SATA supplies the SSD had a leap in SQ while the HDD is only slightly better.

Most surprising is that the SSD harshness has mostly been lifted, the HDD is still ''smoother'' but with the slight muddiness it adds its hard to go back to it.

 

So in short I guess HDDz are very forgiving of the rest of the system while SSDs are the opposite but they ''scale'' exceptionally well.

They must be highly sensitivity to power supply ripple and noise, because when previously testing a non-optane Kingston NVMe M.2 Drive (i.e noisy MoBo supply) it was even worse than the SATA SSD without the recent power supply improvements.

 

Also the 16GB M.2 optane card I recently got managed to sound better than the SATA SSD before the PS changes so I can only imagine how good the Optane might sound with it... of course even it was possible its too small for storage

[numlog]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 That is exactly what I have been saying with my method of pre-regulating the +12V supply down to +5V followed by a very low noise (<4uV ) JLH PSU add-on. You really need to do the same for the OS SSD as well as the Music SSD though.

 It's harder to do this with the original smaller LT3045s though with their maximum Current Capability of 500MA , although you could use 2 lots of 2 in parallel, but all this could become unwieldy.

Your suggestion for the power supply was excellent, just for unexpected reasons, I didnt expect the SSD to benefit so much, and HDD so little, for the reasons you explained.

Your reason of using pre-reg is to use 12V ATX supply and avoid possible ground loops of external supply, my external supply is 8V from rectifier and with very short distance to transformer and no earthing, so 1 reg should be ok for SSD if heat is ok?

Also some effort was made to remove low ESR caps (tantalum) from reg outputs as you suggested, which helped but didnt fix the problem.

 

The combination of pre-reg and JLH add-on must be an exceptionally high quality power source compared to most, could that be the most significant factor in SSD sound quality?

 

Perhaps I am oversimplifying the use of the pre-reg also, even if there was no obvious heat problem dropping 3.5V with ULN reg they might not sound very good.

 

 

[numlog]

LM350 pre-reg were used for PCIe cards where more dissipation was required for 3.3V while 2 TPS7A4700 (1A) in series were used for the drive, roughly 1.7V drop each. 

 

looking at this example of LT3045, Its really surprising how much more effective regulators can be in series, also surprising how 1 reg that should push PSRR into ''inaudible'' levels isnt enough. LT3045 is on -80dB... so I guess it makes perfect sense! 😁

 https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/vendor-s-bazaar/310402-fs-ultra-low-noise-power-supply-lt3045-based-pcb-15.html#post5424495

[numlog]

@sandykHave you experimented with allocation unit size for storage in windows? seems like something you would be interested in.

 

I was testing different partitions with different file system and allocation sizes, there may be differences here but it doesnt seem to very consistent when verified by ear, they are so small that they may not exist or may be result of small drifts in performance  of rest the system (e.g class A HPamp, slight drift in voltage will affect the distortion profile, among many other things, even in the PC alone)

 

Something that might be important for the differences to even exist is buffer sizes, In XXHE you have indepth control over buffer size and latency. In general the absolute minimum value without stutter offered best SQ and going slightly above these minimums tends to lose some special qualities, when testing different partitions it seemed like increasing buffer size beyond absolute min made hearing any differences impossible. e.g Increased difficulty in the comparisons was noted when listening with high res files on the partitions, where the buffer size was increased roughly from the redbook min, instead  fine tuning to the new absolute minimum buffer for that high res sample rate.

I think this is intended purpose use of buffer, right? to remove these differences, but for whatever reason the larger buffer imparts its own influence on the sound, so for absolute best SQ its not a an ideal solution.

 

For partitions, FAT32 has been most ''prefered'' choice in older posts.

 Im assuming at the very least there could be little reason for NTFS to be BETTER for audio, it seemed that way after a short comparison so it was left out to make things simpler.

Comparing exFAT and FAT32 wasnt very conclusive, but FAT32 did seem to have the edge.

Allocation sizes seemed to have the most difference, 512B vs 64K showed patterns that made guessing between them more consistent, but the ''winner'' seem to vary by each track.

Its possible based on your theory that these differences were imparted when the files were copied to both the partitions, and are the result in slight fluactations in load/noise on the CPU and data interfaces rather than partitions differences.

To help minimize those possible differences I used a RAM Disk as buffer for the files before copying to the partitions.

 

With that said,  exFAT is unique in that it allows very large allocation sizes, up to 32MB.

a 32MB partition seems to a more significant effect on the sound, out all the blind comparisons the 32MB partition was chosen most consistently as the best sounding (compared to 64k exFAT and FAT32) ... could have been a lucky streak but a good start.

 

Also an Optance drive was used for this, it is significantly more resolving than either SSD or HDD as storage so useful for the purpose of testing

 

XXHE aswell is running from RAM, performing file conversion on RAM, aswell as being a memory player, all for best SQ. SW that doesnt use RAM may bring out these differences  more clearly... of course this would only be for the purpose of testing as utilizing RAM is far great priority over whats mentioned above.

[numlog]

its not hard to believe the HDD output does have more jitter in controlled conditions, but must differ in how it reacts with the rest of the PC i.e less jitter (or other sound influence) on the final output at speakers/headphones 

[numlog]

Just now, Richard Dale said:

I find it impossible to believe that bulk mode USB has more jitter than something else because bulk mode USB isn't some kind of real time thing.

just edited that

[numlog]

Maybe not, but it seemed the HDD did not respond as much to the same PS improvements as SSD when compared (briefly). Most of distance could be closed and the SSD honestly sounds preferable,  yet the HDD still seems to have better overall detail retrieval compared to SSD.

 

Replacing external crystals on HDD PCB with low jitter XO is next thing on to-do list, to see if some of the performance limitations can be overcome with a mod like this, if the limitations could mainly be bound to the mechanics or the older electronics built to a lower jitter spec

 

[numlog]

I was under impression the jitter generally resulted in a ''muddier'' and less fatiguing sound like the HDD, but with reduction in resolution/detail. 

Whats described there sounds even more like the SSD, which does give the impression of better clarity (HF detail) but with less smoothness and HDD capturing stereo image more accurately with a better balance of low mid high detail. 

 

 

[numlog]

15 hours ago, sandyk said:

There is no point in doing this unless at the same time you markedly improve the stability and the noise level of it's power supply. Even a markedly improved power supply may help with typical Xtal Oscillators.

 Also, be wary of too much additional capacitance on the output of the Xtal Oscillator if not directly replacing the existing . Many don't like >15pF of output capacitance.(see Spec Sheets)

This is after hearing the comparatively small impact the improved PS made, which is still in use now. The assumption/hope is the internal clocking performance is a significant bottleneck here.

 

[numlog]

1 hour ago, moriez said:

 

 

 

That Ralf. Again.

 

Apparently some are so used to your posts they're not giving any attention. Super admirable but I'm not that zen and because I see you doing it a lot let me ask something with best effort to not be judgemental or offensive. Do you make these type of remarks in real life when you're in a group of people like colleagues or family as well? Oppose and scoff at most, add or construct little? Do you even realize this behaviour strongly resembles that of a very young child who makes her presence known when grown ups are talking? It's plain annoying what you're doing Ralf and really really needs work man. The option to simply quietly move on if a topic isn't for you is always available. Frankly, why admin is so loose for so long is beyond me.

 

Apologies for the off-topic everyone. Had to say in some thread.

agreed,  it seems most of the hard-leaning objectivist's have to bring an air of hostility when dealing with these kind of discussions.

[numlog]

who are these newbies that manage to come here and avoid the other 95% of the internet (including half of this site, courtesy of your valiant efforts) that agree and perpetutate that ''bit are bits''? I think the people  here all already know what they hear is ''wrong''. you are free to waste your time though, 10000 posts later

 

[numlog]

what software settings could cause an explainable difference in this case?

[numlog]

4 hours ago, marce said:

Bits are bits though, maybe you should listen to the 95% who realise bits are bits...

you mean the 95% who parrot what a handful of actual researchers have proved for them over the years.

 

[numlog]

can we get a computeraudiosciencereview subforum?

[numlog]

3 hours ago, marce said:

No I mean those of us who work in high end electronics doing signal integrity and critical layout, that's who... basically the whole of the electronics industry, apart from a few misinformed audiophiles...

 

So if bits are not bits what are they...

Oh jitter/timing is a critical part of signal integrity, that's what we use to ensure the BITS get to the destination in time...

 

you are not really following the post correctly, it was about the chance of unsuspecting newbies finding  incorrect information and how 95% of general audio internet population are already spreading what a small amount of experts have told them.

 ''bits are bits'' '' it either works or it doesnt''  etc. are the typical phrases you will see thrown around a lot

[numlog]

17 minutes ago, marce said:

I think I get you now...

 

ok...

[numlog]

as you put it yourself you believe in science, as again its only a belief, always subject to change as new information comes to light... I dont understand the die-hard attitude around it when you think about how horribly and collectively wrong scientists have been in the past.

[numlog]

they are bashing the self proclaimed scientists whose main focus doesnt seem to be making new discoveries and helping us understand what we dont while simulataneously becoming more respected as scientist and as an audiophile, but instead refute all possible hints that current science is flawed in some way... at least thats the impression I got.

active research, testing etc into something you believe is nonsense is definitely a lot tougher than the former, likewise its a lot easier for the audiophile to just accept what they ''think'' they hear is real.