Computer Storage - Best Practices

[Ralf11]

21 minutes ago, abulr said:

boy this was tough to follow...

ok, here's a SUSPECTING Newbie... where did the wise elderly end up?
I'm going Mac Mini as transport, USB out to DAC
If bits are bits then shouldn't matter that i do this from internal SATA HDD (and the only benefit of upgrading to SSD would be Speed)

are all those other posts about hearing benefits running OS off SD Card, storing music on separate bus from DAC output type, and trying to run the music off RAMdisk then moot if bits are just bits?

thanks in advance,

a.r.

 

not moot if noise can get into the DAC from a power supply or noise on the AC line; or if noise is transmitted to a susceptible DAC along the USB cable

 

the controversy is about how much noise & by what route (besides the typical audiophool magical thimking)

 

if you follow the precautionary principle (balanced with some avoidance or wallet lightening) then it makes a lot of sense to try galvanic isolation on the USB cable, at least

 

whether you 'need' a special low noise PS (and a LPS or good SMPS) may depend not just on the characteristics of your DAC, but on the type of music you listen to most -- I suspect that symphonic music might want lower noise than say Legends of the Wah-wah Pedal

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

careful - some of the anti-VAXers on this thread think science and engineering is a "disruptive comment"

 

you must never challenge the muffy army with facts 

 

 The only fact here is that is that you have very little experience in the electronics area, or PC Audio itself, and members seeking advice would be well advised to seek a second or more opinion.

 He regards everybody else , with the exception of qualified E.E.s and of course himself .as Audiophools.

 

[Ralf11]

actually, I have a fair amount of experience in the "electronics area" -- not that a Sand storm would know

 

 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

whether you 'need' a special low noise PS (and a LPS or good SMPS) may depend not just on the characteristics of your DAC, but on the type of music you listen to most -- I suspect that symphonic music might want lower noise than say Legends of the Wah-wah Pedal

 

What many may be surprised to find out, is that heavy duty rock music actually benefits more from higher transparency, and lower playback noise - than classical recordings. It's relatively easy to get symphonic works coming across well; but bells and whistles pop and driving pieces are a greater test of a rig's capability - the tremendous level of detail and complexity of musical ideas that comes through can take one's breath away. Only a super clean reproduction chain removes the normal playback sludge enough, to properly showcase what was captured.

[moriez]

14 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

careful - some of the anti-VAXers on this thread think science and engineering is a "disruptive comment"

 

you must never challenge the muffy army with facts

 

It's disruptive when science and engineering isn't what it's about, yet some can't resist the urge to beat others to death with what they have convinced themselves of as irrelevant as it is to what the topic starter is after. Also disruptive Ralf, is the ridiculing and so very unnecessary name-calling of which you show us two fine examples. Post #151 on the other hand is commendable. More of those!

[marce]

Yet designing audio reproduction equipment is all about science and engineering... Or haven't you noticed...

[sandyk]

26 minutes ago, marce said:

Yet designing audio reproduction equipment is all about science and engineering... Or haven't you noticed...

 

 Yet there is still a large gulf in the execution  of many audio reproduction items doing exactly the same job.

[marce]

2 hours ago, marce said:

Yet designing audio reproduction equipment is all about science and engineering... Or haven't you noticed...

What is it then Motberg... since you seem to disagree...

I could do with a laugh

[moriez]

4 hours ago, marce said:

Yet designing audio reproduction equipment is all about science and engineering... Or haven't you noticed...

 

Has nothing to do with the intended purpose of the thread and with my point. Take a look again at post #1.

 

I certainly wonder about this need in you 'non-believers' that must prove the other side wrong or at least oppose time and again unasked for. So tiring. Did all the numbers crunching erase traits like consideration and courtesy? The live and let live? Reminds me of a bunch of fun-loving guys doing what they do until the bad boys from down the block turn up harrassing and ruining a perfectly good time. I quite genuinely wish you guys found a way to enjoy yourselves NOT at the expense of others, because as I see it that's what's going on here way too much. 

 

There is little for me to add so will now retire from the thread. Sorry for the slight derailment and all the best.

[marce]

Yawn, why do so many true believers in magic and unicorns have to spit their dummy out of the pram... Today's digitally sourced music (well for the last 30 odd years) depends on quite complex electronics, so having at least a modicum of understanding of electronics and electronic engineering is required if you are really going to delve into it.

It nothing to do with proving the other side wrong its to do with facts and determining what does and does not improve sound, to do it properly you need to follow certain practices and methodologies...

You can be an audiophile and believe in science and engineering, you don't have to believe all the BS and misguided information....

[marce]

Worryingly we are always referred to as non-believers, its a hobby not a religion.

[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.

[marce]

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?

[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.

[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?

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, moriez said:

 

Has nothing to do with the intended purpose of the thread and with my point. Take a look again at post #1.

 

I certainly wonder about this need in you 'non-believers' that must prove the other side wrong or at least oppose time and again unasked for. So tiring. Did all the numbers crunching erase traits like consideration and courtesy? The live and let live? Reminds me of a bunch of fun-loving guys doing what they do until the bad boys from down the block turn up harrassing and ruining a perfectly good time. I quite genuinely wish you guys found a way to enjoy yourselves NOT at the expense of others, because as I see it that's what's going on here way too much. 

 

There is little for me to add so will now retire from the thread. Sorry for the slight derailment and all the best.

 

You are correct in that marce did not conduct a controlled experiment on A vs. B to make his stmt.  That is called science (in case you skipped high school or something)

 

Instead, he is relying on his considerable expertise in very hi-tech fields.  The US Supreme Court interprets how expertise gets into a trial, and it is weighted more highly than someone without expertise.

 

In my view, if marce is 'guilty' of anything it is being too careful (e.g. importing two noise concerns in batteries from very high level edge of engineering areas into computer audio).

 

people are being re-ridiculed because they ridiculed others first (who are scientists or engineers with extensive experience in relevant areas to sound reproduction)

 

either that or their stmt. evince beliefs that are far, far beyond the pale 

 

Posts claiming that scientists do not have open minds are also off base.  A scientist has an open mind ot new information (data) but it is not open like a screen door in a submarine.  No experiment, no science.

 

Comparisons here to anti-5G and anti-VAXers are completely appropriate.  Sadly.

[fas42]

Where science gets into trouble is when some of the current spokemen for "what is known" proclaim that they are able to close the book on some area - "all that is important is now fully understood!" ... this is the egg in one's face, that keeps repeating, decade after decade.

[sandyk]

 

Once again, a certain group of Anti Audiophile members, some without any qualifications whatsoever in the Electronics and Computer fields, who blindly accept everything stated by several hard line Objective members,  has yet again decided to disrupt and cause the inevitable demise of a thread that they do not agree with, posting replies that have no relevance to the question being asked by the original poster.

 Moriez was 100% correct when he posted this :

Quote

Has nothing to do with the intended purpose of the thread and with my point. Take a look again at post #1.

 

I certainly wonder about this need in you 'non-believers' that must prove the other side wrong or at least oppose time and again unasked for. So tiring. Did all the numbers crunching erase traits like consideration and courtesy? The live and let live? Reminds me of a bunch of fun-loving guys doing what they do until the bad boys from down the block turn up harrassing and ruining a perfectly good time. I quite genuinely wish you guys found a way to enjoy yourselves NOT at the expense of others, because as I see it that's what's going on here way too much. 

 

There is little for me to add so will now retire from the thread. Sorry for the slight derailment and all the best.

 

[sandyk]

8 hours ago, marce said:

 

You can be an audiophile and believe in science and engineering, you don't have to believe all the BS and misguided information....

 

 Most of the members do, but they refuse to blindly accept that an expertise in one area of electronics also translates to expertise in other different areas of electronics, like you and others like Mansr  repeatedly claim.

 

For example, design and make a DAC for comparison purposes with other designs such as those from Peter St. and others, to show just how much your experience in other areas has resulted in a DAC that is at least as good as, ( Audibly not theoretically) or outperforms the other designs , then you and Mansr may be taken more seriously.

 

[moriez]

16 hours ago, marce said:

Yawn, why do so many true believers in magic and unicorns have to spit their dummy out of the pram... .

 

 

 

16 hours ago, marce said:

Today's digitally sourced music (well for the last 30 odd years) depends on quite complex electronics, so having at least a modicum of understanding of electronics and electronic engineering is required if you are really going to delve into it.

It nothing to do with proving the other side wrong its to do with facts and determining what does and does not improve sound, to do it properly you need to follow certain practices and methodologies...

You can be an audiophile and believe in science and engineering, you don't have to believe all the BS and misguided information....

 

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.

 

 

16 hours ago, marce said:

Worryingly we are always referred to as non-believers, its a hobby not a religion.

 

Non-believers was deliberately put in between quote marks. Not a great descriptor but meant here only to differentiate. Tagging as scientists or objectivists was the worse idea at the time. And an unwanted side effect is it does the 'believer' group short as if they're superstitious.  

[moriez]

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

a certain group .. has yet again decided to disrupt and cause the inevitable demise of a thread that they do not agree with, posting replies that have no relevance to the question being asked by the original poster.

 

We're on the same frequency sandy. This is the thing guys, that a few are causing and for some reason admin lets happen.

 

@The Computer Audiophile care to share your view on the matter?

[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.

[marce]

18 hours ago, numlog said:

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.

No it is you (the true believer audiophile) who wont accept the given facts as they don't fit in with the belief system.

[marce]

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Once again, a certain group of Anti Audiophile members, some without any qualifications whatsoever in the Electronics and Computer fields, who blindly accept everything stated by several hard line Objective members,  has yet again decided to disrupt and cause the inevitable demise of a thread that they do not agree with, posting replies that have no relevance to the question being asked by the original poster.

 Moriez was 100% correct when he posted this :

 

troll

 

[marce]

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 Most of the members do, but they refuse to blindly accept that an expertise in one area of electronics also translates to expertise in other different areas of electronics, like you and others like Mansr  repeatedly claim.

 

For example, design and make a DAC for comparison purposes with other designs such as those from Peter St. and others, to show just how much your experience in other areas has resulted in a DAC that is at least as good as, ( Audibly not theoretically) or outperforms the other designs , then you and Mansr may be taken more seriously.

 

I working on a design with multiple DACs and ADC's and femto bias op-amps far more sensitive than audio, worked on audio DACs both pro and commercial, don't forget we have professional audio clients.

You just chat the same rubbish because what we say does not agree with your blinkered view of the world. You take EVERY opportunity to pull people down with your pointless and worthless posts, it really does get boring.