CPU Load and Sound Quality

[STC]

My normal usage for playing stereo is usually around 5%. And going full convolution DSP it would hit 100%.  Except for some drop outs at 100% I do not hear any difference to the sound quality. 
 

The original sound was recorded in DAW and the file is very large. It is available on request. 
The sound in the video is from the phone and the changes you hear is due to my movement and not due to the load. 
 

[PeterSt]

If you don't perceive differences, then your system must be way under par. Let's not forget that XXHighEnd is all (100%) about this, and the differences are huge (by means of countless settings combinations).

Btw, the CPU load is a virtual 0% at 32/768 (16x upsampling from Redbook in real time).

[PeterSt]

PS: I could have said that a tad nicer. So apologies.

But it also seems blunt to just say that you are wrong or something. So there must be a reason, which net (!) comes down to what you perceive from it. Btw, any processing (like DSP stuff) tends to kill the nuances, so there is reason #1, but it wasn't clear to me whether you are using that in this "test".

Obviously with your Ambio stuff you will be using that, so ...

 

Anyway, constructively meant.

 

But why did you come up with this in the first place ?

 

PPS: I can't get the video to play ...

 

[STC]

Firstly, that was a stereo file. The PC was running normal processes of all the ones associated with Windows10 including Firewall. The network is activated. So too the anti virus. And ACDSee is running in the background. For serious listening all the processes will be killed and if I remember correctly it will be 1% with just JRiver. It is probably 5% because the data is linked to DAW via virtual cable. That would have added the load. Thankfully the cheap system somehow not degrading further despite CPU reaches 99%. 
 

Sorry I didn’t know this is what XXhighender is all about. 
 

 

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

If you don't perceive differences, then your system must be way under par. Let's not forget that XXHighEnd is all (100%) about this, and the differences are huge (by means of countless settings combinations).

Btw, the CPU load is a virtual 0% at 32/768 (16x upsampling from Redbook in real time).

 

S.T.

With previous versions of Windows I obtained a worthwhile improvement by running Windows in Safe Mode, which reduces the number of background processes running, as well as prevents non essential programs from starting.

However, Windows 10 is a P.I.T.A. to do this..

Fidelizer by Windows X does similar  with Windows 10 as well.

If I wanted to create a poorer sounding audio file for comparison purposes I also ran  a full Security scan at the same time.

Even unplugging or switching off the cable to the Broadband Router resulted in a small but worthwhile improvement with Audio.

Alex

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

S.T.

With previous versions of Windows I obtained a worthwhile improvement by running Windows in Safe Mode, which reduces the number of background processes running, as well as prevents non essential programs from starting.

However, Windows 10 is a P.I.T.A. to do this..

Fidelizer by Windows X does similar  with Windows 10 as well.

If I wanted to create a poorer sounding audio file for comparison purposes I also ran  a full Security scan at the same time.

Even unplugging or switching off the cable to the Broadband Router resulted in a small but worthwhile improvement with Audio.

Alex

 

I need to get a more powerful machine than the current i7-7700. Hopefully, one can handle twice the load so that I could utilize all the IRs. Maybe then I will probably concentrate on other tweaks. Frankly, I don’t see there is a need to limit a PC’s usage. These minor tweaks becomes immaterial for my setup. Not to say they won’t make a difference but those difference are not important when considering other errors. 

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, STC said:

I need to get a more powerful machine than the current i7-7700. Hopefully, one can handle twice the load so that I could utilize all the IRs. Maybe then I will probably concentrate on other tweaks. Frankly, I don’t see there is a need to limit a PC’s usage. These minor tweaks becomes immaterial for my setup. Not to say they won’t make a difference but those difference are not important when considering other errors. 

S.T.

My PC only uses an i7 -3770 CPU @ 3.4GHz with a 600W SMPS . (I also have an internal Asus Video card, and an internal Asus Xonar D2X Soundcard) However , I use additional; very low noise regulated +5V supplies for the 2 internal SSDs derived from the +12V rail of the PC. I also have 2 internal HDDs in this general purpose W10/64 P.C. The Audio side is catered for by using coax SPDIF from the Asus Xonar D2X to a highly modified Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3.

[Ralf11]

15 hours ago, STC said:

My normal usage for playing stereo is usually around 5%. And going full convolution DSP it would hit 100%.  Except for some drop outs at 100% I do not hear any difference to the sound quality. 
 

The original sound was recorded in DAW and the file is very large. It is available on request. 
The sound in the video is from the phone and the changes you hear is due to my movement and not due to the load. 
 

 

IMG_2572.MOV 91.46 MB · 1 download

 

This matches the lack of response to Bill's thread asking which processes made a difference in SQ when turned off in OSX

[mansr]

15 hours ago, STC said:

My normal usage for playing stereo is usually around 5%. And going full convolution DSP it would hit 100%.  Except for some drop outs at 100% I do not hear any difference to the sound quality. 

As it should be. An audible difference would be indicative of a pretty bad noise leak.

[sandyk]

32 minutes ago, mansr said:

As it should be. An audible difference would be indicative of a pretty bad noise leak.

In which case, given the widespread use of programs such as Fidelizer, and others minimising Start up programs etc. , a facility that even Norton Security now provides,  there must be a lot of people worldwide with crappy computers.

 Neither should there be any need to play music from System Memory as many members have found for improved results, and neither would JRiver have been requested to provide this option by so many users if this wasn't a problem with REAL WORLD PCs/Servers, NOT just your theoretical world of Digital Audio.

Incidentally, STC has previously admitted that he hears many things differently to other people, which may, or may not, be a bad thing.

[STC]

42 minutes ago, sandyk said:

In which case, given the widespread use of programs such as Fidelizer, and others minimising Start up programs etc. , a facility that even Norton Security now provides,  there must be a lot of people worldwide with crappy computers.

 Neither should there be any need to play music from System Memory as many members have found for improved results, and neither would JRiver have been requested to provide this option by so many users if this wasn't a problem with REAL WORLD PCs/Servers, NOT just your theoretical world of Digital Audio.

Incidentally, STC has previously admitted that he hears many things differently to other people, which may, or may not, be a bad thing.

Killing unwanted processes started in early days of computers with limited CPU and RAM. This started with gamers.  Audiophiles thought the same must be true and maybe some entry level PC would have benefited by turning off unnecessary processes although I suspect it got more to do with the reason Mansr stated as audio takes very little CPU load to play music without DSP. 
 

I hear differently than most audiophiles but it doesn’t mean I am incapable of hearing differences. It is just I don’t hear things that audiophiles often make but couldn’t prove. 
 

In my example, I could capture the output digitally and the 24/96 files should show the difference. 

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, STC said:

In my example, I could capture the output digitally and the 24/96 files should show the difference. 

 

I’ve done that and the result showed no real difference beyond normal, well below-audible threshold noise. This was between CPU being nearly idle and one overloaded with an intensive CPU stress test.

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, STC said:

This started with gamers.  Audiophiles thought the same must be true and maybe some entry level PC would have benefited by turning off unnecessary processes

 

 Sorry STC, but this IS true and not just Audiophile folklore . Otherwise there would no longer be a use for programs such as Fidelizer still, even for Windows 10/64 . Other programs such as Ashampoo Win Optimiser also provide these kinds of facilities which also improves system response times , as does Norton Internet Security.

 You probably can't hear differences between files saved on different storage media either, when playing from System Memory either,  however many members are able to, as evidenced in Rajiv's massive thread in Music Servers where quite a few members are now even reporting an improvement in SQ when using higher quality (expensive!) wider temperature range System Memory.

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I’ve done that and the result showed no real difference beyond normal, well below-audible threshold noise. This was between CPU being nearly idle and one overloaded with an intensive CPU stress test.

 

 Here we go again ! Measurements instead of actual listening on a well optimised system.

[firedog]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Sorry STC, but this IS true and not just Audiophile folklore . Otherwise there would no longer be a use for programs such as Fidelizer still, even for Windows 10/64 . Other programs such as Ashampoo Win Optimiser also provide these kinds of facilities which also improves system response times , as does Norton Internet Security.

 You probably can't hear differences between files saved on different storage media either, when playing from System Memory either,

 however many members are able to, as evidenced in Rajiv's massive thread in Music Servers where quite a few members are now even reporting an improvement in SQ when using higher quality (expensive!) wider temperature range System Memory.

IS true? Can you back that up with anything other than sighted listening impressions?  Archimago did measurements showing that all the stuff you mention made no difference to jitter, S/N, distortion, etc.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Here we go again ! Measurements instead of actual listening on a well optimised system.

 

You can stop now Alex. I did both.

[firedog]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Here we go again ! Measurements instead of actual listening on a well optimised system.

Actual listening is great and you are welcome to go by it; there's a big gap between that and saying something IS true. 

Proving Truth requires a bit more rigor. 

And yes, I've compared through listening which is why I stopped using all sorts of "audiophile" "true" solutions. 

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

IS true? Can you back that up with anything other than sighted listening impressions?  Archimago did measurements showing that all the stuff you mention made no difference to jitter, S/N, distortion, etc.

 

Here we go again. More demands for proof using non sighted listening when you will refuse to accept the results anyway if they don't go the way that you believe that they should.  Your hero Archimago is NOT infallible either. 

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You can stop now Alex. I did both.

 

 If your system is so well optimised , and your hearing is so good, then why aren't you posting what you hear in John Dyson's research section where you are also a participant ?  Don't you have enough confidence in your listening abilities to post other than measurements ?

 This thread is going to end up just like many others, where neither side will ever change their entrenched positions.

 It's simply a waste of time further participating .

[firedog]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Here we go again. More demands for proof using non sighted listening when you will refuse to accept the results anyway if they don't go the way that you believe that they should.  Your hero Archimago is NOT infallible either. 

Sighted  listening is meaningless as proof of anything in audio. The most elementary understanding of human perception shows that. 

You can believe whatever you want. Going from your sighted listening to saying you've proved something is just belief in voodoo. 

 

Didn't say Archi was infallible. Can you show his measurements are wrong? 

 

If high CPU rates, etc don't increase distortion, noise, jitter etc., what is the cause and effect of what you claim you hear? 

Do you think anyone other than you should accept as "proof" what you hear via sighted listening? 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 If your system is so well optimised , and your hearing is so good, then why aren't you posting what you hear in John Dyson's research section where you are also a participant ?  Don't you have enough confidence in your listening abilities to post other than measurements ?

 

Huh? Your logic is impeccable, Alex. Do you really want to reach conclusions about my system quality or my confidence level based on my non-participation in someone else’s thread? Seriously?

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Huh? Your logic is impeccable, Alex. Do you really want to reach conclusions about my system quality or my confidence level based on my non-participation in someone else’s thread? Seriously?

Then prove it by participating with what you hear different between the various examples that John provides..

 John is doing his research for the benefit of future generations with archival material.

 John's results can only be as good as the actual listening feedback from the various participants, including both yourself and STC.

 

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Then prove it by participating with what you hear different between the various examples that John provides..

 John is doing his research for the benefit of future generations with archival material.

 John's results can only be as good as the actual listening feedback from the various participants, including both yourself and STC.

 

Didn't you realize that my hearing is perfect and I don't need any help or feedback? :-).  (Definitely meant in jest.)

Even an indication that there *is* a problem is so very helpful, this stuff is painfully sucky frustrating at times.

 

John

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

Then prove it by participating with what you hear different between the various examples that John provides..

 John is doing his research for the benefit of future generations with archival material.

 John's results can only be as good as the actual listening feedback from the various participants, including both yourself and STC.

 

 

Alex, please stop telling me what I should do, what my confidence level is, or what my system sounds like. You have no clue, so please stop it. 

[STC]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Then prove it by participating with what you hear different between the various examples that John provides..

 John is doing his research for the benefit of future generations with archival material.

 John's results can only be as good as the actual listening feedback from the various participants, including both yourself and STC.

 

Alex, you can ask John about my contribution. Including about one of the version you praised so highly.