CPU Load and Sound Quality

[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.

[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. 

[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? 

[firedog]

17 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Sometimes, on the face of it, anecdotal claims can, from a technical standpoint, appear to be nonsensical.  It requires engineers and like people with open minds *and the ability to think* to be able to accept that there might be *something* uncontrolled going on.

 

I guarantee you -- sometimes beliefs based upon anecdotal evidence are mistaken, sometimes they end up being true.  Instead of discounting a claim that initially appears to be absurd -- it would be a good thing to assume that the claim has some truth, and then try to figure out what is going on.

Your entire post may  be correct. But if we are talking about sighted listening, the most likely explanation is expectation bias. 

I find it amazing that so many audiophiles have such fragile egos that they refuse to acknowledge well established principles of how human perception works.
 

No need to appeal to laws of physics.
 

Your mind can totally change what you hear, see, feel, taste, and smell - all based on expectation/preconception. The power of suggestion can, for example, make us think we see objects that aren't there, and not see objects that are. Look up the McGurk effect video on YouTube. Hearing is no different.

 

If you think it is, or that you are immune, you are simply not being honest with yourself. 

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Albrecht said:

It is with the piling up of evidence that those "biases" are mitigated. Plus, - the all important in-depth analysis of the products.

For example: when you have heard Ed Meitner's DACs in hundreds of different systems (applications).

This evidence and knowledge should be highly respected, - especially when it's corroborated amongst many people. At that point, - since it's proven to the satisfaction of many people, -  the burden of proof needs to be shifted to the "climate denier" or "naysayer" to demonstrate otherwise. Remember, - the naysayer is also making a subjective claim as well, - just outside any sort of reason, or without any evidence.

Not so much. There's a lot of suggestion causing groupthink in audio. That's a lot of what the audio press does. It conditions you to hear certain things, so you tend to hear them. None of that rises to level of proof, or even to what in science would be considered a legit "observation". So lots of people saying they hear something proves zip on it's own. Especially when you can find lots of other people who don't hear that same audio phenomenon.

 

Just b/c lots of people say MQA sounds amazing and revolutionary doesn't mean it does....