CPU Load and Sound Quality

[STC]

27 minutes ago, sandyk said:

I will say the word for you  -

 Bullshit!

Current measurements can only suggest a possibility as to how a component may sound

Even to confirm BS is BS you need measurements. Your method of tasting not is reliable. 

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, STC said:

Even to confirm BS is BS you need measurements. Your method of tasting not is reliable. 

 I would be willing bet you don't even perform measurements on the equipment that you repair to ensure that it is performing to it's original specifications, and do no more than a cursory listen to it, if that .

This has all become rather childish as Peter recently hinted.

 

[STC]

12 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 

You won’t. It is just your nature. 

[STC]

Blame the YouTube comprehension if you couldn’t pick the best speaker. 
 

 

[STC]

 

[Blackmorec]

Quite honestly, that is the biggest load of misinformed BS I’ve ever listened to. If you think that video has any merit then its absolutely no wonder we disagree. The only conclusion I reach from this is that if you don’t want to be able to hear the difference between MP3 and uncompressed WAV files, make sure you listen to it on a mid-fi system with plenty of noise. 

 

On my system, I can play 320kbps MP3 files and they sound really good. Orchestral instruments have accurate tone, the instruments are placed correctly in space, it has pace, rhythm and timing aplenty, and the music communicates really well. I can actually listen to and enjoy 128kbps files which I do on a very regular basis. For a reason. I listen to maybe half an hour to an hour of Radio Swiss Classic.....they play absolutely wonderful music with only music and orchestra introductions.  It sounds gorgeous and the performances vary between exceptional and virtuoso. 

Then I switch to remotely or locally streamed 16/44.1kHz wav files.  Holee Molee. The experience is quite shocking. Suddenly there is a room full of 3 dimensional music with incredible power, drive and focus. Instruments sound like they are real, there’s huge amounts of information about the musicians and the instruments they are playing, the room disappears and is replaced by the recorded acoustic, which may be a large concert hall or a completely artificially created studio masterpiece. The soundstage has unbelievable depth, extending from adjacent of my listening chair to somewhere far off in the distance, depending of course on what’s on the recording. 

So while 320kbps MP3 sound absolutely fine, they have nowhere near the performance of the WAV files. Not even close.  You know the difference between watching something on regular 32” SDTV vs a 65” 4K OLED UHDTV? Well the difference between 128kbps MP3 and 16/44.1 WAV is greater....more dramatic.  With 320kbps you are listening to some music in your room. With 16/44.1  WAV you are now at the venue with the musicians and the venue acoustics as plain as day. 

You don’t need to concentrate....the music is mesmerising; pulling you into its completely enveloping atmosphere and not letting go for a second. 

Frankly, if you can’t hear a very clear difference between 320kbps MP3 and 16/44.1WAV then its absolutely no wonder you can’t detect the difference between cables and such and completely explains why I hear things you can’t. 

[STC]

8 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Quite honestly, that is the biggest load of misinformed BS I’ve ever listened to. If you think that video has any merit then its absolutely no wonder we disagree. The only conclusion I reach from this is that if you don’t want to be able to hear the difference between MP3 and uncompressed WAV files, make sure you listen to it on a mid-fi system with plenty of noise. 

 

On my system, I can play 320kbps MP3 files and they sound really good. Orchestral instruments have accurate tone, the instruments are placed correctly in space, it has pace, rhythm and timing aplenty, and the music communicates really well. I can actually listen to and enjoy 128kbps files which I do on a very regular basis. For a reason. I listen to maybe half an hour to an hour of Radio Swiss Classic.....they play absolutely wonderful music with only music and orchestra introductions.  It sounds gorgeous and the performances vary between exceptional and virtuoso. 

Then I switch to remotely or locally streamed 16/44.1kHz wav files.  Holee Molee. The experience is quite shocking. Suddenly there is a room full of 3 dimensional music with incredible power, drive and focus. Instruments sound like they are real, there’s huge amounts of information about the musicians and the instruments they are playing, the room disappears and is replaced by the recorded acoustic, which may be a large concert hall or a completely artificially created studio masterpiece. The soundstage has unbelievable depth, extending from adjacent of my listening chair to somewhere far off in the distance, depending of course on what’s on the recording. 

So while 320kbps MP3 sound absolutely fine, they have nowhere near the performance of the WAV files. Not even close.  You know the difference between watching something on regular 32” SDTV vs a 65” 4K OLED UHDTV? Well the difference between 128kbps MP3 and 16/44.1 WAV is greater....more dramatic.  With 320kbps you are listening to some music in your room. With 16/44.1  WAV you are now at the venue with the musicians and the venue acoustics as plain as day. 

You don’t need to concentrate....the music is mesmerising; pulling you into its completely enveloping atmosphere and not letting go for a second. 

Frankly, if you can’t hear a very clear difference between 320kbps MP3 and 16/44.1WAV then its absolutely no wonder you can’t detect the difference between cables and such and completely explains why I hear things you can’t. 

Maybe I feel the same. I always thought I could distinguish them. Unfortunately, I don’t get a chance to prove. I have always welcomed anyone to bring their equipment and test them but after the initial euphoria no one is willing to do. 
 

Only one brave very senior distributor ever dared to do the serious challenge. The bet was if he could distinguish his equipment, I would buy them on the spot. I asked for 20 trials. Equipment was his player, his own CD and his speakers. Against Theta Digital and Marantz SACD player . After trial number 12 he stopped because he was suffering from terrible headache. He got 3 out of 12 correct Sadly since then no one wanted to come for blind tests.😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 

[mansr]

10 hours ago, STC said:

10 hours ago, davide256 said:

by definition a security scan uses significant system resource and lots of hard drive activity. Neither of these is good for music playback in any OS

Why? Any evidence?

A full virus scan of Windows does a lot of hard drive thrashing and generally bogs down the system. I wouldn't be surprised if audio playback suffered from stuttering while the scan is running. Now why would anyone run a full virus scan while playing music?

[STC]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

A full virus scan of Windows does a lot of hard drive thrashing and generally bogs down the system. I wouldn't be surprised if audio playback suffered from stuttering while the scan is running. Now why would anyone run a full virus scan while playing music?

Notwithstanding stuttering, I don’t hear any difference in SQ as long as the COU is below 100%. But My application is bit different because I use the PC to send the data to the DAC with 3 seconds delay. 

[mansr]

21 minutes ago, STC said:

Notwithstanding stuttering, I don’t hear any difference in SQ as long as the COU is below 100%. But My application is bit different because I use the PC to send the data to the DAC with 3 seconds delay. 

That's probably enough to handle even the most extreme latency spikes.

[marce]

17 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Finally those old, worn out cliches are simply ways of supporting a denial habit devoid of real arguments and do you no favours whatsoever.

Sorry, but you've got this the wrong way round, my arguments are based on physic's, reality... Not hearsay.

[pkane2001]

30 minutes ago, marce said:

Sorry, but you've got this the wrong way round, my arguments are based on physic's, reality... Not hearsay.

 

Reality is subjective, completely up for interpretation by each individual. It's a scientific fact, proven by scientists. Unfortunately, the proof was confined to the realities of the few scientists that conducted that study.

 

 

[Blackmorec]

1 hour ago, marce said:

Sorry, but you've got this the wrong way round, my arguments are based on physic's, reality... Not hearsay.

Ah ha. And here’s me thinking that physics was about equations, formulae and graphs when all the time a few well worn cliches was all I needed. That damned physics master. 

 

But jokes aside;  I’m not talking hearsay...because personally I’ve heard it first hand.  Its only hearsay for you, who hasn’t, presumably ever. 

I want you to try something. I would like you to listen to a piece of music, a Michel Petrucciani Trio album would be great. The guy was truly a genius, so I’m sure you’ll enjoy his music.  Now while you’re listening I want you to imagine hearing the following:

• Increased reverberation from the hall...a faint echo in the RH channel that’s obviously hall ambience, only heard on forte sections where the energy is sufficient to activate the hall’s reflections. 
• For Michel, I want you to imagine better defined timing and phrasing and more tension in his playing
• Then I’d like you to add some further detail and definition to Richard Tee’s brush strokes
• And finally I’d like your to add a little more timbre and body to Miroslav Vitous’s gentle bass plucks....not too much, just a little. 

And I want you to do all this without thinking about it. That’s right, I want you to imagine those things subconsciously, but at the same time your not consciously imagining them, i want you to be consciously hearing them so you perk up and say, “wow, that sounds better”

I’d also like you to do the same thing next time you listen to this album, or even better every time you listen to it. 

So that’s Michel Petrucciani done....let’s move on to the next album. Any favorites you’d like to imagine improving?  

[pkane2001]

8 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Ah ha. And here’s me thinking that physics was about equations, formulae and graphs when all the time a few well worn cliches was all I needed. That damned physics master. 

 

But jokes aside;  I’m not talking hearsay...because personally I’ve heard it first hand.  Its only hearsay for you, who hasn’t, presumably ever. 

I want you to try something. I would like you to listen to a piece of music, a Michel Petrucciani Trio album would be great. The guy was truly a genius, so I’m sure you’ll enjoy his music.  Now while you’re listening I want you to imagine hearing the following:

• Increased reverberation from the hall...a faint echo in the RH channel that’s obviously hall ambience, only heard on forte sections where the energy is sufficient to activate the hall’s reflections. 
• For Michel, I want you to imagine better defined timing and phrasing and more tension in his playing
• Then I’d like you to add some further detail and definition to Richard Tee’s brush strokes
• And finally I’d like your to add a little more timbre and body to Miroslav Vitous’s gentle bass plucks....not too much, just a little. 

And I want you to do all this without thinking about it. That’s right, I want you to imagine those things subconsciously, but at the same time your not consciously imagining them, i want you to be consciously hearing them so you perk up and say, “wow, that sounds better”

I’d also like you to do the same thing next time you listen to this album, or even better every time you listen to it. 

So that’s Michel Petrucciani done....let’s move on to the next album. Any favorites you’d like to imagine improving?  

 

Seriously, this happens all the time. I've been a victim of this many times. Listening to music using some fancy new component, finding amazing differences and improvement only to later find that I forgot to switch the input, and was listening to the old component I've had for years. So, what does this prove?

[Blackmorec]

13 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Seriously, this happens all the time. I've been a victim of this many times. Listening to music using some fancy new component, finding amazing differences and improvement only to later find that I forgot to switch the input, and was listening to the old component I've had for years. So, what does this prove?

I’m far too polite to say 🤐

 

But what I would say, is that in my case, almost every time I install a new component it usually sounds considerably worse and i spend the next 24 to 240 hours in a state of post-purchase-paranoia, hoping I haven’t screwed up. 

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

I’m far too polite to say 🤐

 

Unfortunately, I'm not alone. There are plenty of examples of this on the web with audiophiles and even equipment vendors that can't distinguish components, even their own, without seeing it first. Put up a curtain and have someone switch components for you. Or randomly start a CPU stress test program (back on topic) and see if you can still hear differences when you don't know ahead of time if A or B is playing. If you must see what's playing to identify it, you have no faith in your own hearing.

[pkane2001]

8 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

But what I would say, is that in my case, almost every time I install a new component it usually sounds considerably worse and i spend the next 24 to 240 hours in a state of post-purchase-paranoia, hoping I haven’t screwed up. 

 

That speaks to your psyche: you're more concerned that the new component you've just installed is not worth the money you paid for it. First psychoanalysis is free. I'll bill you for the next session

 

[davide256]

13 hours ago, STC said:

Why? Any evidence?  

Feel free to play around with DPCLatencyChecker and verify the increased latency from a full virus scan. But measurements won’t get you better than mid-fi level of SQ, our ears are more demanding than current measurement techniques. 

[STC]

1 minute ago, davide256 said:

Feel free to play around with DPCLatencyChecker and verify the increased latency from a full virus scan. But measurements won’t get you better than mid-fi level of SQ, our ears are more demanding than current measurement techniques. 

I am practical person. My system is meant to serve me. Whether my system is mid fi or not I let the visitors to judge. You can see them in my webpage.
 

Our ears and brain work so differently than what you think. even the most complex symphony recital would be reduced to the simplest form by the brain. Look up for the research of brain scan while listening to classical music. 
 

The trouble with audiophiles is that they have been brain washed that stereo production is real. After few weeks of listening to them you will start to have the urge to find some improvements. Change the speakers, amp and so forth. That’s because your brain is reminding that the sound you are hearing is not real. why do you think vinyl is more natural than digital. It is not because it is more accurate but it represent the flaws which smoothen the peaks and dips due to the wobbly nature of the replay. In live performance you do not hear pristine direct sound but more of the ambiance which smoothen the peaks and dips. 
 

I don’t even think it is correct to do AB comparison to find which is better. I will make different tracks with different sampling rate and play them randomly. If I feel track A is 96, I would jot down and listen to rest of the tracks. And if I can’t get even 80 correct than whatever resolution becomes irrelevant to me. I do the same test for the visitors. Of course if I am comparing the same track with different sampling rate then at timeS I could get them all right. BUT not so consistent if I do not have side by side comparison.

 

Still looking for someone who could do better than me but about my hearing I let the result I posted in Mani’s thread to speak for itself.  

 

[Racerxnet]

26 minutes ago, davide256 said:

Feel free to play around with DPCLatencyChecker and verify the increased latency from a full virus scan. But measurements won’t get you better than mid-fi level of SQ, our ears are more demanding than current measurement techniques. 

The other 50% comes from your your eyes. 

 

MAK

[Blackmorec]

29 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

That speaks to your psyche: you're more concerned that the new component you've just installed is not worth the money you paid for it. First psychoanalysis is free. I'll bill you for the next session

 

Damned right! I honestly don’t need your kind services to tell me that. What I REALLY don’t want is to buy something that makes my system sound worse and then have to sell it at a loss. This is why I try to get a dealer loaner first, but sometimes that’s not possible. 

 

I just did that with a TT, arm and cartridge and close to 200 original EMI and Decca classical records. I believed my own very old experience that vinyl is superior and found out in short order that it no longer is. Cost me a lot, that mistake.  Mini classical record collection anyone? 

[marce]

3 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Ah ha. And here’s me thinking that physics was about equations, formulae and graphs when all the time a few well worn cliches was all I needed. That damned physics master. 

 

But jokes aside;  I’m not talking hearsay...because personally I’ve heard it first hand.  Its only hearsay for you, who hasn’t, presumably ever. 

I want you to try something. I would like you to listen to a piece of music, a Michel Petrucciani Trio album would be great. The guy was truly a genius, so I’m sure you’ll enjoy his music.  Now while you’re listening I want you to imagine hearing the following:

• Increased reverberation from the hall...a faint echo in the RH channel that’s obviously hall ambience, only heard on forte sections where the energy is sufficient to activate the hall’s reflections. 
• For Michel, I want you to imagine better defined timing and phrasing and more tension in his playing
• Then I’d like you to add some further detail and definition to Richard Tee’s brush strokes
• And finally I’d like your to add a little more timbre and body to Miroslav Vitous’s gentle bass plucks....not too much, just a little. 

And I want you to do all this without thinking about it. That’s right, I want you to imagine those things subconsciously, but at the same time your not consciously imagining them, i want you to be consciously hearing them so you perk up and say, “wow, that sounds better”

I’d also like you to do the same thing next time you listen to this album, or even better every time you listen to it. 

So that’s Michel Petrucciani done....let’s move on to the next album. Any favorites you’d like to imagine improving?  

So now I have to learn to listen to music....

[marce]

2 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

I’m far too polite to say 🤐

 

But what I would say, is that in my case, almost every time I install a new component it usually sounds considerably worse and i spend the next 24 to 240 hours in a state of post-purchase-paranoia, hoping I haven’t screwed up. 

Your ears adjust to any change in sound, break in is another exaggerated (but convenient) effect.

[Blackmorec]

34 minutes ago, marce said:

So now I have to learn to listen to music....

No I’m certain you know how to listen to music. What I’m saying is that when I add a much better cable for example, I hear additional elements from the music, logically elements that were previously masked. You claim that I’m imagining those additional details. All I did was ask you to try imagining those same details.  What you see is that imagining a whole lot of additional detail that is intimately related to the performance of the music is not easy. Its not even difficult....in fact its really more or less impossible. 

Not only that, but when you remove the new cable, you have to stop imagining the changes and remember what the music sounded like before and do that perfectly, every time. 

Extremely complex and in all likelihood way beyond your or my musical skills. But there is a radically simpler and more logical explanation....that the changes are simply due to the new cable. 

 

Regarding hearsay. I’ve heard these changes so for me its not hearsay. You obviously haven’t otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation so for you it is hearsay.

 

But let’s say i invited you to my place, listened to Michel using an existing cable then replaced the cable with something better and we both heard the difference it made. We then reversed the cable swap and the differences disappeared. Could you still be sceptical about what cables do if you’ve actually heard the differences for yourself and proven the changes in both directions?  As a minimum you’re going to have to admit that something is afoot.....so the only problem we’re having here is that you’ve never swapped in some cables that make a substantial difference into a system capable of actually revealing the differences. Had you done so you’d probably be standing on my side of the fence

[Blackmorec]

1 hour ago, marce said:

Your ears adjust to any change in sound, break in is another exaggerated (but convenient) effect.

Actually break in is a pain in the ass, because it really does generate doubt in a new purchase. But there’s a very simple way to avoid it.  Simply install the new component and leave it playing music for a few days without listening. When you come back the transition is complete and you hear the new component’s final sound. So no ears adjusting, just the sound before and after.

 

But do you know the most important question for me?  Why can’t you hear this stuff?  In my system, the better its got, the more clearly I can hear things like burn-in and new components, so I guess the reverse is also true. The less revealing my system gets, the less it reveals changes. Logical really when you think about it.