CPU Load and Sound Quality

[Ralf11]

2 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

"naysayers?"

 

"hostile?"

 

"Mommy, - I am not the angry bully on the schoolyard hurling insults, really I'm not."

 

 

That was a quote from your Great Leader, The Sandman.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, Albrecht said:

"naysayers?"

 

"hostile?"

 

"Mommy, - I am not the angry bully on the schoolyard hurling insults, really I'm not."

 

Ralf, you wouldn't be able to respond to this. Logically not.

Let's ask Alex.

 

PS: I usually post past bed time. Sadly.

[PeterSt]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

hat was a quote from your Great Leader, The Sandman.

 

Your great leader ?

[Albrecht]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

I'v been a research scientist for several decades, muffy.  

From your posts here, - hard to believe, - spike...

[Ralf11]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

Ralf, you wouldn't be able to respond to this. Logically not.

Let's ask Alex.

 

PS: I usually post past bed time. Sadly.

 

I can't get the translation to Anglais.  Am I in Dutch with you?

[PeterSt]

 

Quote

I'v been a research scientist for several decades

 

Research scientist ?

who ?

[Albrecht]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

That was a quote from your Great Leader, The Sandman.

That's just the kind of appeal to authority/cult of personality, fascist post that I expect from an anti-science naysaying troll.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

I can't get the translation to Anglais.  Am I in Dutch with you?

 

Something like:

 

I can't get no satisfaction. Maybe we try 69 ?

[Ralf11]

um... sorry Dude - I'm not into that

[Ralf11]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

Research scientist ?

who ?

 

me - are you missing the posts?

[PeterSt]

Past bed time. So ...

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

That's just the kind of appeal to authority/cult of personality, fascist post that I expect from an anti-science naysaying troll.

 

Hey hey, watch your tone. Only @mansrs can be addressed like this legitimately.

[PeterSt]

@sandyk, knock out ?

[PeterSt]

@STC, can you please control this thread adequately - it is going nowhere suddenly.

An hour ago all was still fine.

[STC]

If I get sufficient number of votes for for OT from other readers than I will consider moderating otherwise let you guys entertain yourselves. 

[Blackmorec]

Do you know what I find most amusing about this thread? The fact that certain forum members constantly accuse subjectivists of confirmation bias, while being themselves completely delusional when it comes to hi-fi.  Friends and I have fooled around with hi-fi for over 45 years and if there’s 1 lesson we’ve learned it’s that set-up is by far the most important single aspect of getting the best sound out of any kit.  You can buy the best amp, the best speakers and the best servers but if you neglect to optimise its set up all you’ve done is waste an awful lot of money. 

The performance level from some of the recently introduced digital systems is frankly quite stunning. 16/44.1 files can produce hitherto unimaginable levels of clarity, fidelity, detail, 3 dimensional imagery and listener involvement.  But you won’t get even close to that is you don’t pay really close attention to setting-up the whole system.  What you’ll get is the same old left, right and if you’re lucky, a bit of centre image.  Room filling 3 dimensional soundscapes with not a single trace of loudspeaker location, that aurally convert the listening room into recording venues, populated by musicians that involve you in the music like a live event? Forget about it. Not even close.  To get to that level takes some real work and some real care. 

I looked at a photograph of the system belonging to one of the more vociferous critics of audiophiles.  He has some rather nice kit. Very good, highly capable speakers and a nice pre-amp and amp, so it could sound rather good if it was properly set up. Instead it looks more like its been got ready for a garage sale, so not only will it not sound its best, but its very likely that Frank’s by his own admission very modest system will blow it into the weeds from a sound quality perspective.

 

I think a lot of people believe that to get great sound, you need to spend lots of money, but while that helps its certainly no panacea and really good system can sound really naff. On the other hand, take a rather moderately priced, well matched system, take great care in proper room set up, speaker positioning, vibration control, network supply and all the interconnecting cables and you can create a system whose sound quality rivals set-ups costing many times its purchase price.  One of the most rewarding aspects of hi-fi is that performance isn’t directly correlated with how much money is spent, but it is directly correlated with how much care and attention goes into its installation. 

When I look at the system I mentioned above, what I see is not only a system that is poorly installed; its also completely out of balance....like a Porsche or BMW that’s been set up on skinny  cross-ply tyres in the belief that its only the engine that matters and any tyres will do.  Of course those cars will still do what they’re supposed to do and get you from A to B, accelerate, stop and turn. Its just the way they do those things that suck. 

Now you can be sure I’m going to get some abuse for this post...its how I know certain people are taking me seriously; although I do ask myself why so much personal animosity about what is in the end only a hobby? Insecurity I guess....that and a frustrating lack of adequate counter arguments. 

So I’d like you to ask yourself....does what I’m saying sound preposterous? Am I the only one who holds these opinions or does the entire hi-fi industry pretty much reflect what I’m saying? I think you’ll conclude that there’re far more audiophiles who’ve discovered the same truths I have compared to the few deluded individuals who’d like you to join them in believing that proper, thorough set-up doesn’t matter.  

 

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

believing that proper, thorough set-up doesn’t matter.

Where did anyone express such a belief?

[Teresa]

16 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

OK thanks for that, I think it is actually a fun hobby and I think disagreeing can be part of the fun.

 

Sorry, Richard I couldn’t help myself and hit the Disagree button on your post just to well disagree for no reason at all.

 

All I can say is I welcome all opinions whether I agree with them or not and you are correct that is part of the fun.

 

Happy disagreeing! 😊

[mansr]

Let's continue the car analogies. I'd like to know if Blackmorec and his ilk believe that spark plug wires of pure silver or a special low-noise power supply for the ECU would give the car, say, better traction or faster acceleration.

[The Computer Audiophile]

This topic didn't even make it one complete page without the same people bickering over the same old subjects. This is tiring. Everyone needs to get over it. Both sides. 

 

Don't get involved in a thread where your participation isn't wanted. 

Feel free to open another thread about the same topic, that raises different points. 

 

P.S. It's even fair to post a link to one's new thread, in the original thread.

[daverich4]

17 hours ago, sandyk said:

 A couple of days ago I saw a series of glamour photographs, where a couple of the series needed a little sharpening to match the rest of the series. ( I was bored , and needed something to pass time)

 Rather than use Photoshop to perform the sharpening action on the whole series , which is fiddly and takes a while to set up, I coped them to USB memory with the USB Regen in line,  powered directly from a 12V Li Ion battery and saved them back to the original HDD. The USB Regen files were in this case sharpened to perfection  when compared with the other series, and in a small fraction of the time it would have taken when using Photoshop.

 

Alex,

As much as you might know about Audio, Digital Photography seems to be somewhat outside of your area of knowledge. What you are describing is correctly identified as "Acutance" which Wikipedia defines as "a subjective perception of sharpness that is related to the edge contrast of an image". Photoshop and other image programs simulate this with a techniques called Unsharp Masking which is the digital version of a technique used in Analog Photography whereby a slightly soft mask was sandwiched in register with a negative or transparency to increase contrast along edges of detail. It does not actually increase sharpness, it just appears sharper to the eye. In Digital Photography this technique is accomplished by adding dark pixels on one side of a line and light pixels on the other side of it. The width of these added pixels is varied depending on resolution of the image and a number of other factors. There is absolutely no possibility that the USB Regen could do anything that would correctly add those extra pixels to your images. Absolutely NONE.

[charlesphoto]

I never realized there are so many ten year olds into digital audio, and so many that can go on and on about it in thousands of posts. It gets really really old sometimes. Children are great - I have two mod them - but we're also teaching them the responsibilities that come with maturing, like when and where to keep your opinions to yourself. 

 

Time to grow the f*%k up a little around here - as I say often, it's only STUFF. Don't take it so damn personally, and don't take it out on another person because you think they're wrong and you are right. And if all you can add to a conversation is thousands of one lined barbs or huge diatribes about being poor me and those internet bullies, then maybe it's time to find a new hobby/life. 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, daverich4 said:

As much as you might know about Audio, Digital Photography seems to be somewhat outside of your area of knowledge. What you are describing is correctly identified as "Acutance" which Wikipedia defines as "a subjective perception of sharpness that is related to the edge contrast of an image". Photoshop and other image programs simulate this with a techniques called Unsharp Masking which is the digital version of a technique used in Analog Photography whereby a slightly soft mask was sandwiched in register with a negative or transparency to increase contrast along edges of detail. It does not actually increase sharpness, it just appears sharper to the eye. In Digital Photography this technique is accomplished by adding dark pixels on one side of a line and light pixels on the other side of it. The width of these added pixels is varied depending on resolution of the image and a number of other factors.

Another way of describing the process is as a (weak) high-pass filter.

 

1 minute ago, daverich4 said:

There is absolutely no possibility that the USB Regen could do anything that would correctly add those extra pixels to your images. Absolutely NONE.

Of course not. It works by sharpening the digital bits making up the file. Or something.

[charlesphoto]

18 hours ago, sandyk said:

A couple of days ago I saw a series of glamour photographs, where a couple of the series needed a little sharpening to match the rest of the series. ( I was bored , and needed something to pass time)

 Rather than use Photoshop to perform the sharpening action on the whole series , which is fiddly and takes a while to set up, I coped them to USB memory with the USB Regen in line,  powered directly from a 12V Li Ion battery and saved them back to the original HDD. The USB Regen files were in this case sharpened to perfection  when compared with the other series, and in a small fraction of the time it would have taken when using Photoshop.

 

 

He can't be serious. Or can he? Thing is, vision is a very different sense than hearing. So in audio it's possible to hear things from certain improvements such as the Regen, but those improvements don't translate into other digital or sensory realms. Sharpening in photography is all predicated first on the sensor and lenses used, (and focusing technique) and then on the software. Bizarre...

[Summit]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This topic didn't even make it one complete page without the same people bickering over the same old subjects. This is tiring. Everyone needs to get over it. Both sides. 

 

 

Yes it could have been an interesting topic to discuss that I like to know more about.

 

My hypotheses is that a higher CPU load can have a small impact on SQ. My assumption is based the below 3 aspects.

 

1.  Higher CPU load means more digital processing which I believe (everything else equal) will generate more EMI and RF noise. 

 

2. Higher CPU load generate more heat which can inflict negatively on other components on the MB and how they operate, but it will depend on design and topology of the PC/server.

 

3. Higher CPU load will need more power and more power (everything else equal) generate more HF noise.

 

The question for me is how much higher CPU load dose it takes before we can perceive and measure any difference. Is it 1, 5 or 50 %?

Also is it better to get a bigger CPU that can do the same operations with lower CPU load or will the result be the same in the end?