Investigation Into Effects Of PC load On DAC Analogue Output

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, March Audio said:

Let's be clear, I am not saying that circumstances can't exist where dac outputs are affected negatively by the upstream PC.  I have already mentioned ground loops and lack of isolation.

 

Balanced interlinks.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I am planning to go on and demonstrate some of those problems.

 

Wait ... that is a good one. So yes please, demonstrate for example the output of two bit perfect players and how they change the output of the DAC you measure relatively to each other.

That should be doable.

[PeterSt]

PS: Preferably so that we can do this at home. Me ahead.

[PeterSt]

20 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Peter, havent you grasped that it's not the players creating the difference?

 

That depends who is thinking about it. I only work 15 years on players doing just that.

I work for 13 years on DAC's being able to withstand that. I still fail.

 

You ?

No wait, I already know the answer. Haha.

 

You know, it is such a pity that you keep on thinking I know shit.

And that makes it the other way around. Without words now, but you know ...

[PeterSt]

@jabbr, as long as it is allowed ... I would grant you so much more show time ... well, you know ...

Regardless the camp you're in, I'd really wish all posts go as balanced as yours. 

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, Summit said:

I understand what you are saying, but if this would be 100% true people would not buy servers like Taiko Audio Extreme or use HQplayer. 

 

I actually always agree with you, but this one seems to be a miss-fire ?

[PeterSt]

Btw, HQPlayer's goals and the Taiko contradict each other to some degree. Maybe it is that what you mean.

Nah, I don't get it.

 

As how I see it (this is already conflicting) :

The Taiko uses way too much current etc. to be "audio" as such;

HQPlayer is not interested in gaining SQ by means of "audio servers".

 

Compare what I do and all is 180 degrees different.

1. As low usage as possible (eliminating spikes as much as possible);

2. Aid that with software (like mine).

 

PS: I agree 100% with Blackmorec about all he says. But maybe that is unimportant.

 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

What we have here is an really interesting thread from someone who started to investigate the observed phenomenon of CPU loading affecting Sound Quality.

 

For everybody's memory refreshment:

This thread was started  in order to prove that "poor" PC's would show differences at CPU load vs idle while decent PC's would not. It started out with the former ...

 

The latter was attempted (IIRC the 2nd and last test) and again no differences showed. Most probably the OP forgot himself what he set out to do.

Because this last test was many weeks prior to the OP being sacked here, I am pretty sure he just could not do it.

I will also remind people of the many times that people claimed (not only March Audio) that poor PC's "obviously would show differences".

 

I myself have claimed many times that no matter the PC, nothing would show. Don't ask me whether this was in this thread or in an other leading to this one, but I did, more than once; N.b.: I tend to refer to the red or blue pill thread from ManiSandher where I also promised that Mansr would not be able to measure a thing of what Mani definitely would be able to hear (which he did - the 9 out of 10 story).

Mind you, I made the software implying the audible differences, which were measured to be bit perfect (Mansr sure was able to do that).

 

Let me add that I possess the analyzers that could show the differences and that I thus easily can know that nothing shows. Maybe GoldenSound has more luck with his AP.

 

Really, all it takes is that (my) software with its dials (somehow all the 1000s of users of it, hear right away the differences the dials imply). Whether this is about cpu load ... I can't repeat enough - it is not (as a matter of fact the best SQ emerges at the highest load).

Fact is: (and this is exactly what Blackmorec says - and it is even a logical as can be) if you don't have a very well behaving audio system in the first place, all is lost.

a. you would have not the best sound (what that is, is apparently determined by me ;-)

b. you will not or hardly be able to force changes in SQ by mere minor stuff like "cpu load".

 

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

So the question is; are we here to discuss and investigate observed phenomena that defy explanation or just to establish plausible deniability in order not to threaten our current limited understanding?

 

I can't repeat this enough as well: there is nothing to understand here but one thing: get it between your ears that what is deemed inaudible, just very much is. I mean, I know exactly what I am doing and what it causes where, but as long as people keep on thinking that differences at proposed thresholds and even beyond can-not-be-audible, then it is just a matter of, well, disbelief ?

I could also say: all the "scientific" tests so far fail, but are used for proof that we can't hear those minute changes. In other words: give me that test group of 100+ people (100 different Mani's) and I will re-do the tests (with indeed my system, my software and my music) and the result will be the "9 out of 10" in general. The same differences beyond those thresholds will be measured, or as some put it: that is no difference (or: we don't know what to - or how to measure). But everybody will hear the differences. That is, if 9 out of 10 for each of the contenders is sufficient for that claim.

[PeterSt]

9 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

I was completely unaware of the plan to use some obscure setting in a software that the author himself couldn't clearly explain.

 

What !?

 

If we change the story somewhat, then I ever back created playback software which today sounds better to anyone trying it out of the box, which means : in Demo mode, while 95% of (bit perfect) SQ features unleash when activated.

And now you are going to ask me how I do that, right ?

Don't expect any perceived clear answers, because from A to Z you won't believe a thing of anything. And if you are going to measure the (by others) perceived differences, then you won't believe one thing of it all definitely. 😉

Still I myself showed the differences easily, and you know it ...

... But there we go again ... those minute differences can't be audible.

 

You know, I don't care about this all. However, I do care a little if someone tells me that I don't know what I'm doing. Not that you said exactly that, but Paul, this is how it reads. I suppose I am biased. 😙

 

8 hours ago, manisandher said:

Indeed, @mansr couldn't hear any difference between A and B even with my pointing the differences out to him... And this with a supposedly highly susceptible DAC!

 

It is the first time that I hear about this. If true, it sheds some new lights on matters like these, namely that apparently people exist that even after pointing out, still won't hear.

I have had countless auditions over here and not a single time it happened that after one track me pointing out the whatever differences between whatever settings, people could not do it themselves at a next track. I should add that it requires the small education, but this is really small indeed. A most easy example is the stereo separation in the bass / lower frequencies which commonly is not much there at all. But with some prerequisites it can be unveiled easily and from there on everyone can do it instantly. One of the prerequisites is a track possessing that separation in the first place (eureka).

So Paul, now you know (and start to learn) why I need to pick the music when you are doing the recordings (as talked through in a thread 10 months or so ago).