|
243
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Playback Tweaks and Source related subjects / Re: HD choice for XXHighend
|
on: September 02, 2010, 07:16:34 pm
|
|
Maybe a little offtopic, but I think you will find that interesting. I unmounted my Samsung 1.5TB eco (5400RPM) hdd from PC and placed it on a docking station with separate PSU. The connetion with PC is through eSATA, so basically the same. I thought that would eliminate the negative impact of the HDD on my sound card, but guess what, even that the hard drive is 30cm away from PC, the interference goes over the ground of eSATA cable or back to the socket outlet, don't know, but what I know is that when I unplug the docking station's PSU from the socket, the sound becomes more open, less edgy/digital - better. So don't tell me that storage doesn't matter. People laugh when somebody writes about different SQ when it comes to HDDs. It's not about performance, it's about sth else - negative effect on power.
|
|
|
|
|
245
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Split file size and volume
|
on: August 31, 2010, 09:23:48 am
|
An easy test would be for me to set the split file size and then increase the CPU clock rate and/or CPU voltage. I'll do this and report back... I've just tried this, and am quite surprised by the results - not what I expected at all... Just to give some background, I can vary the base CPU rate of 133MHz by between 9x-21x using the mobo's BIOS utility. I normally have it set to 9x. But I've just tried 15x and 21x also, keeping the split file size fixed at 12MB. I used a single track for evaluation throughout; David Sylvian's 'When Poets Dream of Angels', which is beautifully recorded and starts with three acoustic guitars at left, centre and right. 9x 133MHz = 1.2GHzThe sound is as I described it before - very detailed, but edgy and fatiguing after a while. 15x 133MHz = 2.0GHzThe sound is fuller. It's almost like the split file size has been increased. 21x 133MHz = 2.8GHzThe sound is fuller still. Rich and warm. Again, it's like the split file size has been increased further. So, increasing the clock rate has a similar effect to increasing the the split file size!!! This is not what I expected at all. Certainly, with the CPU rate set to 21x, I have no problems listening with a split file size of 12MB - it sounds so much more refined than with the CPU rate set to 9x. The only explanation I can offer is this: With a smaller split file size, data is transferred more often (though in smaller chunks). Maybe more CPU power allows things to settle down more quickly, well before the next data chunk is sent. Of course, God knows what happens to other things, such as RFI, with increasing CPU rates... Peter? Mani. Now try the same with your Weiss interface  I think that maybe your motherboard is 'prepared' for higher clocks, providing more stable voltages with default CPU speeds (which now are 2.5-3 GHz) rather than underclocked and undervolted. I'm just thinking out loud, I'm not an electronics engineer. |
|
|
|
|
246
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Split file size and volume
|
on: August 31, 2010, 09:17:59 am
|
after few sessions and multiple combinations I came to a conclusion that 'file size=split size' rule applies for 16/44 upsampled tracks as well. There is no need to increase it further. Hi Marcin - I guess I must read back some posts to understand this exactly. So, what do you mean "increase it further" ? I meant that in my opinion there is no need to increase the split size over the track's file size, even when we play 16/44 track which is upsampled (QAP). |
|
|
|
|
247
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Split file size and volume
|
on: August 30, 2010, 05:50:17 pm
|
|
Peter, so what you're implying is that it should be easier to get a decent sound from a sound card (analog outs) than from a transport+DAC combo assuming that both sound card and transport are fed from PC? This is sth new to me, I always thought that it's the other way...
Regarding our topic, after few sessions and multiple combinations I came to a conclusion that 'file size=split size' rule applies for 16/44 upsampled tracks as well. There is no need to increase it further.
|
|
|
|
|
250
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Split file size and volume
|
on: August 27, 2010, 03:28:15 pm
|
|
Mani, you have all the necessary equipment (analog setup for LP) as well as A/D converter, so you'll be able to find 'the best' values - the most transparent compared to vinyl. I don't have any reliable point of reference, only my ears and assumption what sounds right or not. I think we all should contribute and try different values, especially for 16/44 with QAP.
|
|
|
|
|
255
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Split file size and volume
|
on: August 25, 2010, 12:41:19 pm
|
Nice discovery Mani! I confirm that it works and sounds awesome Now it is clear to me, why 'the best settings' that sounded great with one album, don't seem to work with the others... It would be great to have auto split size for every track, but as Peter said, it won't be easy for upsampled files. Marcin PS Mani, would you agree that buffer size at 4096 has more depth and air than 1024, but the latter is more saturated in the midrange? I would also like to know how you describe the difference between Scheme-3 and No-Appointment. It seems that we are the only guys here who prefer 'no-scheme' sound. For me, no-appointmen gives the most neutral, transparent and raw sound, which I personally prefer. Scheme-3, on the other hand, is smooth and it's very easy to distinguish and localise plans. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
