Tír Na HiFi

I will answer that from the luddite corner before the engineers come back after tea. I would basically assume that located in root there is a shorter path to travel. They who do this advise it matters and makes a difference.Like sata cables usb cards etc I think a lot of this may or may not have an impact depending on your system and also on whether what is suggested really makes much difference.
Quantifying the percentage gain is the wonderful part that would make some of the suggestions more desirable. This seems generally impossible as all peoples perceptions are different.

On my basic level I believe cumulative use of the myriad suggestions brings you to a point. If this point is happiness any further journey that costs lots of money or hassle depends on how bad you want it.

The experts can come back in now and advise what is really the case or correct any errors above.

As a basic example I have a ssd sitting around that I just haven't bothered to load music on to. I took the view that because it can't fit most of my crap musical choices I haven't used it yet in this testing. Stuck with the hdd. If in the future I try it and it seems eureka to me I will post my experiences as I know lots of people love to read about it!

SBGK,
I would like to here your opinion here, please. What can make a difference, where the file is stored and how it's named. To play it you have to load it into memory, and program reads it form there from now on. Who gives a f... where the file was located before and how it was named. Am I missing something significant here, or people are going crazy about these things somehow.
My ears and my equipment are probably not good enough to hear these differences, sorry.

cvrle59 wrote:SBGK,
I would like to here your opinion here, please. What can make a difference, where the file is stored and how it's named. To play it you have to load it into memory, and program reads it form there from now on. Who gives a f... where the file was located before and how it was called. Am I missing something significant here, or people are going crazy about these things somehow.
My ears and my equipment are probably not good enough to hear these differences, sorry.

I have 2 tracks which are identical which I am told sound different, haven't listened to them yet. I do know that when I listen to the same track back to back it can sometimes sound totally different, so that's another variable. It would seem to be simple enough to come up with a theory why 2 tracks which are the same could sound different, not an area I have found the time to explore as it hurts the brain too much.

sbgk wrote:

cvrle59 wrote:SBGK,
I would like to here your opinion here, please. What can make a difference, where the file is stored and how it's named. To play it you have to load it into memory, and program reads it form there from now on. Who gives a f... where the file was located before and how it was called. Am I missing something significant here, or people are going crazy about these things somehow.
My ears and my equipment are probably not good enough to hear these differences, sorry.

I have 2 tracks which are identical which I am told sound different, haven't listened to them yet. I do know that when I listen to the same track back to back it can sometimes sound totally different, so that's another variable. It would seem to be simple enough to come up with a theory why 2 tracks which are the same could sound different, not an area I have found the time to explore as it hurts the brain too much.

I think you answered my question. There some other variables (I still think that our feeling at the moment is the most significant one) in the system to full you around making you thinking that the same file will sound different if you change the name or you copy it from spot 1 to spot 2. I will stop talking about this, as I just do not believe it, and my brain hurts bad already.

cvrle59 wrote:

sbgk wrote:

cvrle59 wrote:SBGK,
I would like to here your opinion here, please. What can make a difference, where the file is stored and how it's named. To play it you have to load it into memory, and program reads it form there from now on. Who gives a f... where the file was located before and how it was called. Am I missing something significant here, or people are going crazy about these things somehow.
My ears and my equipment are probably not good enough to hear these differences, sorry.

I have 2 tracks which are identical which I am told sound different, haven't listened to them yet. I do know that when I listen to the same track back to back it can sometimes sound totally different, so that's another variable. It would seem to be simple enough to come up with a theory why 2 tracks which are the same could sound different, not an area I have found the time to explore as it hurts the brain too much.

I think you answered my question. There some other variables (I still think that our feeling at the moment is the most significant one) in the system to full you around making you thinking that the same file will sound different if you change the name or you copy it from spot 1 to spot 2. I will stop talking about this, as I just do not believe it, and my brain hurts bad already.

I am open minded about it, just not a priority for me.

Think weve bigger fish to fry first
before worrying about directories and file names
its not very practical anyway

but ill be trying it out of curiosity

I've finally compared 2.62 cp to 2.63.

2.63 almost has as much bass as 2.62 cp, certainly it's plenty. 2.63 has more detail and flows a little better, if anything the sound is smoother/cleaner. Sibilance is a touch better even though there's more detail. Liking it.

LowOrbit and myself might both like this one!

renamed files and directory structures sounding different????
A whole new level of fuckwittery has entered Computer Audio! Sorry guys but that idea is probably one of daftest I've ever heard in hifi.

Trying out 2.63 sse4 intel and it is very good for me. Will keep going with some different tracks but using buddy holly and a complete opposite type of track listening wind by THeads which has lots of electronic noises and dense percussion. This can be shrill and ear piercing but it works for me on 2.63. Went back to the earlier 2.44 sse4 intel version and while it is mellow it sounds smeared to me compared to the later versions I compared it to (2.59 and a 260 and 2.61 all sse4 intel except the longwinded 2.59 ending in a 4)

BTW for me as per Dermot Morgan they all have lovely bottoms at this stage. I am finding it very difficult to tell them a part. Caveat I am sticking to sse 4 intel versions

I hope I have done this right and sure might as well ask the question here and blush if I am getting it completely wrong.
Have a variety of versions sitting on the desktop. I am just copying a working set of Mqn files and dropping in the new version renamed to MQnplay.exe. I then edit the bat file to make sure it points to the folder I am playing the bat file from. Hope this is correct it works for me as I have a selection on the desktop so comparing is quick. Apologises if this has been advised before.

DaveF wrote:renamed files and directory structures sounding different????
A whole new level of fuckwittery has entered Computer Audio! Sorry guys but that idea is probably one of daftest I've ever heard in hifi.

Did I not answer that question nicely Dave? Your not on the wam now!