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!
I dont post on the wam.
Excuse the manner of my post above but the concept is pretty out there when it comes to whacky ideas! Think about it, renaming a file somehow causes a chain of events so as to change the signal out of the DAC? I'm all for exploring new ideas/concepts but a reality check is needed now and again. This is a public forum so any wild bizzare claims cannot expect not to go unchallenged.
"I may skip. I may even warp a little.... But I will never, ever crash. I am your friend for life. " -Vinyl. Michell Gyrodec SE, Hana ML cart, Parasound JC3 Jr, Stax LR-700, Stax SRM-006ts Energiser, Quad Artera Play+ CDP
nige2000 wrote: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
the cics thread on AA had lots of this type of thing, to do with the way windows does things, I don't understand windows so shall leave to others who do, but they seemed to be getting results by slimming down the registry etc, think it was steppe who did a lot of the work.
from what I've seen of KS and Alsa it seems that to stream the music a function is called, so improving them would involve improving the function, whereas it's a bit simpler in wasapi
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!
I dont post on the wam.
Excuse the manner of my post above but the concept is pretty out there when it comes to whacky ideas! Think about it, renaming a file somehow causes a chain of events so as to change the signal out of the DAC? I'm all for exploring new ideas/concepts but a reality check is needed now and again. This is a public forum so any wild bizzare claims cannot expect not to go unchallenged.
does bit perfect playback using different O/S sound the same ? Until that one is explained, anything's possible.
sbgk wrote:does bit perfect playback using different O/S sound the same ?
I dont know if they sound the same or if we have bit perfectness or if the influence on the noise of the system is being affected. In the experimentation thread, I'm assuming that they sound different so along with other posts we try to find a reason for it. So far a lot of speculation albeit based on peoples real life experience but nothing concrete as of yet.
Renamed files though.................
sbgk wrote: anything's possible.
With all due respect to you, I think this is a big problem with audiophiles where they seem willing to accept that anything and everything can make a difference in sound.
"I may skip. I may even warp a little.... But I will never, ever crash. I am your friend for life. " -Vinyl. Michell Gyrodec SE, Hana ML cart, Parasound JC3 Jr, Stax LR-700, Stax SRM-006ts Energiser, Quad Artera Play+ CDP
nige2000 wrote: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
the cics thread on AA had lots of this type of thing, to do with the way windows does things, I don't understand windows so shall leave to others who do, but they seemed to be getting results by slimming down the registry etc, think it was steppe who did a lot of the work.
Yes I knew if I waited long enough somebody would bring up cics my favourite mainframe system. Back to the future! Are we now considering a mainframe for best sound!
Excuse the manner of my post above but the concept is pretty out there when it comes to whacky ideas! Think about it, renaming a file somehow causes a chain of events so as to change the signal out of the DAC? I'm all for exploring new ideas/concepts but a reality check is needed now and again. This is a public forum so any wild bizzare claims cannot expect not to go unchallenged.
Couldn't resist I just got a darting pain when I saw it as the stab wounds from wamery are still fresh in my mind. Swear away I want to see if Fran has the balls to ban you!
sbgk wrote:does bit perfect playback using different O/S sound the same ?
I dont know if they sound the same or if we have bit perfectness or if the influence on the noise of the system is being affected. In the experimentation thread, I'm assuming that they sound different so along with other posts we try to find a reason for it. So far a lot of speculation albeit based on peoples real life experience but nothing concrete as of yet.
Renamed files though.................
sbgk wrote: anything's possible.
With all due respect to you, I think this is a big problem with audiophiles where they seem willing to accept that anything and everything can make a difference in sound.
I don't have an opinion about it, I'm amused that people think it makes a difference, but it doesn't bother me what people think. So far from my experience most things do make a difference. Windows is a complicated beast, I wouldn't have believed switching off explorer would make a difference, until I tried it. It's only a hobby, after all and we are all here to learn something off each other. It's easy to spot someone who is making outrageous claims so no one's going to get hurt or be out of pocket because of what someone posted on an audiophile forum.
sbgk wrote:does bit perfect playback using different O/S sound the same ?
I dont know if they sound the same or if we have bit perfectness or if the influence on the noise of the system is being affected. In the experimentation thread, I'm assuming that they sound different so along with other posts we try to find a reason for it. So far a lot of speculation albeit based on peoples real life experience but nothing concrete as of yet.
Renamed files though.................
sbgk wrote: anything's possible.
With all due respect to you, I think this is a big problem with audiophiles where they seem willing to accept that anything and everything can make a difference in sound.
I don't have an opinion about it, I'm amused that people think it makes a difference, but it doesn't bother me what people think. So far from my experience most things do make a difference. Windows is a complicated beast, I wouldn't have believed switching off explorer would make a difference, until I tried it. It's only a hobby, after all and we are all here to learn something off each other. It's easy to spot someone who is making outrageous claims so no one's going to get hurt or be out of pocket because of what someone posted on an audiophile forum.
Id pretty much agree with that
Granted Dave it is pretty far out there
2.63 is winning me over
this one is showing potential i think
2.6 cp still has some bass aspect i like more
but 2.63 is much better overall
something special in 2.61 too seems to have higher resolution crisp and clear that 2.6 cp and 2.63 have a more smooth or rounded sound with less detail
Can we have it all,
really dont know
sd card player, modded soekris dac, class a lifepo4 amp or gb class a/b amp, diy open baffle speakers based on project audio mundorf trio 10's
+1 for 2.63 from me so its back from going back after listening to a few tracks.
Been thinking a lot about MQN and after listening to tracks I know well which have left an emotional fingerprint on me over the years there is no doubt now for me that MQN has a completely different presentation of music to both good CDPs and my TT.
You definitely get much closer to the performance with MQN and I can hear so much more than I ever heard before in well known tracks which is as disconcerting this evening as when I first had a good listen to MQN about a month ago.
I say disconcerting in all the best ways and I am still amazed at the detail available in well recorded 16 44 material when listening to MQN.
I guess at the end of the day there will be no real point in comparing tracks in MQN to a good CDP or TT, as I am beginning to think some of the warm and cosy sounds I have gotten used to on CD and TT playback may be as much about years of conditioning as hearing the real recorded sound from the studio.
I think the only answer to hearing a good comparison is to hear comparisons with the masters from where our WAV files originated, unless we have a good musician here with his/her master tapes who has released digital tracks.
I asked myself a question this evening to end my wavering thoughts, if I had to choose between my TT, my CDP, my JPlay streaming system or my single PC MQN system which would I choose......easy answer MQN.
By the way listened to HiRez on 2.63 and I honestly still believe that the improvements scale up as the HiRez stuff sounds stunning. Wish I had a vinyl disc with a track I also had in HiRez to compare but I am going to look out for an LP the next time I am in a record store.
Well done SBGK, had a slight speed wobble there but I am back to "normal" again!
