I thought I'd heard it all with reviews of $10,000 ethernet cables, but I came across this article http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hificritic/vol5_no3/listening_to_storage.htm that states that your choice of NAS and switching from a mechanical hard drive to SSD (particularly the 128GB Kingston SSDNow) will enhance the musical experience.
Hoping that this article was meant as a joke, a quick Google search for Audiophile SSD and Audiophile Solid State Drives brings up articles and forums back to at least 2009 discussing how switching to an SSD can mprove digital sound quality.
Mark this post as my prediction of the day (if it hasn't already arrived) of the Videophile SSD! *SIGH*
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20
Last edited by lingyi; 18th Feb 2015 at 17:11. Reason: grammar
What rubbish. It seems people can convince themselves of anything.
Not to paint all audiophiles with the same brush, but there's a segment that buys into that article. Notice terms and phrases like: "inexplicably inconsistent", "seemingly insignificant", "more organic", "ethereal", etc.
Hey, it's explicable alright: You have lively imaginations. And your "tests" are not controlled, despite the claim they were "reasonably controlled". What precisely does that mean?
Had the tests been controlled (as in double-blind, large enough sample to be statistically significant, and testing for one equipment variable at a time), you'd expect the methodology to be revealed. It's laughable.
Thanks for the link. There's all sorts of rank undergrowth to be found on the net.Pull! Bang! Darn!
I believe in it! Everybody knows that an audiophile byte is different than a normal byte: The bit edges are more well defined."The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
Haha that was a good one
I've heard the same exact type of words("more organic", "ethereal", etc.) used HERE by audiophiles trying to claim that any vinyl is better than any CD.....this SSD theory is just as moronic.
But the sharp edges of the 1's get caught on the spinning disk. The smoother 0's are OK. SSD has no nasty spinny things to catch those 1's on...
Pull! Bang! Darn!
I you look at the picture close enough, you may spot the cheap Netgear switch all devices are connected to. This low end switch IMHO is the obvious source of this nasty "edgy grain exaggerating the sampled horns that sets the scene in the opening of Primal Scream's Loaded."
What a heap of utter cr*p!
"Is it really possible that the sound quality of bit-identical audio ﬁles' is influenced by their storage medium before being delivered to the hi-ﬁ system's DAC?"
Last edited by Lowlander; 19th Feb 2015 at 10:29.
Yeah, there are areas where there is the possibility of degradation and differentiation (Codec & mixing algorithms, A/D, D/A, LONG wire runs, Analog sections, Transducers, Environment, Humans) and areas where there is NOT (usual digital storage & transmission where EDC/ECC takes care of every anomaly, and there is a timebase buffer and signal regenerator).
Audiophiles & Videophiles may have some value in discerning & describing the former, but they need to stop sticking their noses into the latter because then they are laughed away.
I remember that spinner-vs-SSD crud. They claimed that since the solid state drives are so much faster you'd get less jitter.
Not that I don't believe in jitter with digital audio. It does make a difference, surprisingly so in the bass.
But it has NOTHING to do with how fast your storage is. And any well engineered player/DAC unit ... which their pet components often aren't because the staff is one guy ... has had that solved for years.
"Not that I don't believe in jitter with digital audio. It does make a difference, surprisingly so in the bass."
You Sir, are a Twat.
Did you also hear a difference in HDMI cables? And LAN cables? Were your COLORS more "Vibrant" on HDMI2 compared to HDMI 1? Did your "music" FLOAT more? Or was it "more pinned to the stage"? Mutually exclusive terms BTW..
Idiot.. but that's OK.. I have a VERY CHEAP bridge here I can sell you..
Or, as one guy (UK) that took PRIDE in just how State Of The Art he's TV was said "With this new HDMI cable my colours are now more dynamic, fuller, more Real Life, more POP!.."
To which the guy who'd calibrated his TV replied " So, you want me back round to get it correct again?"
I'd like to know what equipment Hoser Rob uses that has so much jitter he can hear it "in the bass".
Imagine that. A bass speaker flapping around inside a box and air resonating through a port, but still being able to hear the difference caused by a few nanoseconds of jitter.
Detection threshold for distortions due to jitter on digital audio
In the case of linear PCM data, amount of distortions can be estimated from a slope of the waveform and a size of jitter. If the distortions are smaller than the quantization noise, jitter does not induce any degradation of sound quality. Because the maximum slope in a waveform of a high frequency sound is larger than that of a low frequency one, the same amount of jitter results in the more distortions in the higher frequency sounds.
In order to determine the maximum acceptable size of jitter on music signals, detection thresholds for artificial random jitter were measured in a 2 alternative forced choice procedure. Audio professionals and semi-professionals participated in the experiments. They were allowed to use their own listening environments and their favorite sound materials. The results indicate that the threshold for random jitter on program materials is several hundreds ns for well-trained listeners under their preferable listening conditions. The threshold values seem to be sufficiently larger than the jitter actually observed in various consumer products (3ns was the maximum jitter they detected).
Last edited by hello_hello; 19th Feb 2015 at 19:54.
Back in 2005, an audiophile applied for the James Randi (magician / psychic debunker) $1 Million Challenge claiming a certain chip placed on TOP of the CD player changed the CD's performance. His objections to the conditions for the blind test included: no blindfold, no objective observer and not being able to "tweak" his system as the CD played, because these were not this "natural' listening conditions.
The test conditions were debated (between the applicant and the test moderator) via email for months (and got pretty nasty towards the end) and eventually Randi completely rejected the application.
The full forum thread is available here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36074
I suspect any other Golden Ear so challenged would put up many of the same objections.
The series "Brain Games" delves into how much our brains deceive us, aurally and visually. The clearest example of confirmation bias is "psychic voices" where you can suddenly hear something that you weren't able to once you're told what the "psychic voice" is saying.
Too bad that this thread has been polluted and corrupted by the name of the PSEUDO-skeptic and professional bozo James Randi.
And I don't give a flying frak for soundstaging 99% of the time because the recording I'm listening to doesn't have one. It's a multiple mono recording rendered to stereo. I don't own many audiophile recordings because they're usually music I don't like that much performed by 3rd rate artists. I'm actually so far from a soundstaging nut it's ridiculous.