Thanks! Those patents do actually explain their line of reasoning. If I got this right, they claim removing "0's", which exist to "fill" a system defined datablock, where there's less data then the actual storage blocksize, reduces timing errors because those "0's" are actually read and added as data in the datastream, causing jitter by changing the resultant data time domain.
Thank YOU for translating to layman's terms. This can then give me a mental Relationship to Embedded jitter, ie when HDDS are always shuffling around data for "efficiency" purposes, this may be adding "0" fills where none existed before? i know that SD cards dont do the shuffle.
Yeah that's the bit I dont entirely get. The patent applications refer exactly to what you just wrote, eg optical disc readers and spinning harddrives. They seem to propose common hard drive defragmentation is insufficient at removing those 0's, which I can understand since the data per blocksize doesnt change by rearranging them, so they wrote their own defragmentation program which does remove those 0's, changing the amount if data in each block perhaps? Maybe they remove the 0's and fill those spots with data from the next block? Subsequently they claim the same mechanism applies to flash storage / memory.
Yeah that's the bit I dont entirely get. The patent applications refer exactly to what you just wrote, eg optical disc readers and spinning harddrives. They seem to propose common hard drive defragmentation is insufficient at removing those 0's, which I can understand since the data per blocksize doesnt change by rearranging them, so they wrote their own defragmentation program which does remove those 0's, changing the amount if data in each block perhaps? Maybe they remove the 0's and fill those spots with data from the next block? Subsequently they claim the same mechanism applies to flash storage / memory.
Yes, this was the explanation I was given some 4 to 5 years ago from an Industry insider who I trust more than anyone else in the game, as he proved his worth in knowledge way outside of audio. This person is a font of knowledge for me. He gave me the SD card tip from back then and attempted to explain how HDD/SSD/USB stick design caused them to be constantly shuffling data around (in the name of efficiency)and messing it up for optimal music playback. Same person told me that whenever I heard efficiency/symmetry being extolled in Audio, I should just RUN the other way. LoL
Haha. The question ofcourse remains if this is actually true or if the positive effect comes from "rewriting data" as bughead does as thats the net side effect.
On enterprise storage systems removing these 0's is a part of what's called data de-duplication.
The obvious downside is constantly accessing flash storage which is absolutely horrific on power quality and very hard / expensive to filter out.
My apologies for turning this thread into a CA style discussion!
Although I am not understanding exactly what is been doing in this ""rewriting data" it remembers me of an old technique used by the people of Audio Synthesis to remove jitter from SPDIF systems. Amplifying the signal coming from the PLL of the data receiver of the DAC clock they found that it had some re-semblance with the audio content, meaning that the reconstructed clock was being modulated by an audio related signal that would be easily audible. So they created a system to scramble the order of the bits in a pseudo random order in the SPDIF of the transport, removing the clear audio correlation from the clock and a reverse de-scrambler just before the signals were sent to the DAC chip.
I have owned such system - it really sounded different in coded or non coded. The real problem was when the CD transport was by mistake connected to a standard DAC in the scrambled bit position - then the noise coming from the DAC was really terrible!
Notice that it does not attenuate jitter, rather it works to remove the connection (correlation) between data and the jitter. The designer even admits that in terms of measurements, the output jitter is higher than at the input.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So all our members that prefer cd replay to file replay: good for you and keep enjoying your cd's. I am spinning myself with my (not standard because revised; inter alia a better clock) Zanden cd--combo in order to be able to play my many cd's that are not available in the vinyl or files format. And I am enjoying myself with cd reply.
That said I am wondering: how many of you have actually compared high res files - eg dsd 256 or dxd recordings - a-b to the same recordings on (sa)cd? The -original - dxd recordings of Bert van der Wolf's Northstar recordings are also sold as Challenge Classics sacd's and these recordings make a fair comparison possible. The same applies to the Channel Classics dsd 64 recordings.
Interesting to note that nobody has answered my question. This can imply two things: a. My question was in your view not relevant as regards the quality difference between cd and file reply, or b. Nobody actually compared the dsd/dxd file to the same recording on (sa)cd. In case of the latter imho we should be much more prudent in offering our strong opinions.
Interesting to note that nobody has answered my question. This can imply two things: a. My question was in your view not relevant as regards the quality difference between cd and file reply, or b. Nobody actually compared the dsd/dxd file to the same recording on (sa)cd. In case of the latter imho we should be much more prudent in offering our strong opinions.
Interesting to note that nobody has answered my question. This can imply two things: a. My question was in your view not relevant as regards the quality difference between cd and file reply, or b. Nobody actually compared the dsd/dxd file to the same recording on (sa)cd. In case of the latter imho we should be much more prudent in offering our strong opinions.
Note that I did not at any time claim that the CD from a transport is superior in sound quality to a high-res file (even though some of the best digital that I have ever heard was through a CD transport). What I did note is that implementation of computer audio, done right, is usually a cumbersome and frustrating process -- as I witness time and time again -- that I do not want to subject myself to. I also noted that, while computer audio has a theoretical advantage of diminished jitter, a major disadvantage is RF noise (Shunyata even has developed a power conditioner/insulator specifically to address that problem in computer audio). Because of that, I would only implement computer audio in my system through an expensive server that is designed to address that problem in a thorough manner from the start.
Yet while there is a passionate and intense debate about the merits of high-res vs. CD, it is clear to me that there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to just sound quality (apart from the issue of added convenience of file replay, once you have finally managed to implement it properly). For the same amount of money that it would me take to implement computer audio the right way, I can make improvements in my system that will have more effect on sound quality. In my experience it is just not true that high-res is the fundamental condition to great sound that trumps everything else.
Note that I did not at any time claim that the CD from a transport is superior in sound quality to a high-res file (even though some of the best digital that I have ever heard was through a CD transport). What I did note is that implementation of computer audio, done right, is usually a cumbersome and frustrating process -- as I witness time and time again -- that I do not want to subject myself to. I also noted that, while computer audio has a theoretical advantage of diminished jitter, a major disadvantage is RF noise (Shunyata even has developed a power conditioner/insulator specifically to address that problem in computer audio). Because of that, I would only implement computer audio in my system through an expensive server that is designed to address that problem in a thorough manner from the start.
Yet while there is a passionate and intense debate about the merits of high-res vs. CD, it is clear to me that there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to just sound quality (apart from the issue of added convenience of file replay, once you have finally managed to implement it properly). For the same amount of money that it would me take to implement computer audio the right way, I can make improvements in my system that will have more effect on sound quality. In my experience it is just not true that high-res is the fundamental condition to great sound that trumps everything else.
No, a much lower cost streamer would beat many more expensive CD players, and selling existing CD players would also help get back some money. The expensive server you refer to like SGM is required to compete only against the best transports all of which are very expensive. Most off the shelf servers are pretty easy to operate too, you don't need to set up a CAPS style one. Either way, AC's point is valid - those who have not gone through these compares...
Interesting to note that nobody has answered my question. This can imply two things: a. My question was in your view not relevant as regards the quality difference between cd and file reply, or b. Nobody actually compared the dsd/dxd file to the same recording on (sa)cd. In case of the latter imho we should be much more prudent in offering our strong opinions.
I have done this in the past and at least IMHO and to my ears, with both having the exact master, I will take the files with a quality server. Part of the problem is that it is very hard to find a copy of both that are of the same exact master. Many are not. The mastering you have on a SA/CD most likely will not be the exact of what you can get as the down load of same and vs a versa.
Funny how my comments turned this thread to a discussion about how impossible a spinner can sound as good as a dedicated server. I said my JMF/Formula combo sounds pretty good to my ears compare to other digital fronts I have heard from both spinner and server. Not a single word of my comments "generalize" that transport sounds better than server. I even said that digital is not my cup of tea. So, for those who love a sound coming out of server, I am so very happy for you. Thank you indeed for telling me to go to server if I want the best of digital. And for those who thinks the sound from a spinner can also be pretty good, I am also very happy you enjoy your music.
Funny how my comments turned this thread to a discussion about how impossible a spinner can sound as good as a dedicated server. I said my JMF/Formula combo sounds pretty good to my ears compare to other digital fronts I have heard from both spinner and server. Not a single word of my comments "generalize" that transport sounds better than server. I even said that digital is not my cup of tea. So, for those who love a sound coming out of server, I am so very happy for you. Thank you indeed for telling me to go to server if I want the best of digital. And for those who thinks the sound from a spinner can also be pretty good, I am also very happy you enjoy your music.
it takes very little to bring out biases on both sides of any issue.....I think.....the nature of healthy on line forums. the alternative of avoiding those inevitable detours a much worse result. forum bandwidth is cheap.
I'm a 'file server' guy (and have been biased that way for 3-4 years) who started the transport subject on this thread by purchasing a CD spinner (Aqua La Diva) on a spur of moment whim (due to it's modest cost) and seeing where it took me. which, so far, is that i'm still pretty much a file server guy but it's nice to have a spinner that gets really close to my redbook file performance. how much will I actually use it? ask me in 3-6 months.
Imho a "which is best" disc spinner versus music server is too black & white. The associated gear plays a big role. As an example: it must have been almost 10 years ago when I got my first streamer, a Linn Majik DS. I had a Wadia 861i cd-player and ran the Majik DS on its spdif input. I ripped a cd and compared that same cd from the Wadia's internal transport to the rip playing through the Majik DS. The Majik was clearly better which was quite a surprise to me at that time.
Some time later I tried the same comparison on a Wadia 7 transport and Wadia 9 dac which only had a glass fibre input so I ran the Majik through a Genesis digital lens to convert spdif to fibre. This time the cd transport won.
Despite more variables in play here, in my mind, the interface changed the outcome.
Mr. Lavigne suggested using a xlr and a Herzan could improve the sound of Acqua Formula. I suggest if owners of a Formula would stretch further and ground it to a Tripoint, your sound could be more refine, dimensional and organic.
Mr. Lavigne suggested using a xlr and a Herzan could improve the sound of Acqua Formula. I suggest if owners of a Formula would stretch further and ground it to a Tripoint, your sound could be more refine, dimensional and organic.
my Aqua Formula and SGM are both grounded to a Tripoint Troy Signature, and agree wholeheartedly. I do need to get an additional ground cable for my La Diva transport.
and also the Formula is signal path grounded to an Entreq Silver Tellus.
Same camp as you gentlemen, I have yet to hear computer audio that I can stand more than a few minutes and besides I really like the physical, tangible CD disc over files.
I don't know your source components but I felt similar until I upgraded my computer - based server and rarely get up to spin a disc. It's definitely possible.
my Aqua Formula and SGM are both grounded to a Tripoint Troy Signature, and agree wholeheartedly. I do need to get an additional ground cable for my La Diva transport.
and also the Formula is signal path grounded to an Entreq Silver Tellus.
May I ask where you connect the Troy ground wire to the Formula. I unscrewed one of the screw on the back and insert the ground wire between it. I also grounded my JMF to the Troy. JMF has a grounding post. Formula doesnt.
May I ask where you connect the Troy ground wire to the Formula. I unscrewed one of the screw on the back and insert the ground wire between it. I also grounded my JMF to the Troy. JMF has a grounding post. Formula doesnt.
when Ed from SGM was here we removed the top cover on the Formula, and Ed looked and determined that the middle top screw on the back plate would be best for a ground connection; so that is what I used. I can take a picture if that explanation is not clear.
