Swapped hdd with ssd....wow...wow....wow...........and wow...again!

[Briz Vegas]

Now all you need is a 1600 dollar Paul Hynes power supply :-)

Enjoy your SSD.i completely agree with your findings.

[Krypton]

Thanks Briz, the Paul Hynes supply is a little out there price wise for a frugal audiofile    

 

I could instead do a set of DIY speakers - I'll be off to the DIY thread.

 

regards

 

K

[roh008]

Question, my HTPC has 1 SSD and some HDDs. Currently my music is on my HDD.

 

So are people saying if I play a FLAC file from HDD and compared playing the FLAC flie from the SSD there should be an improvement? Is the test as simple as that. Will be cursing not getting an SSD big enough for first time around, only built the HTPC few months back.

[roh008]

Simple. Just do the test I suggested.

 

Run the BDP's HDMI output and coax output to the same AVR. After all bits is bits right, and they should sound identical. If they do, then good for you and there's no need to change the connection on your set up. But if there is, it suggests that your system is resolving enough to hear the difference between the jitter levels.

 

HDMI 1.3 actually included a form of clock control called ARC (not audio return channel in HDMI 1.4) which was implemented as PQLS and HATS (Pioneer and Sony's marketing name for it) and it worked really well with PCM data sent over HDMI. I used Denon's version of it.

Won't be able to do the SPDIF/test part unfortunately no optical out on HTPC. However, after reading more around the subject, audio jitter via optical does have an impact but via HDMI does not due to the differences in protocols. The output of HDMI from GPU to INPUT of AVR (currently).

 

The measurements referred to earlier in this thread are the Output Jitter values via HDMI from AVRs.

 

As it stays in the digital domain via HDMI from the HTPC the data is handled differently compared to SPDIF. So for me the biggest benefit would be in a DAC then analogue outs to the AVR.

 

Will give the SSD/HDD issue a go, but as it's transported via HDMI and protocol/DAC on the AVR will be the key factor.

[Jventer]

Won't be able to do the SPDIF/test part unfortunately no optical out on HTPC. However, after reading more around the subject, audio jitter via optical does have an impact but via HDMI does not due to the differences in protocols. The output of HDMI from GPU to INPUT of AVR (currently).

 

The measurements referred to earlier in this thread are the Output Jitter values via HDMI from AVRs.

 

As it stays in the digital domain via HDMI from the HTPC the data is handled differently compared to SPDIF. So for me the biggest benefit would be in a DAC then analogue outs to the AVR.

 

Will give the SSD/HDD issue a go, but as it's transported via HDMI and protocol/DAC on the AVR will be the key factor.

I must confess I dont understand the technical aspects.

 

The answer to your question, my own raised in other topics and many others is that we can only do the best with what we have.

 

There are the scientific principles, there is theory, there are measurements - but at the end of the day there is a specific system used by a specific person and then that person's ears must be the judge. 

[DoggieHowser]

If you use bitstream out from ur HTPC to ur AVR, there jitter isn't as big an issue. But if you send PCM, it is.

[roh008]

If you use bitstream out from ur HTPC to ur AVR, there jitter isn't as big an issue. But if you send PCM, it is.

Arr good point for music I send via PCM as AVR can't play FLAC, I believe the new ones can though. (For movies, it is different I bitstream the audio.)

 

As I will be buying a new AVR, I assume finding one that can handle FLAC which will allow me to bitstream the audio will overcome this?

[DoggieHowser]

If the AVR is playing FLAC, you won't be using the HDMI connection. Just USB (block transfer mode) or Ethernet.

[bhobba]

Not trying to be a stickler here but I'm trying to work out process wise how having an SSD would improve playback. I understand that an SSD has no moving parts and thus would introduce less noise into the PC and thus less electrical inference.

 

What I struggle to get past is how playback from an SSD would differ from playback of a file from a conventional hard drive to a memory buffer in the system RAM and then playing back from there?

 

Conventional Hard Drive -> Copy to SSD permanently -> playback from SSD

Conventional Hard Drive -> Memory buffer -> playback from memory (RAM)

 

A number of possibilities exist.  For example, as you mention, the hash from the drive could get into the USB cables and cause problems.

 

There are a number of 'strange' things with computer audio that on the surface seem goofy such as why Flac and Wave can sound different and why different players sound different.  A few technical reasons have been put forward but what I can tell you is some of the stuff such as players sounding different has been been verified in a blind test so its true.  I think it's best to simply accept it like we do with so much in audio rather than worry why.  For example before Jitter (and related issues) were well understood people struggled with why DAC's sounded different - but sound different they did and still do.

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited February 10, 2013 by bhobba

[gavtron]

I agree Bill - lots of inexplicable variables with PC audio that I have encountered... 

[roh008]

  For example before Jitter (and related issues) were well understood people struggled with why DAC's sounded different - but sound different they did and still do.

 

Thanks

Bill

 

I actually think that is the main issue, the DAC - will have more of an impact on overall sound than jitter. Easier and measurable gains to be had.

Also with regards to jitter not even a Master Clock is perfect.

Edited February 10, 2013 by roh008

[andreasmaaan]

Hi roh008, as someone who's used a computer source for a couple of years now, I believe that what goes on before the signal reaches the DAC is significant in terms of SQ. Some pretty good gear in my experience just sounds very average fed by a poor PC source (hardware, software and settings). That's certainly not to say it's more important than the DAC itself - whether or not that's the case will depend on the system as a whole, and in most cases I'd imagine the DAC is the more important component. But IMO, simple and often inexpensive upgrades to the computer, software, transport etc etc may yield better results (depending on the system) than equivalent money being put into upgrading the DAC.

I suppose what I'm saying is that if you're sceptical I'd say try a few simple changes and see if you hear a difference. If not, either your system isn't revealing the differences, there wasn't a problem to begin with, or I'm a victim of delusion (and the latter isn't impossible).

Edited February 10, 2013 by andreasmaaan

[Monkeyboi]

Whilst there is a lot of hype around SSD over conventional HDD storage, what is often overlooked is SSDs have a limited number or read/write cycles before failure.

To overcome this problem, a (maybe some) manufacturers use a strategy of not reusing the same memory locations on the chip to re-write data to unless they have run out of 'space' on the drive. I forget which manufacturer(s) uses this technique.  Also the type of memory used can determine reliability.

 

If I were to go down the SSD path, I've be backing up my data on some other medium, e.g. conventional HDD.

 

Cheers,

Alan R.

[LogicprObe]

Of course, Alan.

Win 7 made use of it and Win 8 has perfected it. (apparently)

If you were filling it up with music, it would be mostly read only in any case.

 

http://thessdreview.com/ssd-guides/optimization-guides/the-ssd-optimization-guide-2/

 

It's getting on a bit but still useful.

[roh008]

Hi roh008, as someone who's used a computer source for a couple of years now, I believe that what goes on before the signal reaches the DAC is significant in terms of SQ. Some pretty good gear in my experience just sounds very average fed by a poor PC source (hardware, software and settings). That's certainly not to say it's more important than the DAC itself - whether or not that's the case will depend on the system as a whole, and in most cases I'd imagine the DAC is the more important component. But IMO, simple and often inexpensive upgrades to the computer, software, transport etc etc may yield better results (depending on the system) than equivalent money being put into upgrading the DAC.

I suppose what I'm saying is that if you're sceptical I'd say try a few simple changes and see if you hear a difference. If not, either your system isn't revealing the differences, there wasn't a problem to begin with, or I'm a victim of delusion (and the latter isn't impossible).

So far what I have done is use JRiver (trying to start with a reasonably good application. I then use WASAPI in exclusive mode.

I am now considering increasing the buffer to around 25%-50% (settings within JRiver) slows instant music play back (for the first track) but will reduce any potential issues if the cpu or HDD is busy with something else.

 

Once my AV cabinet is done I'll be doing some CD vs FLAC comparison to see if the drivers/HTPC is doing something it shouldn't be doing.

[drez]

MMCSS.srv does a good job of maintaining a low latency on audio related threads, esp with wasapi. I wouldn't imcrease the buffer more than you have to, under normal web bowsing and light use I usually never encounter dropouts even with very small buffer sizes. A lot of the audiophile music players claim that reducing latency can have sound quality benefits, and I would tend to agree (to a point, I still find buffers useful) as I find these players to be very effective. Other things like changing the processor scheduling to prioritise background tasks and changing the HPET timer in bios to match your operating system seem to help as well. Ultimately these changes dont make a lot of difference on their own but cumulatively they get closer to a realisric sound reproduction IMO.

[roh008]

Think i've solved my issue, the new AVRs take WAV, FLAC and everything else so will be bitstreaming everything!

Jitter will be there, it always is, however, the impact now should be greatly reduced.

[Jventer]

Think i've solved my issue, the new AVRs take WAV, FLAC and everything else so will be bitstreaming everything!

Jitter will be there, it always is, however, the impact now should be greatly reduced.

 

I am not convinced that you actually have an issue.

 

The average  AVR is IMO not something I would use to evaluate the difference  between music from SSD and conventional HD

 

I maintain that it is all system dependent. 

 

Have you done listening test between your current HTPC setup and a normal CD/DVD/blu ray player through the AVR? If so - are their differences? if not then I believe you dont have to worry about jitter and SSD

[roh008]

I am not convinced that you actually have an issue.

 

The average  AVR is IMO not something I would use to evaluate the difference  between music from SSD and conventional HD

 

I maintain that it is all system dependent. 

 

Have you done listening test between your current HTPC setup and a normal CD/DVD/blu ray player through the AVR? If so - are their differences? if not then I believe you dont have to worry about jitter and SSD

Well I was flipping a coin and debating whether to go for the LX86 as it has an asynchronous USB/DAC from PC or get a separate stereo receiver.

 

I am lucky enough to have a friend whose system is probably 10 x more expensive than mine.

The speakers he has are Sonus Faber  Amati Anniverario, the number of different sources from computer based to TT to SACD to standard CDs, to Blu Ray concert 5.1 music. A multitude of Power amp/Mono Block options Class A and Class D. A range of processor options, the cables he runs costs more than your average AVR.

I think you get where I am heading with this. He has a passion, he fills it with these objects, I get to enjoy seeing/hearing the differences, in some instances improvements. But mainly differences.

 

With regards to jitter here is an extract that you might already have read am not sure:

 

A recent paper by Eric Benjamin and Benjamin Gannon describes practical research that found the lowest jitter level at which the jitter made a noticeable difference was about 10 ns rms. This was with a high level test sine tone at 17 kHz. With music, none of the subjects found jitter below 20 ns rms to be audible.7

This author has developed a model for jitter audibility based on worst case audio single tone signals including the effects of masking.8 This concluded:

“Masking theory suggests that the maximum amount of jitter that will not produce an audible effect is dependent on the jitter spectrum. At low frequencies this level is greater than 100 ns, with a sharp cut-off above 100 Hz to a lower limit of approximately 1 ns (peak) at 500 Hz, falling above this frequency at 6 dB per octave to approximately 10 ps (peak) at 24 kHz, for systems where the audio signal is 120 dB above the threshold of hearing.â€

In the view of the more recent research, this may be considered to be overcautious. However, the consideration that sampling jitter below 100 Hz will probably be less audible by a factor of more than 40 dB when compared with jitter above 500 Hz is useful when determining the likely relative significance of low- and high-frequency sampling jitter.

 

I might be wrong, but I have just double checked the numbers, the jitter being recorded by AVR is in the pico second realm. so a factor of 1,000^th less than the perceptible levels. Also the levels between test tones and actual music are vastly different too.

 

I think jitter shouldn't be a concern to anybody who is actually listening to the music.

Placebo effect springs to mind for this - unless systems do suffer from greater jitter issues, possible culmination effect on multiple jitter types compounding itself to cause overall jitter to exceed 20ns.

Then I would agree jitter would cause a negative impact on music.

Edited February 13, 2013 by roh008

[DoggieHowser]

Like many I bought into the jitter doesn't matter school with my first purchase: a Benchmark DAC1 Pre that claimed their system made it independent of jitter in the source.

 

I wished it were true but just comparing a CDP or a Squeezebox to the Wadia iTransport was simple enough to show it wasn't the case. I would have preferred it if it were otherwise. It might have stopped my subsequent descent into hifi madness.

[roh008]

Like many I bought into the jitter doesn't matter school with my first purchase: a Benchmark DAC1 Pre that claimed their system made it independent of jitter in the source.

 

I wished it were true but just comparing a CDP or a Squeezebox to the Wadia iTransport was simple enough to show it wasn't the case. I would have preferred it if it were otherwise. It might have stopped my subsequent descent into hifi madness.

 Wouldn't the CDP and Squeezbox be using their own DAC unless bitstreamed? The difference is likely to  have been between the DACs. The Wadia Transport would have then fed through to a DAC/receiver.

 

That is what I was referring to in post #161

There are 3 different DACs in that scenario that is going to have a bigger impact on sound than the jitter between the 3.

 

And yes this might be resistance from me before heading down the same path as you

Edited February 13, 2013 by roh008

[gavtron]

 Wouldn't the CDP and Squeezbox be using their own DAC unless bitstreamed? The difference is likely to  have been between the DACs. The Wadia Transport would have then fed through to a DAC/receiver.

 

That is what I was referring to in post #161

There are 3 different DACs in that scenario that is going to have a bigger impact on sound than the jitter between the 3.

 

And yes this might be resistance from me before heading down the same path as you

 

I think DH means using the CDP, SB and Wadia all as transports into the Benchmark DAC 1 bought different sonics / sq, despite the claims made by Benchmark of their DAC.

 

There is more than just "jitter" that effects the SQ of transports imho...

[roh008]

Yes I miss read it. Well as I am doing a rebuild of everything. My source is fixed - HTPC via HDMI for movies.

So if I can find a good USB DAC and send music via that to the amp. That should overcome a lot of these issues.

[DoggieHowser]

When I say bitstream, I am referring to the use of codecs like DTS, DD, HDMA,TrueHD etc not PCM