SBGK wrote:
> Still, I'm reminded of Kevin Keegan's rant at Alex Ferguson when I read
> the comments about regen in this thread, it's definitely the
> objectivists who are getting emotionally fraught.
So any reaction to snake oil merchants being caught lying is being
"emotionally fraught". Yes,
sckramer wrote:
> I prefer feeding the client PCM (WAV) only, for all file types, even for
> mp3, then the CPU is practically idle, it just has to read it out to the
> PCM->i2s chip
It might minimize userspace CPU load, but it increases I/O load due to
having to transfer and load double the
Still, I'm reminded of Kevin Keegan's rant at Alex Ferguson when I read
the comments about regen in this thread, it's definitely the
objectivists who are getting emotionally fraught.
Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/
netchord wrote:
> i did a little comparison on one track, and felt there was a small, but
> subtle difference...
Sounds like it was a sighted comparison - you knew which file was which,
right?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
SBGK wrote:
> So sad. Where did it all go wrong for the regen folks, 2500 sales and
> now they'll probably have to return all the money as people realise the
> measurements prove they are hearing imaginary improvements.
That is the beauty of snake oil - you are trading on faith and
gullibility,
SBGK wrote:
> Still, I'm reminded of Kevin Keegan's rant at Alex Ferguson when I read
> the comments about regen in this thread, it's definitely the
> objectivists who are getting emotionally fraught.
Odd, I don't see anyone in this thread that is "emotionally fraught"
except yourself.
Hi,
back here just to inform you that modified squeezelite that allow
playback of serverside upsampled WAV/AIFF files is out, availlable on
GitHub (https://github.com/marcoc1712/squeezelite) also as binary for
Windows, LInux 32 and 64 bit. Same version is in the latest versions of
Daphile, that
Julf wrote:
> Is that user-mode CPU, or does it also include time spent in the kernel
> and device drivers?
I've already reported, but latest form my system are:
1. Squeezelite went from 4% to 1-2%. Total charge from 11% to 6% on the
client.
2.Total charge on server went form 20% to 11%,
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Those are not 'small' task at all, so cpu load is decresed by almost 70%
> in the server and by 50% on the client.
Is that user-mode CPU, or does it also include time spent in the kernel
and device drivers?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
marcoc1712 wrote:
> That's not comparable, have you tried?
Yes, and I think I reported my results earlier.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W
Would someone please be kind enough to explain to me is a clear and
concise matter how the server CPU load can possibly have any effect on
the sound quality of any Squeezebox player, considering that the player
is playing back the file from a buffer?
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power
Julf wrote:
> It might minimize userspace CPU load, but it increases I/O load due to
> having to transfer and load double the amount of data. For mp3, doing
> the decoding on the server might actually make sense, as you can use
> better software.
That's not comparable, have you tried? at 44.1
marcoc1712 wrote:
> I Already know you are going to say this is a too naife way to take
> measures, but You could measure only the encodind and decoding in flac
> of an Hirez flac file and get an Idea of what are you saving here.
Well, you knew I was going to say it, but I will still say it
Julf wrote:
> Sounds like it was a sighted comparison - you knew which file was which,
> right?
yes, but see my earlier posts where i stated AIF sounded superior to
APL, so if anything the result is contrary to my previously stated bias.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
ralphpnj wrote:
> Would someone please be kind enough to explain to me is a clear and
> concise matter how the server CPU load can possibly have any effect on
> the sound quality of any Squeezebox player, considering that the player
> is playing back the file from a buffer?
I think marcoc1712
Julf wrote:
> I think marcoc1712 (very wisely) specifically avoided discussing sound
> quality.
While that is very wise of marcoc1712, this does not answer my question.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas
netchord wrote:
> yes, but see my earlier posts where i stated AIF sounded superior to
> APL, so if anything the result is contrary to my previously stated bias.
It is not contrary to a (potential) bias towards the existence of a
difference. What you are saying is basically "I saw a black
ralphpnj wrote:
> Would someone please be kind enough to explain to me is a clear and
> concise matter how the server CPU load can possibly have any effect on
> the sound quality of any Squeezebox player, considering that the player
> is playing back the file from a buffer?
Short One: None.
ralphpnj wrote:
> While that is very wise of marcoc1712, this does not answer my question.
1. I've never sayd CPU load on the server could affect sound quality...
As I never said almost anything you and other are mocking here. So, I
did not ever had to answer to your question, that was OT. But
marcoc1712 wrote:
> I've just reported both...
Indeed. And the total cpu numbers might actually give a reasonable
picture. What tool did you use to get the numbers? Top?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery
Julf wrote:
> Indeed. And the total cpu numbers might actually give a reasonable
> picture. What tool did you use to get the numbers? Top?
Top in Linux (cpu tot = us +sy), Task manager in win.
SB+, Klimo Merlino + Kent Gold,
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Short One: None.
> Long One: None, if not in very, very, very poor or broken systems.
>
> Always IMHO.
Yeah ... I probably should not jump in here but I cannot resist :). It
is very difficult to agree with the connection between CPU load and any
sort of impact on audio
philippe_44 wrote:
> Yeah ... I probably should not jump in here but I cannot resist :). It
> is very difficult to agree with the connection between CPU load and any
> sort of impact on audio (through noise being aliased in audible band).
> Frankly, the correlation, if any, is extremely thin and
23 matches
Mail list logo
