Can the hard drive on which you store files affect your sound?

[Crossie]

I totally agree with the_LHC.

If Nas drives somehow made a difference then computers/streamers/digital devices simply would not work at all. Whatever the reviewers heard could equally be attributed to many other variables - did the reviewers discuss their results, were they getting tired, how long had the systems been running, was the power supply to the analogue devices stable, let alone simple human faliability, etc - all of which are much more plausible.

I revise my comment about the conclusions of the magazine article from being weak to being worthless. This is not meant as an insult to the reviewers - I think they were given an impossible task, they were asked a wrong headed question and they did their best.

 

[CnoEvil]

I don't care who he is (and if I'm honest I've never heard of him) but if he's a hi-fi designer that doesn't mean he knows anything about computers and frankly, he's talking nonsense.

.......now that's The_Lhc we know and (some of us) love. 🙂

 

[chebby]

Someone brought up the point about noise.

I have used HDDs (for backups) that can be heard from another room (a low hum that seems to be amplified by the desk and can even be heard faintly through a thick/lagged Edwardian ceiling and 1 inch floorboards with thick carpet and Dunlop underlay on top of them!)

I have also used HDDs that cannot be heard even if listened to in total silence from a few inches away.

(WD 'My Book' drives were the worst/loudest.)

Were all the HDDs in the test located outside of the room or soundproofed? Were they mechanically quiet or silent?

 

[Andrew Everard]

they were asked a wrong headed question and they did their best.

No – they were asked to listen to the same piece of music being played several times, and comment on their impressions of how it was being played.

 

[proffski]

Mine has been treated with Russ Andrews Snake Oil...

 

[bigboss]

I'm not going to contest the results of this test either way, and this post isnt really a reply to the topic as such, but I've been giving a lot of thought recently to what is and isn't possible.

Going by one of man's most famous faux pars, we once thought the world was flat. Fair enough, proof was supplied to the contrary, and now the truth is common knowledge. It was also thought that the atom was the smallest possible thing in the universe, until man split it. There's now questions being raised about Einstein's theory of relativity. And so on.

My point is that, we all know what we think we know, but there's still a lot out there that is still unknown to us, whether this is just because it's undiscovered, or because we don't have the right tools or methods to discover or analyse. We take for granted that 0's and 1's are 0's and 1's, and because they're digital they're untouchable, but how do we know that we know everything about 0's and 1's? There could be something undiscovered about them that might one day completely change what we think we know.

All I'm saying is that an open mind is needed. True, an open mind may be more open to being influenced, but it will also be more open to finding out something new. If everyone just stuck to what was known, nothing new would be discovered - it's those open to impossibilities that discover.

Perhaps there's a 2 lying undiscovered between those 0's & 1's :?

I can now see Russ Andrews coming up with an "audiophile quality NAS drive" soon! :O

 

[bigboss]

I think we have to draw a line somewhere. Are there any scientific studies proving the same? Einstein's theory of relativity, sub atomic particles etc. were all challenged and discovered with a proper scientific study published in peer reviewed journals.

We shouldn't encourage unscientific & non-sensical claims. This is an example:

http://www.knowyourbody.tv/products-page/

Of course, I'm happy to change my opinion if there's a robust study proving it.

 

[eggontoast]

they were asked a wrong headed question and they did their best.

No – they were asked to listen to the same piece of music being played several times, and comment on their impressions of how it was being played.

Out of curiosity, do you play the same system only once or do you repeat the same system a couple of times at random ?

 

[bigboss]

they were asked a wrong headed question and they did their best.

No – they were asked to listen to the same piece of music being played several times, and comment on their impressions of how it was being played.

Out of curiosity, do you play the same system only once or do you repeat the same system a couple of times at random ?

I've been to the Big Question before. The system is repeated a couple of times, & more if you want to hear again. The people conducting the test don't give anything away, but as a participant, you feel the pressure to say something. I felt the pressure in the first round, when the other participants talked about "separation of music" etc. & I couldn't notice any difference. I then had to fine tune my ears even further. By the end, I suddenly noticed how one system was effortless in music all along. The other participants also agreed with it. The results were clear cut & consistent among all of us.

Some other tests, like the HDMI & blu-ray player ones, were not as clear cut.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

What I do not like is that WHF makes no attempt to study, verify and explain the science behind these things to its readers. Why?

It is great to print opinions of several readers (I took part in one TBQ myself and it was a great experience) but why stop only at provocating the debates like the one in this thread?

 

[hammill]

I'm not going to contest the results of this test either way, and this post isnt really a reply to the topic as such, but I've been giving a lot of thought recently to what is and isn't possible.

Going by one of man's most famous faux pars, we once thought the world was flat. Fair enough, proof was supplied to the contrary, and now the truth is common knowledge. It was also thought that the atom was the smallest possible thing in the universe, until man split it. There's now questions being raised about Einstein's theory of relativity. And so on.

My point is that, we all know what we think we know, but there's still a lot out there that is still unknown to us, whether this is just because it's undiscovered, or because we don't have the right tools or methods to discover or analyse. We take for granted that 0's and 1's are 0's and 1's, and because they're digital they're untouchable, but how do we know that we know everything about 0's and 1's? There could be something undiscovered about them that might one day completely change what we think we know.

All I'm saying is that an open mind is needed. True, an open mind may be more open to being influenced, but it will also be more open to finding out something new. If everyone just stuck to what was known, nothing new would be discovered - it's those open to impossibilities that discover.

“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”
― Carl Sagan

 

[eggontoast]

I've been to the Big Question before. The system is repeated a couple of times, & more if you want to hear again.

But each time you are told if it is system 1, 2 or 3 your hearing ?

I then had to fine tune my ears even further.

I find the knob under my left ear is best for fine tuning 😛

The people conducting the test don't give anything away, but as a participant, you feel the pressure to say something. I felt the pressure in the first round, when the other participants talked about "separation of music" etc. & I couldn't notice any difference. I then had to fine tune my ears even further. By the end, I suddenly noticed how one system was effortless in music all along. The other participants also agreed with it. The results were clear cut & consistent among all of us.

Surely you all feed off each other though. If someone suggest what differences they are hearing the other participants will be influenced by that, the power of suggestion.

 

[John Duncan]

Whilst I am absolutely of the belief that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy, the possible differences between sounds produced by different hard drives are not worth my time or effort in discovering...

 

[chebby]

What I do not like is that WHF makes no attempt to study, verify and explain the science behind these things to its readers. Why?

I'm guessing it's because the staff are primarily journalists/writers rather than research scientists/engineers. They are there to report on the industry and assess products for consumers. NOT to do scientific studies or research.

Even if Haymarket did invest in the necessary research facilities and staff, the results would bore most readers rigid (and lose many sales) and still wouldn't convince anyone of anything.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

What I do not like is that WHF makes no attempt to study, verify and explain the science behind these things to its readers. Why?

I'm guessing it's because the staff are primarily journalists/writers rather than research scientists/engineers. They are there to report on the industry and assess products for consumers. NOT to do scientific studies or research.

Even if Haymarket did invest in the necessary research facilities and staff, the results would bore most readers rigid (and lose many sales) and still wouldn't convince anyone of anything.

that is understood. but sad.

 

[bigboss]

But each time you are told if it is system 1, 2 or 3 your hearing ?

Yes

Surely you all feed off each other though. If someone suggest what differences they are hearing the other participants will be influenced by that, the power of suggestion.

Quite possible. Although there were stages when I didn't agree with both other participants & I told so. This may not be the case with everyone.

 

[bigboss]

Whilst I am absolutely of the belief that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy, the possible differences between sounds produced by different hard drives are not worth my time or effort in discovering...

Agreed.

 

[chebby]

that is understood. but sad.

How many times - when assessing new equipment for your home - have you demanded the research findings and development data from the manufacturers to support their claims or to explain what you have heard?

Have you ever heard two hifi components that sound different and asked the dealer to explain/verify his (or the respective manufacturer's) scientific studies into why they sound different?

 

[altruistic.lemon]

I have, several times.

Isn't the suspicion here that the whole hard drive thing is snake oil, and it's that which should be investigated? I mean, what makes loudspeakers, amplifiers, CD players work is well understood, as is how you get them to sound different, but how is it possible to do that on the storage media?

 

[John Duncan]

I think our definition of sad is at odds...

 

[chebby]

I have, several times.

You have asked dealers and/or manufacturers to "study, verify and explain the science" behind why two different components sound different?

Can you give an example?

What was the response?

 

[Lee H]

I have, several times.

You have asked dealers and/or manufacturers to "study, verify and explain the science" behind why two different components sound different?

Can you give an example?

What was the response?

And this is the main reason for my slowing post count. It seems you can't have an opinion anymore. You have to be able to provide wave-forms and all manner of other "scientific" data to back anything up.

FWIW, I don't think for a second that one NAS can produce a better sound that another. If somone else thinks differently then that's up to them. I like to think that I'm intelligent enough to form my own opinion and not be swayed (too much) by others. If I heard a difference, great, if I didn't that's also fine.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

that is understood. but sad.

How many times - when assessing new equipment for your home - have you demanded the research findings and development data from the manufacturers to support their claims or to explain what you have heard?

Have you ever heard two hifi components that sound different and asked the dealer to explain/verify his (or the respective manufacturer's) scientific studies into why they sound different?

Most of the time. e.g. before buying speakers I go to the factory and speak to the designer. I look for value for money, best performance for the buck. and this takes understanding of how things work, what 'performance' is, what technology to look for, what products use it and how well etc.

In my experience dealers do know their onions sometimes, sometimes not.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Chebster, don't forget I worked briefly in the business. In addition, we used to get promotional and technical stuff that customers don't get to see, not to mention advice on the best way to sell the product. Also, since I was briefly an agent, too, the dealers would ask me questions. Could be that Australians are more discriminating, but I don't believe they are.

As it happens, I've spent the last couple of weeks contacting speaker manufacturers about a subject which, frankly, is none of your business.

How come you're being so argumentative this morning? Do you always assume the worst of everyone? 😛

 

[hammill]

What I do not like is that WHF makes no attempt to study, verify and explain the science behind these things to its readers. Why?

I'm guessing it's because the staff are primarily journalists/writers rather than research scientists/engineers. They are there to report on the industry and assess products for consumers. NOT to do scientific studies or research.

Even if Haymarket did invest in the necessary research facilities and staff, the results would bore most readers rigid (and lose many sales) and still wouldn't convince anyone of anything.

You are of course correct. But when they print articles like this which appear to have no scientific basis, one loses faith in anything else they write. It is the intellectual equivalent of a cookery progam saying that food tastes different depending on the colour of the oven used.