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

[professorhat]

<deleted - I can't be bothered to be associated with this thread any more!>

 

[chebby]

I think we learnt recently that a flood in Thailand halted production in a factory making HDs for the whole industry causing worldwide shortages and forcing up prices.

This tells me there is little (if any) difference in the HDs employed in all these NAS devices and that any sound difference is down to factors other than the drives themselves.

 

[Lee H]

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.

TBQ is an article that states readers responses, not a piece of investigative journalism. Cookery programs DO say that one meal tastes better than another and they manage this without any scientific support.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

<deleted - I can't be bothered to be associated with this thread any more!>

sorry to loose you on this, professor. you have my respect.

 

[Andrew Everard]

I think we learnt recently that a flood in Thailand halted production in a factory making HDs for the whole industry causing worldwide shortages and forcing up prices.

This tells me there is little (if any) difference in the HDs employed in all these NAS devices and that any sound difference is down to factors other than the drives themselves

No, we learnt that WD's factory was flooded, halting its production, and that the floods also affected companies making components for other hard drive manufacturers.

 

[WinterRacer]

I haven't had a chance to read TBQ yet. Was this about using the NAS as a traditional file share (hosting music files) or running a server application on the NAS like "Logitech Media Server"?

With a NAS, the streaming device obviously isn't accessing the HDD directly, it's making network calls to the NAS to access the data using a protocol such as SMB (aka CIFs). This is what you use everytime you copy a file over your network. If the network has errors, throughput not accuracy is affected (or the file doesn't arrive at all).

I'll reserve judgement until I've read the article, but it does call into question the level of understanding within WHF of computer based music. More importantly, I think it makes people worry about things they don't need to, resulting in wasted expenditure.

 

[Andrew Everard]

I'll reserve judgement until I've read the article, but it does call into question the level of understanding within WHF of computer based music.

How do you know, if you haven't read it?

More importantly, I think it makes people worry about things they don't need to, resulting in wasted expenditure

No, it takes a matter which is being discussed elsewhere, including in other magazines, and allows three readers to investigate the subject. It then reports their views.

Just like every Big Question.

 

[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.

TBQ is an article that states readers responses, not a piece of investigative journalism. Cookery programs DO say that one meal tastes better than another and they manage this without any scientific support.

You seem to have entirely missed the point.

 

[WinterRacer]

How do you know, if you haven't read it?

From my understanding of how network and file sharing protocols work and from the comments on this forum. Clearly the issue has raised a number of further questions rather than answered one.

No, it takes a matter which is being discussed elsewhere, including in other magazines, and allows three readers to investigate the subject. It then reports their views.

Just like every Big Question.

... By raising the question without any clear conclusions (as described in this topic) wouldn't you expect a number of your readers to now think that NAS devices do affect sound quality?

Hypothetically, if they did but only because one of the NAS devices had a particularly noisy PSU that 'upset' the DAC you used, do you not think that's information your readers would have appreciated?

I thought TBQ was a really good idea, but in the articles I recall, it never really answers the questions.

 

[Lee H]

You seem to have entirely missed the point.

The point is TBQ poses a question to a panel of readers and then documents their response; whatever that may be.

It would be a short lived article if after providing their opinions the article then went on to provide proof of why they were wrong and had imagined their response.

 

[WinterRacer]

You seem to have entirely missed the point.

The point is TBQ poses a question to a panel of readers and then documents their response; whatever that may be.

It would be a short lived article if after providing their opinions the article then went on to provide proof of why they were wrong and had imagined their response.

... but wouldn't it be nice, if WHF tried to explain what the readers heard and then gave advice on what to do about it?

I guess it's just far easier just to leave it at what readers heard.

 

[Andrew Everard]

... By raising the question without any clear conclusions (as described in this topic) wouldn't you expect a number of your readers to now think that NAS devices do affect sound quality?

I'd expect them to read the article – which you haven't done – and draw their own conclusions. I think I may credit our readers with more intelligence than you seem to.

 

[WinterRacer]

... By raising the question without any clear conclusions (as described in this topic) wouldn't you expect a number of your readers to now think that NAS devices do affect sound quality?

I'd expect them to read the article – which you haven't done – and draw their own conclusions. I think I may credit our readers with more intelligence than you seem to.

I credit your readers with enough intelligence to come to this forum and suggest that this big test was flawed.

 

[The_Lhc]

You seem to have entirely missed the point.

The point is TBQ poses a question to a panel of readers and then documents their response; whatever that may be.

It would be a short lived article if after providing their opinions the article then went on to provide proof of why they were wrong and had imagined their response.

... but wouldn't it be nice, if WHF tried to explain what the readers heard and then gave advice on what to do about it?

But, but, then it would be The Big Answer?

 

[WinterRacer]

You seem to have entirely missed the point.

The point is TBQ poses a question to a panel of readers and then documents their response; whatever that may be.

It would be a short lived article if after providing their opinions the article then went on to provide proof of why they were wrong and had imagined their response.

... but wouldn't it be nice, if WHF tried to explain what the readers heard and then gave advice on what to do about it?

But, but, then it would be The Big Answer?

Yes. Do you like it as it is?

 

[Andrew Everard]

I credit your readers with enough intelligence to come to this forum and suggest that this big test was flawed.

Me too – those who draw conclusions without having read the article, however...

 

[WinterRacer]

I credit your readers with enough intelligence to come to this forum and suggest that this big test was flawed.

Me too – those who draw conclusions without having read the article, however...

I you trying to suggest I don't have the intelligence to comment on this topic?

 

[The_Lhc]

You seem to have entirely missed the point.

The point is TBQ poses a question to a panel of readers and then documents their response; whatever that may be.

It would be a short lived article if after providing their opinions the article then went on to provide proof of why they were wrong and had imagined their response.

... but wouldn't it be nice, if WHF tried to explain what the readers heard and then gave advice on what to do about it?

But, but, then it would be The Big Answer?

Yes. Do you like it as it is?

Well, it's a question isn't it?

 

[Lee H]

But, but, then it would be The Big Answer?

Yes. Do you like it as it is?

Yes. Otherwise it's another in-house produced article. Go along one day and do it for yourself. Several of us on here have done TBQ.

 

[chebby]

Go along one day and do it for yourself. Several of us on here have done TBQ.

From someone who did go along...

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/this-months-big-issue

...interesting reading, especially this comment...

It was a fascinating day & I thank Jonny & the others for the insights on how the magazine works. One point raised that interested me in particular was the lack of electronic testing that certain other magazines include with reviews. I personally agree that they are mostly pointless simply because they tell us virtually nothing about the sound. I say that as someone who has calibrated much of the test equipment that would be used in such tests.

 

[Lee H]

Go along one day and do it for yourself. Several of us on here have done TBQ.

From someone who did go along...

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/this-months-big-issue

...interesting reading, especially this comment...

It was a fascinating day & I thank Jonny & the others for the insights on how the magazine works. One point raised that interested me in particular was the lack of electronic testing that certain other magazines include with reviews. I personally agree that they are mostly pointless simply because they tell us virtually nothing about the sound. I say that as someone who has calibrated much of the test equipment that would be used in such tests.

Quite agree!

It's an emotional response to the music/picture, not a bunch of 1s and 0s. I did TBQ on TV enhancement settings (noise reduction, motion processing etc) and I'm sure any calibration tool would have produced a result, but we each noticed slightly different things.

 

[professorhat]

I credit your readers with enough intelligence to come to this forum and suggest that this big test was flawed.

Me too – those who draw conclusions without having read the article, however...

I you trying to suggest I don't have the intelligence to comment on this topic?

I think he might be suggesting it would be better if people read the article before forming an opinion on it. You seem to have done the opposite i.e. formed an opinion on something you've admitted you've not actually read.

 

[Andrew Everard]

I you trying to suggest I don't have the intelligence to comment on this topic?

I have no idea what you are trying to suggest, but I am suggesting nothing of the sort – only that you really don't have the wherewithal to comment on the article, which you haven't read.

 

[John Duncan]

Go along one day and do it for yourself. Several of us on here have done TBQ.

From someone who did go along...

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/this-months-big-issue

...interesting reading, especially this comment...

It was a fascinating day & I thank Jonny & the others for the insights on how the magazine works. One point raised that interested me in particular was the lack of electronic testing that certain other magazines include with reviews. I personally agree that they are mostly pointless simply because they tell us virtually nothing about the sound. I say that as someone who has calibrated much of the test equipment that would be used in such tests.

I prefer this (snipped) quote:

My recollection of the tests was that the differences between the blind tests (system A, B & C) were very subtle. We sometimes heard differences then were less certain when a particular system was repeated (or the other way round).

My take is that the differences were probably so subtle as to not be a major issue. Comparing the same piece of music from memory, albeit in a pretty small time frame is nothing like as easy as comparing photographs side by side for instance.

From which I am going to take that busb's answer to the OP's question is "no, not really". So I'm not really sure what the fuss is about...

 

[altruistic.lemon]

And can I point out the pubs are open? :cheers: :cheers: