Presumably, you are referring to Processor Affinity? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_affinity
I'm not so sure about the knowing it part. People construct theories to try to explain to themselves and to others things that are experienced, be it physically or mentally. It's part of human nature for that type of construction to occur automatically. It's just that in people who are more educated, the constructions tend to be more sophisticated.
No, Pyrimix operates at a lower level. I'll ask my contact who has the system just how it works. I believe there is something that runs at boot time to lock the processor but I'm not sure.
They have this setup but much prefer reaper as a DAW and Soundblade for specific audio processing.
Its unclear what you would use to edit MQA tracks. Seems like another expensive black hole.
They have this setup but much prefer reaper as a DAW and Soundblade for specific audio processing.
Its unclear what you would use to edit MQA tracks. Seems like another expensive black hole.
The observations are true, I don't have proper explanation yet.
Water has been shown to have 'memory', ever notice that one feels good after eating proper organic foods, and that conventional foods leave one sated but not 'energised' ?.
There is deeper stuff in physics than what we generally pay attention to, it seems that energy transfer can transmit an associated deeper 'signature' that alters behaviours of downstream systems and transduction, perhaps also energy transfer efficiency.
I have lots of questions and no solid answers...
.Dan.
Last edited:
There is only one flaw in this reasoning, if this [the fore mentioned] was true:
1) Planes would not fly
2) Boats would not sail
3) Cars would not drive
4) GPS would not GPS
5) Computers would not compute
6) Phone would not phone
7) Games would not be played
8) Radio would not transmit and/or receive
9) Audio would not play
...
1001) BS would not end
Frans 🙂
Last edited:
Processor Affinity can be invoked via the API for individual threads, so it can go pretty low. To get any lower might take a hypervisor.
Thanks Dan, an open mind is how we progress. I am not really following the digital arguments, because that is not my specialty. My digital problems, by the way, were recently solved by something new by Jack Bybee. Keep that in mind, for yourself.
When it comes to analog, I am heartened by people designing open loop jfet designs. It is a challenge, and I have always found that it is the best approach for audio production. I can actually compare my best IC effort (JC-3) compared to Vendetta Research and my customers and I both hear the difference. It is kind of a shame, but that is the way it goes.
If Scott really believes that all of his IC designs are virtually perfect, then I recommend that he replaces the complementary jfet follower with an AD711. Then listen. That is essentially what I did in reverse, removing and AD712 (just a dual 711) and replaced it with a dual jfet follower. What a difference! Go for it Scott.
When it comes to analog, I am heartened by people designing open loop jfet designs. It is a challenge, and I have always found that it is the best approach for audio production. I can actually compare my best IC effort (JC-3) compared to Vendetta Research and my customers and I both hear the difference. It is kind of a shame, but that is the way it goes.
If Scott really believes that all of his IC designs are virtually perfect, then I recommend that he replaces the complementary jfet follower with an AD711. Then listen. That is essentially what I did in reverse, removing and AD712 (just a dual 711) and replaced it with a dual jfet follower. What a difference! Go for it Scott.
John, why start stirring things up again with Scott? It's probably not going to help anything, and it might others feel justified in going after you.
Regarding listening, apparently people vary quite a bit in ability or skill in hearing some things. You may have been exceptionally good at it when your hearing was at it's peak, but it's not something to brag about.
Looking at it another way, what if somebody taunted you to measure something with a very expensive, hard-to-obtain piece of test equipment you didn't have? You probably wouldn't like it, and other people might start seeing the person doing the taunting as the bad guy in the whole thing. If Scott doesn't hear the way you could at your peak, why not let it be? He will have to use what is available to him and that should be okay.
Apropos the conversation about PSU/Diodes/Snubbers/Whatnot from a couple weeks ago, has anyone played around with the LT4320? I have a couple 24vct transformers that I was going to use to make a low-power multichannel amp, and, well, voltage is voltage, so it'd be nice to squeeze every last drop out of them.
Not to worry, this has been going on long before DIYAudio just rolls off. I'll say prove you can hear the difference in a DBT and he'll answer that ABX is flawed then the bell will ring and everyone will go back to their corners.
CPU Optimising
With Process Explorer from https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/processexplorer.aspx you can see & do a Lot of things, including setting the CPU's affinity for each program. And also the Priority for each one too !
PE is just one of Many very useful & free programs from MS. I've been using lots of these for well over ten years, when sysinternals first released them. Have a look for others whilst you're there !
Also check out this, which also comes from a trusted source, & might be beneficial.
With Process Explorer from https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/processexplorer.aspx you can see & do a Lot of things, including setting the CPU's affinity for each program. And also the Priority for each one too !
PE is just one of Many very useful & free programs from MS. I've been using lots of these for well over ten years, when sysinternals first released them. Have a look for others whilst you're there !
Also check out this, which also comes from a trusted source, & might be beneficial.
Attachments
Regarding AB or ABX testing, Bob Ludwig talked a bit about in this interview: Bob Ludwig: Master of Mastering | Tape Op Magazine | Longform candid interviews with music producers and audio engineers covering mixing, mastering, recording and music production.
About half way down the page he says:
" I think the higher resolution sounds reveal themselves not in A/B testing, but in long periods of time. Play an entire album in a relaxed atmosphere at 96 kHz/24-bit, then, at the end, listen to it at 44.1 kHz/16-bit, and you'll get it right away. A/B testing, while the only scientific method we have, does not reveal too much with short-term back-and-forth comparisons due to the anxiety the brain is under doing such a test. The brain becomes very left-brain-technical, rather than right-brain creative and musical."
Some people seem dismissive of the anxiety issue, and maybe they can imagine themselves as cool a cucumber in such testing circumstances, but it very well may turn out to be an significant issue with practical testing for many people. Probably, there are ways to find out. We could measure physiological arousal during AB or ABX testing and see what we find. And if we did find a problem, we could work on how to get people relaxed. For example, it might help if testing were treated as anonymous medical testing.
In any case, if an anxiety effect is real, then it needs to be accounted for in some way. To infer that everyone who experience testing anxiety is a fraud would be jumping to conclusions. Everyone experience anxiety at times, maybe such as taking a driving test for the first time, or an SAT test. That doesn't make everyone a fraud. Also, the sensitivity of AB or ABX testing to anxiety effects may be more than for some other types of tests or situations. The way to find out for us scientific types is to measure it, figure out how to perturb it, and measure some more.
About half way down the page he says:
" I think the higher resolution sounds reveal themselves not in A/B testing, but in long periods of time. Play an entire album in a relaxed atmosphere at 96 kHz/24-bit, then, at the end, listen to it at 44.1 kHz/16-bit, and you'll get it right away. A/B testing, while the only scientific method we have, does not reveal too much with short-term back-and-forth comparisons due to the anxiety the brain is under doing such a test. The brain becomes very left-brain-technical, rather than right-brain creative and musical."
Some people seem dismissive of the anxiety issue, and maybe they can imagine themselves as cool a cucumber in such testing circumstances, but it very well may turn out to be an significant issue with practical testing for many people. Probably, there are ways to find out. We could measure physiological arousal during AB or ABX testing and see what we find. And if we did find a problem, we could work on how to get people relaxed. For example, it might help if testing were treated as anonymous medical testing.
In any case, if an anxiety effect is real, then it needs to be accounted for in some way. To infer that everyone who experience testing anxiety is a fraud would be jumping to conclusions. Everyone experience anxiety at times, maybe such as taking a driving test for the first time, or an SAT test. That doesn't make everyone a fraud. Also, the sensitivity of AB or ABX testing to anxiety effects may be more than for some other types of tests or situations. The way to find out for us scientific types is to measure it, figure out how to perturb it, and measure some more.
I like to keep things consistent. If Scott gets to tell me my business, then I can comment on his business.
It is hard to believe, but: Scott and I were close colleagues, (at least I thought so) before this IC removal business in the Parasound power amp.
He helped me greatly in the 80's, with advanced measurements in RF power supply bypassing, with the differential subtraction test which used one of his INSTRUMENTATION IC's (AD524), he supplied samples, computer simulations, etc. I switched immediately over to the AD711 (12) IC in the Vendetta Research servo by 1990 or so, because it consistently met its noise specs, while the Nat'l LF411 did not.
When it came to choosing the input IC for the HCA2200, I specified that AD712, because I knew Scott, I figured that he had fully vetted it subjectively, and it met the initial circuit board pin out, so I did not have to further 'rock the boat' with the Taiwanese. The alternative would have been the OP-42 that was similar in design and had a good reputation, independently. However, I would have to have modified the circuit board, because the 0P-42 was like the AD711, not the AD712 (dual), so the AD712 was a 'drop-in' to replace the LF353 that was initially designed in the unit. I'm sorry that it didn't work out, but I had to remove the IC in order to get a good review, because the reviewers subjectively preferred other power amps over the Parasound 2200. The measurements were OK, enough, although I wince a little since my standards have increased over the decades.
Now, think about it: I removed an IC (anybody's IC) and replaced it with a dual jfet follower to do essentially the same job.
Scott could remove the complementary jfet followers and replace them with a unity gain AD712, because according to him, the IC would not have any sound character at this level and loading. Well, let's have Scott try it, you know, change open loop buffer with one of his IC's. Then we will have something to talk about.
It is hard to believe, but: Scott and I were close colleagues, (at least I thought so) before this IC removal business in the Parasound power amp.
He helped me greatly in the 80's, with advanced measurements in RF power supply bypassing, with the differential subtraction test which used one of his INSTRUMENTATION IC's (AD524), he supplied samples, computer simulations, etc. I switched immediately over to the AD711 (12) IC in the Vendetta Research servo by 1990 or so, because it consistently met its noise specs, while the Nat'l LF411 did not.
When it came to choosing the input IC for the HCA2200, I specified that AD712, because I knew Scott, I figured that he had fully vetted it subjectively, and it met the initial circuit board pin out, so I did not have to further 'rock the boat' with the Taiwanese. The alternative would have been the OP-42 that was similar in design and had a good reputation, independently. However, I would have to have modified the circuit board, because the 0P-42 was like the AD711, not the AD712 (dual), so the AD712 was a 'drop-in' to replace the LF353 that was initially designed in the unit. I'm sorry that it didn't work out, but I had to remove the IC in order to get a good review, because the reviewers subjectively preferred other power amps over the Parasound 2200. The measurements were OK, enough, although I wince a little since my standards have increased over the decades.
Now, think about it: I removed an IC (anybody's IC) and replaced it with a dual jfet follower to do essentially the same job.
Scott could remove the complementary jfet followers and replace them with a unity gain AD712, because according to him, the IC would not have any sound character at this level and loading. Well, let's have Scott try it, you know, change open loop buffer with one of his IC's. Then we will have something to talk about.
Not sure why it would make sense to figure that. He seems pretty clear that he is a measurement guy, and not a listening test guy. Maybe he knows what he is good at and with a sticks with that.
What works best for you appears to be a different mix of things. Why assume what works for you would be the same for another person, when it seems pretty clear that people vary a lot in terms of what they are good at and what works for them?
Beyond all that, it seems like there is a lot of history that would better be forgotten. Probably better to just let it go. Ancient grudges and feuds are things we expect to see somewhere else. We usually tend to see ourselves as not doing that type of thing.
Markw4, I don't think that you know much of Scott's audio history. He used to work even more closely with Walt Jung, even before Walt went to AD, and I would think that they might have been close when Walt Jung worked at AD. Today, I don't know their relationship, but I bet mine is closer to Walt Jung than Scott's. Somewhere, along the line, Scott dropped out of subjective sonic improvements it would seem.
As far as instrumentation is concerned, I think that the AD797 is a real winner.
As far as instrumentation is concerned, I think that the AD797 is a real winner.
That's always on the table as a valid blind test the key is no peaking. John claims over and over any blind test removes subtle differences.
I doubt Bob's comment was meant to cover any 24/96 to 16/44.1 recordings no matter how poor the source and/or mastering. And besides on a really good recording how do you not listen to or ignore the noise floor difference?
I also think not listening to the music and hyper-tuning your listening for artifacts is a very tech-brained thing to do.
What works best for the public - are designs which use both. Those are the ones which consistently are at the top and stay at the top.
THx-RNMarsh
There are some pretty lousy measuring amplifiers in Stereophile class A alongside some really well measuring ones. ditto high end Digital stuff.
In terms of the psychological dual-process model of the mind, System 1 is the very powerful 95% part of the brain that is not directly observable by conscious awareness, and System 2 is the much less powerful 5% that is conscious awareness. Learning something new often requires expending effort activating System 2 to focus attention on what is to be learned. With repetition and practice, learning in integrated into System 1, where it can operate much more automatically and effortlessly. Learning to hear distortion, I think, works that way. It requires a lot of focused effort at first, and with practice becomes much more automatic and easy.
We could compare that process to learning to play a musical instrument. At first, progress is often slow and takes focused attention. With practice it gets easier and more automatic.
However, we can accept pretty easily that for someone who learned how to play an instrument in private, getting up on a stage and doing it in public can interfere with performing well. At least, until one has done enough of it to get over the stage fright and stay relaxed. To play an instrument well, staying mentally at ease is important for System 1 to be able to freely do what it was trained to do without being overridden or interfered with by System 2.
It may be the same or similar for ABX testing. Doing it enough to get over the stage fright might be necessary for someone to be able to perform well.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.