Win 7 Optimisations

[evdplancke]

As a matter of fact mate i think most of us were able to predict from the outset that you were about to do.
You are basically asking people to prove that unicorns don't exist, and indicating on top that you will only be satisfied by evidence from people who have seen (first hand)unicorns not existing.

Your implication is that people who believe in unicorns are wiser than those who don't. In fact the really wise people are the ones who spend their weekends building unicorn stables in case one drops in.

You don't get the point here: I said people who claim they don't know if unicorn exist are wiser than people who claim they don't exist without any scientific evidence of it.

For unicorn, I believe like you probably that there are enough scientific evidence they don't exist so we are not in any of above categories.

But I was not talking about unicorn here and You did not answer the questions I raised.

[pski]

As a matter of fact mate i think most of us were able to predict from the outset that you were about to do.
You are basically asking people to prove that unicorns don't exist, and indicating on top that you will only be satisfied by evidence from people who have seen (first hand)unicorns not existing.

Your implication is that people who believe in unicorns are wiser than those who don't. In fact the really wise people are the ones who spend their weekends building unicorn stables in case one drops in.

+1

I like the other one too:

Q: "Do you want to see my purple elephant <terrorist> repellant?"

A: "There aren't any purple elephants <terrorists> !"

Q: "See how good it works ?"

P

[superbonham]

[...]

For unicorn, I believe like you probably that there are enough scientific evidence they don't exist so we are not in any of above categories.

Just being curious: what was the difference between <unicorns exist> and <server tweaks and ethernet cables have an influence on the sound quality of the straming client> again in your opinion?

Cheers

superbonham

[evdplancke]

"Noise" is an analog term. Since the derived data is digital, "noise" on the line is irrelevant. See #2.

There no such thing as a digital signal. What is commonly named digital signal is a saturated analog signal. Though this analog signal is relevant for data reconstruction. You did not answer the question: what happens of the noise that reaches the Touch. It might have little incidence on data reconstruction though higher noise will result in higher packet retransmission, but it is going into the Touch anyway, not in the bits of data, but as an analog signal that may increase output noise.

No. Parity testing/reconstruction/request for retransmit operations are done in the NIC (network interface card.) The CPU doesn't know anything about it. When your O/S displays packet statistics, it has just asked the network card how things are going.

You are only shifting the question. The NIC has also a processor (let us call it NPU if you like) that can also cause electrical noise into the Touch.

So, yes, bit perfect data does means the data that left the one end is the exact data received at the other.

p

I don't think you can draw this conclusion from your answers.

Cheers
E

[chill]

You did not answer the question: what happens of the noise that reaches the Touch. It might have little incidence on data reconstruction though higher noise will result in higher packet retransmission, but it is going into the Touch anyway, not in the bits of data, but as an analog signal that may increase output noise.

So just unplug the damn cable! What's in the buffer by that stage is not a saturated analogue signal, but a stored representation of ones and zeros. Pull the cable - eliminate the effects of the server and the transmission noise. Can you hear a difference?

[Phil Leigh]

So just unplug the damn cable! What's in the buffer by that stage is not a saturated analogue signal, but a stored representation of ones and zeros. Pull the cable - eliminate the effects of the server and the transmission noise. Can you hear a difference?

Indeed - so far nobody has answered this question except to say that the buffer isn't big enough to hold enough music to form an opinion... Which is complete and utter rubbish as far as I am concerned. I'm still not sure that people understand we have really bad aural memory and if it takes hours or days for us to decide if something is better or worse that almost certainly means it is hasn't changed at all!

[evdplancke]

Just being curious: what was the difference between and again in your opinion?

Cheers

superbonham

No difference. But claiming these statements are false without evidence of it is no genuine wisdom.

[evdplancke]

Indeed - so far nobody has answered this question except to say that the buffer isn't big enough to hold enough music to form an opinion... Which is complete and utter rubbish as far as I am concerned. I'm still not sure that people understand we have really bad aural memory and if it takes hours or days for us to decide if something is better or worse that almost certainly means it is hasn't changed at all!

The fact that the buffer is too short to judge might be precisely the consequence that we have bad aural memory.

Cognitive process passes through a kind of mental representation that may need some more time.

[chill]

Indeed - so far nobody has answered this question except to say that the buffer isn't big enough to hold enough music to form an opinion... Which is complete and utter rubbish as far as I am concerned. I'm still not sure that people understand we have really bad aural memory and if it takes hours or days for us to decide if something is better or worse that almost certainly means it is hasn't changed at all!

Couldn't agree more - if there's a difference then surely the CONTRAST between 'before' and 'after' should be most notable at the changeover. Our other senses tend to behave this way I believe.

Of course, that short 30s 'golden period' only applies to uncompressed music. For streamed FLAC it's a good 50% longer, and for 'insane' MP3 it's half of a typical 3 minute track. Of course, the problem here is that those hearing the network effects will claim that FLAC, and especially insane MP3s, already sound too bad to hear the effect.

[Hofstede]

Another test would be: Put a SD card with the same track as on the server into the Touch and play the music from that card. You bypass the entire netwerk transmission so it should produce a much better sound.
But personally I believe one won't hear any difference.