The voodoo-people always expect everyone to take their word for the fantastic improvements they achieve. And our ears aren't all that great, so we can easily measure much smaller differences than we can hear. There are too many ways that this method can fail and generate ghost differences, I would simply not trust if for anything.Īny difference that can be heard, can also be measured. Then the realtime kernel is not an improvement, rather the opposite.Īudio Diff maker seems like a completely worthless way of testing. But a raspberry is much (much!) faster and easily handles audio playback on a standard kernel. That configuration might need a realtime kernel to never have a glitch at high samplerates. The SB Touch runs both gui and playback on a single weak cpu. Sure, sometimes a reatime kernel is needed, basically when a given system sometimes responds too slowly to some events with a standard kernel. Everything named something related to realtime is popular. Let's make some changes without knowing what they do, and hear a fantastic improvement!". There are so many examples of "Hey I can compile my own kernel. He is one of the (unfortunately few) people here with enough real knowledge to question all the "improvements" that people are so sure about. Ignoring phofman is a not a very bright idea. It's good to see that you guys try to take it even further. Unfortunately I havn't found the DAC that can ignore the physical environment surrounding these logical bits yet.įinally. Because the bits are not changing their logical values. With a perfect DAC we wouldn't have these discussions. SW changes/optimizations/flaws simply impact exactly these nasties. These physical nasties caused by or routed through the transport are IMO the actual sources that impact the DAC performance. It'll always be the question how the DAC can fight all kind of noise, EMI/RFI, (data-)jitter, power fluctuations. The better the HW (DAC/power supply/motherboard/etc.) the less impact you'll see from OS optimizations/changes. One thing I learned over all these years. There are still people running Moode with that long outdated 3.8.x or whatever version it was a couple of years back, because they think that rt-version still performs best in their system. Just to let the people judge and decide once more. Next time I provided Moode with some optimizations. Usually these folks are quite narrow minded.Īnyhow. These guys simply love that destructive and divisive attitude instead of being constructive. I considered it an ideological issueįrom that point on. It didn't take long and the snakeoil-screamers were back. Thousands of people used that Toolbox happily. My intention was to let the people decide. The Touch Toolbox was my first try to show in public that OS optimizations can change Surprise, surprise, the measurement had shown a clear change on the audio signal. Stupid test signal - it was done with and without Toolbox. The Squeezebox Touch was running a rt-kernel by default already then btw!!Īll these "snakeoil screamers" asking for ABX-double-blind-crap suddenlyīecame quite when a recording was done with Audio Diff maker.ĭoing an AB test, by recording and comparing a complete music track and not just a With that Toolbox I was simply introducing Linux OS optimizations. I also had similar discussions over at squeezebox forum about my Touch ToolboxĪround 2011. And keep spreading their BS all over the place. and then keep demanding to provide prove on your side. These guys never ever provide anything to support their own claims - proving that you are wrong !!! These type of guys are simply not willing or not able to change their mindset.Īnd the funny part. Phofman has never shown any positive contribution in that area that I am aware of. He's one of the worst - didn't learn anything in more than a decade. I'm having the same discussions with that guy since 2008.
0 kommentar(er)
