unless this can be duplicated repeatedly in blind tests, it sounds like bullshit to me.
I'm thinking ram and buffer negate any of this.
QNAP1 was found to serve up music with a similar level of rhythmic drive and image soundstaging as a good CD transport playing directly into our system's DAC. If anything, there was perceptibly more 'drive', in the sense of bass euphony and articulation, but this came with increased level which made the sound a tad bass heavy.
Also, QNAP1 did not sound as clean as CD in the higher registers. Some edgy grain exaggerated the sampled horns that sets the scene in the opening of Primal Scream's Loaded, adding to the color but nudging it off neutrality. Splash cymbals lived up to their name.
QNAP2 rendered the same song more tunefully. It was more organic and made more sense, the lines of melody and rhythm cooperating better. As well as showing better individual instrument distinction, the whole piece sounded tidier, tonally less messy without the roughened HF, and perhaps better integrated in musical intent.
That was my point, that the 1's and 0's all get there in a timely manner due to plenty of technology.I'm thinking that it's 1s and 0s, regardless of how you store them, negates any of this.
Is it really possible that the sound quality of bit-identical audio files' is influenced by their storage medium before being delivered to the hi-fi system's DAC?
Anecdotal murmurings and some limited first-hand experience suggested that digital music files can sound different when played from different computer media sources.
All I know is that if I store my 64kbps MP3s on Western Digital hard drives, they sound better than when I used to store them on Seagate hard drives.
Probably from the clicking noise of your Seagates breaking
You guys need to LISTEN to the music,.. not HEAR the music.
"Look man, you can listen to Jimi but you can't hear him. There's a difference man. Just because you're listening to him doesn't mean you're hearing him."
My guess is that audiophiles are mostly never married or divorced men. Could you imagine trying to convince your wife, whom you can't hear across the dinner table and who has to repeat everything, that high end audio equipment is necessary for listening enjoyment?All audiophiles are morons. This has been confirmed numerous times by numerous studies.
My guess is that audiophiles are mostly never married or divorced men. Could you imagine trying to convince your wife, whom you can't hear across the dinner table and who has to repeat everything, that high end audio equipment is necessary for listening enjoyment?
All audiophiles are morons. This has been confirmed numerous times by numerous studies.