More > Media Center 14 (Development Ended)
New -- Playing files from memory
JONCAT:
--- Quote from: Elvis133 on July 20, 2009, 04:10:17 pm ---Well, to be honest, there is a lot of BS in the hi-fi-circles.. People claiming the strangest things.
--- End quote ---
If you check the thread, I posted an article of a doubleblind study on jitter; very interesting.
DC
newsposter:
In addition to the internal ram cache, how about supporting the use of any other directly connected device (flash media on usb, a dedicated hard drive, etc, etc) for cache. This cache could be pre-populated based on selected playlists and would hold all files necessary to the play list (media, cover art, anything else).
Simply supporting devices that are accessed via a LOCAL UNC path would take care of this just fine.
For the sake of performance, MC needs to be smart enough to refuse the use of slow devices, otherwise what's the point?? USB must be v2.0 speeds. Hard drives CANNOT be the system drive (C:) or the drive that MC itself is installed on. And so on. The point of the QuickPlay media is QuickPlay, not just another configuration option for the sake of variety.
As an 'extra', MC could manage a catalog of these cache devices. Think about creating and maintaining a list of the cache devices (say, thumb drives, CF/SD cards, etc) and what is on them for QuickPlay. If the library owner updates a playlist, MC would be smart enough to remind the owner that the playlist is also maintained on a cache device and "would you please insert the cache device so I can write these updates to the device".
All it would take would be a signature file unique to each cache device (NOT the volume label, winderzz can screw with that at any time). The sig file would be nothing more than a media ID key. It could even be a xero-length file with a unique hashed name. MC would read it and do what is necessary.
hit_ny:
--- Quote from: Elvis133 on July 20, 2009, 04:10:17 pm ---Well, to be honest, there is a lot of BS in the hi-fi-circles.. People claiming the strangest things.
--- End quote ---
..and this is only a ploy at allaying what those that say not many players can do.
Never mind whether you can actually hear a difference ;D
JONCAT:
My point, the word I used, was contentious.
This topic falls under wire, vibration isolation, changing out caps, upgrading power supplies, etc. not changing out your speakers or upgrading an amp.
This is ultimately about jitter and many engineers argue you can't introduce more jitter at source. Some argue you can.
At the link I posted above there is one study claiming random jitter below 2ns can't be noticed, but they discuss another study the claims it can be.
This is not a "night and day tweak", it may be useful for multiple reasons but something like moving to a passive preamp would be what you're referring to imo.
to each his/her own,
DC
JONCAT:
I agree, well said. Rankin's async word clock on usb is pretty hip. The problem I have is that for me, usability is a fundamental aspect of my system which is seeking good fidelity. Approaching diminishing returns, fidelity actually becomes a function of usability....at least for me: I'm not going to manually load single .wav files into Wavelab on my offline, every uneeded background process, pole-pig connected PC in order to squeeze out a nanometer of top end smoothness at 19.9kHz. Now that JRiver has this function, I say great, but I'll be doing a macroscopic study of my seperates (DAC, monoblocks, speakers, etc.) before I find myself ABXing files loaded into memory and vice-versa. At some point, you just have to enjoy the music and leave the neurotic stuff behind.
DC
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version