BS meter is pegged!

Ktown- ps audio does fpga instead of using a typical dac chip, not the cpu, 2 different chips/processors.

Normally, manufacturers or users of computers/streamers/servers use an Intel/Apple arm/AMD CPU’s to build their boxes using Linux/osx/windows. What normally what makes cpus different is if they use the risc or cisc instruction sets, most use risc today, I think Intel still uses the cisc instruction set.

Lalitk- I agree. I think audirvana sounds a little bit better then Roon but you lose so much in user functionality and Roon arc that it’s not worth that little extra sq that audirvana provides, plus Roon always enhances their code so maybe the next release it might leapfrog audirvana in sq.

Erik-you have been able to assign apps to kernels for decades, this is not new. Also, how do you know if Roon or audirvana don’t do this same thing? It could but the developer needs to be sure the kernel version will work.

I disagree with you on limiting processes because the article stated only 1 process is going on while doing its thing and any Linux person would know that’s physically not possible. Over 15 years ago when I was using audirvana, we went thru the he process of limiting any OS tasks that might interfere with audio.

Also, the reviewer stated “fast enhanced” memory. We all put in the fastest memory for the cpu that’s nothing “enhanced”. Even using “ecc” memory isn’t enhanced memory.

Both the OS and the app can process read ahead so multiple tracks are in memory, not new. Over 30 years ago when designing we based apps, you would do read ahead and build pages before the user clicks next for faster processing. Also, audirvana had hog mode in the late 2000’s.

My point in posting this was to point out how reviewers are gullible to synonyms or technology that manufacturers and grow out that taint their reviews. New people to audio look up to these reviewers for help and when the reviewer is clueless about what the manufacturer states, that’s on the reviewer. The reviewer should have either looked into some of these claims to verify them and get clarification from the manufacturer and then if the manufacturer claims these claims are true and if are in deed false, then it’s on both of them.

Maybe the reviewer can clarify these concerns or the manufacturer could explain some of these issues.

Erik- we are both talking about the same thing but it’s different than their statement: “a cpu that’s highly prioritized for audio playback only ensuring highly optimized sound quality". IMO, it sounds they have a magical cpu that no other vender has and that is wrong to say and the reviewer bought off on it. Since this manufacturer could have stated that their programming techniques make their system sound great which is hard to argue about, but they claim they have hardware that no other audio company has and they would have to prove that. 
That’s like a car salesman saying the Porsche you are looking at is a boxer 6 twin turbo when it actually has a boxer four non turbo, night and day difference

Maybe stereophile should clear things up with the manufacturer and then either post a reply here or in an upcoming issue. If the stereophile reviewer is wrong in his understanding of these topics, then he shouldn’t be tasked with something he isn’t familiar with. 

Richardbrand-yes and no. What does a turbo do? It boosts power by forcing air into the intake chamber. If you look at the taycan, Porsche claims it uses “overboost” at launch control, so imo Porsche is using the definition of what a turbo does instead of actually deploying a turbo. Again it’s marketing, but since imo anybody looking at a Porsche EV would know you can’t actually put a turbo on an ev, then what was meant by stating turbo, I’m assuming it’s about the boost that is applied.

Which IMO is  different than what most audiophiles/reviewers know about computer internal hardware, so when somebody tells you that some manufacturer uses custom/mgical hardware to make better sound quality over its competition that ‘just’ uses off the shelf hardware is wrong, IMO.

I think it’s stupid for somebody to gut an OS to save a few processes. Your iPhones have a cou that can do trillions of operations per second over multiple cores, 17 trillion or 35 trillion operations per second.

The nucleus OS has taken out all the diagnostic commands that allow you or the manufacturer to check to see what kind of problems you are having: like paging, high cpu loads, slow disk access, or any of the thousand things you can check. So if you are a nucleus user and the unit fails, you are screwed!

If you want to buy a tainted OS that has no security code, no diagnostic code, no OS processes that validates system health every second, go for it. If I’m running a server, I want an OS that gets updated with security fixes.

I was a network guy for a short time putting in a token ring/ethernet/appletalk networks 35 years ago and I haven’t heard any big changes in sq when getting these so called audiophile switches. If I want the quietest node, I’d use fiber. 
I also think usb sounds bad even when you apply thousands of dollars of tweaks, but I do hear differences in cables.

Squared80-I hear differences in cables, whether they are cheap crappy cables to the most expensive. Most cable naysayers have never heard the more expensive cables themselves but they find it easier to jump on the naysayer bandwagon, for example the audiophools website ANA. Since I have demoed the Valhalla’s down to the down to earth $1000 cables in my system, and have been with other audiophiles demoing cables, if you have a resolving system and a decent set of ears, you will hear differences. I never think that the most expensive cables themselves sound the best or they are worth the cost over a different cable, but I as well as my audiophile friends do hear differences in cables. 
In the past I brought in a $100 cable that a bunch of cable naysayers claimed is a giant killer. After several weeks of burn-in, this cable was POS and was sent back. Maybe this cable sounded better than the free in the box cables you get when you buy a piece, but compared to my $1000 cable, it was a piece of sh$t.

People are asking if these concerns have been asked to the reviewer or to the manufacturer. I remember seeing in the past that reviewers send the manufacturers the review before posting it, and Stereophile does so the manufacturer can make a comment about the review in the same issue. Read this:

https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/307awsi#:~:text=The%20manufacturer%20is%20not%20made,same%20issue%20as%20the%20review.

The manufacturer did not make a comment. Huh!

Has anybody seen any update/feedback in the recent Stereophile issues from the manufacturer or from the reviewer? It's odd that the manufacturer hasn't posted a comment