External hard drives and sound quality

From my experience of external hard drives I have went for SSD drives because they produce far less jitter than the old platter type drives as they have no moving parts. Also I would use USB with a reclocker as that is also far superior to wireless but good luck in whatever you chose because you shall come up against many detractors as that is the way of the beast I'm afraid.

I have another question concerning external hard drives and sound quality. What if I was using a USB DAC without external power? Will a hard drive on another USB port affect the voltage given to my DAC which in turn can degrade sound quality?

Doesn't seem like you've read any of the previous posts.

Hi
I have a P4 based system with Windows XP SP3 OS and use cics memory player ( CMP2 ) for highest quality music playback.

I use EAC to rip CDs to hard disk and have a 40G SATA connected internal drive and have just added a Western Elements 1 Tb external drive that is powered via AC and connected via USB.

I started ripping to new drive and played back a few albums and thought somethings a miss here, a bit harsher sounding, less real and involving....

so re-ripped a track to each drive for an exact test comparison...'Bennie and the Jets' as I was ripping Elton John's 'Goodbye Yellow Brick Road'.

In CMP2, track is loaded from hard disk to RAM and all playback is from 'RAM', even so the differences are clear, my internal Seagate drive sounds..more more information, more presense, and more emotionally involving, rythmic and listenable, engaging...

by comparison the external drive was as aforementioned previously above......so differences could be cable related, usb as opposed to sata this being compounded as remember music is first copied then resent from the hard drive back along the cable for another journey before playback, or power supply, or internal electronic makeup of the drives, and/or any combination of these factors...

so in my system, which also includes a NAD304 Amplifier, DAC
is SB Audigy 24bit internal sound card, Cardas interlink up to amplifier and some custom 3 way in-wall speakers, there are sound quality differences.

:) Stephen

Alright. This kind of applies here. I have a Sonos player and I stream my NAS drive through it. Just about 30 minutes ago I upgraded the coax cable to the modem and replaced every ethernet cable in the chain to CAT6 patch cables of 8 feet each. The sound improvment was insane. I just wanted to be able to get all the info through with ease. I wasn't expecting an audible difference. Now I have some serious bass response. And everything seems just... more fluid... like it isnt even trying anymore. It ranks with one of my best upgrades so far. $21 worth of patch cables and a $12 quad-shielded coax. Awesome. Wonder if a gigabit router would make a difference. ????

Granite Digital offers firewire cables that include a number of special design provisions that are claimed to make possible lengths up to 32 feet. They offer 1394A and 1394B cables in that length for $90 to $100. I have no experience with them, although I've used some of their other products (with good results). Datasheet pdf's are linked to here.

Also, firewire hubs and repeaters are widely available, which can also be used to extend firewire connection lengths.

Best regards,
-- Al

If you use computer for anything else (I do) - use Firewire interface instead of USB. USB is loading main processor while Firewire is a little more intelligent and has own processor that handles transfers - less load on main uP. I also think that daisy chaining in Firewire is cleaner/better than USB hub. Firewire cable cannot be longer than 15ft (10ft for USB). Extra 5ft might be important if you want to hide disk (noise).

BTW, I do think it is a good idea to use an external hard drive for music files for various practical reasons.

For one thing it offloads the file access from the internal drive which is where OS and other files needed for basic computer operation resides. THis generally should result in better throughput (data can be read faster). IT also is safer to have a drive dedicated to music files in case the computers drive has to be rebuilt for some other reason.

It is also possible that some playback software could take liberties with sound quality as a means of dealing with delays in reading disk data which is more likely in general if the files are stored internally. I do not know specifically of a music playback program that does this, but it is certainly possible, and not a solution that audiophiles would take to. There are other ways to handle this but sometimes a computer can get so bogged down with various processing that goes on in the background, that all the bits are not availble in time when needed for playback.

So in general, using an external drive for music files can be considered a best practice I believe (I do it) even though the same data files with the exact same amount of musical information is available regardless of storage location. Its just the safest and most practical approach to take.

BTW, using a networked music player, like the Rokus in my system or Logitech Squeezebox, absolutely makes the origin of the music files a moot point in regards to sound quality. These are essentially dedicated, optimized, computer devices designed specifically to play back music. They cache the data locally in memory for fast, optimal access when needed and then forward bits on to the DAC (internal or external) in real time without issue. The only issue that can occur with these is a weak network data connection from server to network music player, and/or a slow running server, which together may result in the bits not being cached and ready to go when needed. The result in this case is a silent delay in playing until all the needed bits are cached. Sound quality is for sure not compromised when playing though.

Lots of long posts here on this thread...

I'm in the middle of testing an external drive again (as I had over a year ago with a Dell laptop). This time, with a macbook.

Both times (with the Dell and now the Macbook), the external drive made a difference for the better. And others on other forums say the same thing. I can a/b pretty easily by loading up the external drive's library in Itunes and then loading up the internal drive again for comparison of the same music.

I wouldn't take my word (or Blindjim's or Mapman's for that matter), you will have to try it for yourself. Drives are fairly cheap.

There are plenty of grey areas for end users in the arena of upper end audio, let alone the now addition of industrial appliances like personal confusers we want to add to the presiding mix.

Trial and error and A versus B versus C etc, still shines the best light towards gaining both exp and performance increases. In the best of scenarios I think we can only emulate and never duplicate the exp of one members trials in some other members situation. So we approximate and consider different approaches.

The only points then of contention are Empirical evidence . Not those of subjective association. In every area other than purely measured evidentiary relms, we must at times agree to disagree, or merely accept those results for what they are unique individual experiences that likely can not be duplicated or replicated. The truth then lays with the perception of the beholder.

Any closer or further insights then will come directly from the attempt to emulate someone else’s particular scenario as best one can for all practical intents and purposes .. or those results can be simply accepted as that person’s unique findings, as I previously indicated. Nothing more.

Unless we can put a clock on it or a meter.. or some other widely accepted measuring apparatus it’s all hearsay and not point of fact reasoning. Arguing such a thing then seems fruitless for seldom does every party have likewise past events in common or even in recent memory.

True too, even measured events can be argued on several points.

At those instances, perhaps it is best to input “Oh yeah? How about that! Good for you. Maybe I’ll check that out myself someday more closely.” Or some such yada yada stuff.

It’s very likely too, there’s an element of truth in each account.

FWIW

Once folks begin to view the PC/Mac as an actual high end audio or video component instead of just a ‘pc’, and address it as such as mentioned somewhat here in this thread, your listening experience and operating performance will, or can be elevated.

Ever try opening up the tower’s case by simply removing the side cover? I do it to all my boxes. It reduces the ‘electrical’ noise level . Though not the rest of the noises it makes such as the video cards fan, drives etc. If outside the listening room in a closet or something, this does indeed help to that one end.

Putting a layer of thin closed cell foam on it if left in place will help reduce it’s overall ambient noise factor too. Simply adding or laying material over the top and either side of the tower will deaden it’s noise level too. the esthetic there however is up to the owner, as to just what they’re willing to do or how fancy they’ll get.

Another approach some projector owners use for their more noisey projectors are “hush boxes”. Enclosures such as those seem to me to have enough worth to nvestigate for those whose drives and/or computers reside in the listening environment itself, and not in some ‘sequestered’ area.

At every turn we get to ask ourselves repeatedly, the same question, “Just how deep down the rabbit hole are we going to go this time for this change or replacement, or addition to our system?”

As for outright ambient or back ground noise levels in drives Every online or big box store I’ve done any buying from has a return policy. Buy one and try it. If noisey send it back and try another. The actual degree of noise given off from one unit to another these days is so minimal as to not be critical.

If the noise level is critical the owner MUST then take additional measures to amend things. Eg., above.

"If you are going to use a PC for a "high quality" digital front end, you really should not be doing D/A in it. Send the PCM stream to an external Firewire or Asynchronous USB based DAC. That way nothing needs a clock till it gets from the memory buffer to the DAC chip inside a "non-noisy" enclosure."

Agree with that and suggest network players (wired or wireless)designed specifically for home audio use is another very good way to isolate the DAC process from the inherently noisy PC environment, which CAN affect the analog domain if the DAC process occurs there.

Interestingly, I have a few CDRs that I recorded from internet radio via analog output from my computer to system and CD recorder early on a couple years back. When I listen to these today along side everything else, they are noise free and hold up pretty well.

However, I think in general analog output from a potentially noisy computer can be problematic so I think that isolating the DAC process as mentioned is a best practice even though good results might still be had.

Thanks Herman for pitching in since this thread took off in the last 24 hours.

If somebody does hear a difference in sound by changing disk drives or their connection type, it is not because the data is coming back differently from the disk which would be an obvious reason for change in sound. I think everybody should agree on that. And that was my point.

The contention point, just like so many others in the audio world, is that some people claim they heard a difference. So it's just a matter of did they really hear a difference or just remember incorrectly. Since you can only hear one at a time, the comparison has to made from memory. So far, from what I've done personally and read about, nobody's memory of audio is accurate enough to be trusted as "correct". A large part of the audio world is based on the opposite to be true. No problem. It brings great enjoyment for some and $$$ for many manufacturers.

If you are going to use a PC for a "high quality" digital front end, you really should not be doing D/A in it. Send the PCM stream to an external Firewire or Asynchronous USB based DAC. That way nothing needs a clock till it gets from the memory buffer to the DAC chip inside a "non-noisy" enclosure.

Also, Kijanki brought up a good point about different drives could contain slightly different rips/encodes. That is possible, but I wouldn't think ripping a CD to a .wav file or lossless file would come out so differently that it would produce audible differences. But for "testing" the same source audio file should be copied to the various disk devices to rule out any issues.

And for a little OT, if any of you are Beatles fans and have not seen/heard Cheap Trick perform Sgt. Peppers, make sure you get the DVD or CD. It's awesome!

Kijanki, I think we are in agreement on this. When we get out of the realm of low to mid fi systems where it is very easy for most of us to hear a difference and for the most part we can agree on which sounds better; we get into the upper end systems where it starts to become a matter of preference rather than right or wrong and a lot of what may be a subtle or even inconsequential difference to one might be a deal breaker for another. One who is a big fan of vocal music and focuses on midrange purity may be oblivious to abnormalities in the bass region that a fan of rock and roll would find horrendous.

Onhwy61, if you had followed the thread you would know that nobody here is arguing that the data is corrupted, only that there may be some other mechanism in play that affects the sound of the system. Having a computer add 2 and 2 to get 4 when it doesn't really matter how long it takes to come up with the answer within reason is much different than processing data in real time to produce audio.

Puerto, play some files from your internal drive to see whether or not it is the external. You can get a cheap toslink for a few bucks that will tell you if the fiber is defective. Try your headphones and DAC and whatever else with a different computer. Continue in that vein until you isolate the problem.

.

Herman - Russian fleas are very special.
I would go back to my example with Benchmark DAC1. Even if jitter rejection of this DAC would be perfect people would still claim that it is not, because different drives sound different (read info from CD differently). I don't have any problem with that as long as people don't make conclusion that Benchmark is jitter sensitive.

In your case when exactly same data lands inside of processor memory it has to be outputted same way. Sound might be different - I don't question your hearing but not because of the fact that data delivered to DAC is different.

So many other things might affect test. We often forget about noise created by dimmer switches or the fact that radio stations have to cut power in half around 6PM (FCC regulation) or about warm-up of the gear.

The only thing I know for sure is that data delivered to D/A converter will be exactly same with different drives if they use exactly same file. Other than that I agree that they might sound different for the reason of electrical noise or ground loops (or something else) that affect analog section of the system.

So when my investment house calculates the interest on my portfolio, all other things being equal, does one computer drive give a different number than another? Or is this unknown, not understood phenomena involving different hard drives only discernible by audiophiles with highly resolving systems?

All of a sudden in the last week the sound in my headset has gone to hell. Used to be absolutely great! Now, a lot of clipping or static around the edges of the music. Could my External HD be acting up or could it be the Toslink "Out" from the Mac Pro? Maybe the answer is here in this thread. I use iTunes which has always served me well.

Kijanki, I agree with your last post but there are some things in the second to last that I take exception to. Nobody has even hinted that the drives are corrupting the data. Both you and Mapman use that as some sort of proof that the drives can't alter the sound when nobody has suggested that is the reason. It is like Mr Stacy said, I said, and even you alluded to in your last post; there are things that can affect the sound that we don't understand. Stating all hard drives sound the same because they all deliver the same bits ignores all else. OK, I said that before and yet I still get bits is bits tossed at me so evidently I'm not getting my point across.

BTW I don't use any feedback in my amps and think they sound wonderful.

So Russian fleas respond to a verbal commands? I would like to see that :>)

.

Once people encounter something counter-intuitive like digital cable affecting the sound they tend to stretch this to every possible case. Different sound of NAS drives could be related to something else then drive itself - for instance music was ripped two times to drive and is not identical - even if this is the same song/piece, or system was just turned on while second drive was tested later when system was warm and tweeters (ferrofluid) warmed-up. In addition to this we have placebo effect. In coducted tests people often swear to hear big difference while in reality they listen to exactly same set-up.

I remember joke about Russian scientist that was removing flea legs one by one ordering it everytime to jump. When he removed last one and flea did not follow his order he wrote a note "Removing all legs makes flea deaf"
One has to be very careful with conclusions.

The issue here is the whole idea that something may in fact be happening to alter the sound that you do not understand. It is just not possible, no matter how extensive your expertise, for you to know all that could alter sound. I apologize if this is difficult for you to digest and realize it can be humbling.

To clarify again...I found the difference in sound to be subtle and not worth influencing my decision which HD to purchase. This occurred when trying different NAS units in my system. It had nothing to do with internal vs external drives rather two NAS drives. I was not aware of any faulty hardware or ground issues and am comfortable assuming there were none.

This reminds me very much of a discussion I was having on another forum trying to convince someone that digital cables can sound different. His "expertise" was making it very difficult for him to digest this fact.

Herman - The key is to make some sorting. Most of items you mentioned are in analog domain where things are getting extremely complicated but "bits are bits" is relatively easy to explain. Data stored on HD is retrieved without error - (not even single bit) or computers would not work. Data is extracted first to HD cache buffers and then to computer memory to end-up in FIFO output buffers. Data leaves FIFO buffer bit by bit exactly same (no matter what drive it came from). Digital data can only sound different if jitter is involved (noise in time domain). It doesn't apply here since transmission between HD and computer is synchronous (clocked). Computer has to present on its output exactly same information from the same file on different HD otherwise networks would not operate properly.

Asynchronous S/Pdif data coming from CDP could be an example of place where bit are not just a bits because of jitter.

It is remotely possible that you might hear different sound from different HD because of ground loops created by disk that affects analog audio - but it has nothing to do with type of HD. That would be pretty good example of case where experiment is useless (brings false conclusion).

People claim that jitter rejecting Benchmark DAC1 is still sensitive to transports therefore not exactly jitter rejecting. Strange part is that cheap DVD players often sound better with DAC1 (according to their testimony) than expensive transports. How is it possible? Again - wrong conclusion. Jitter rejection of Benchmark DAC1 has nothing to do with it and it is simply ability of given player to retrieve data from CD (DVD players have good tracking). It could be issue of ground loops as well.

Negative feedback that you mentioned indeed lowers distortion and sounds better but only if is used intelligently. Good designer would design amp as linear as possible to get below about 5% THD and then apply negative feedback to knock down THD to about 0.5%. Now it becomes necessary to lower input bandwidth to one that amp had before feedback was applied (to prevent TIM distortions) and voila - we got great sounding amp that nobody will buy because it has limited bandwidth and 0.5% of THD.

Kijanki, I reread your post a few times and I'm not sure which side you are on, if either.

Mapman, you finally bring something to the table.

"I have used internal, external USB, and wireless NAS storage and I have heard no differences. Nor do I hear a difference having used three different computers as music servers."

Sorry if I missed it but it looked to me like everything you posted before was telling us why it shouldn't make any difference, not that you have tried it and found none. I have no problem with somebody taking a position based on their own experience even though I'm not sure your limited tests are in any way conclusive other than for you. What bothers me are those making dogmatic statements based on what they believe should be true based on "technical" matters or what they've heard from others. That's what gets us statements like:

All well designed and built amps sound the same. All wires sound the same. Transistors have lower distortion so they must sound better than tubes. Horns honk. Negative feedback lowers distortion so it must be good. All digital is the same because bits are bits. Computers have too much non-audio stuff in them to be any good for audio. And on and on and on.

.

Mapman wrote: "I have used internal, external USB, and wireless NAS storage and I have heard no differences. Nor do I hear a difference having used three different computers as music servers."

Mapman - you're not going to win this argument because "somebody else might hear it". To me this is utterly nonsense that is anti-scientific and brings voodoo-harm to this forum. If we really don't know anything and have to test everything than perhaps we should test if red car has better gas millage than blue car before buying - because: "would be just as silly as you stating they don't because neither of us has any proof".

If we would pay attention to every possibility we would not have computers today.

Herman,

I have some evidence to support my "hypothesis".

I have used internal, external USB, and wireless NAS storage and I have heard no differences. Nor do I hear a difference having used three different computers as music servers.

I do hear differences whenever I change any other part of my system.

So my data points support my hypothesis even though scientifically it proves nothing as you say.

Also, none of this surprises me based on my understanding of how computer and audio systems work. So I am as comfortable as I can be in my "beliefs".

You are the one bringing "scientific law" into the discussion not me.

I also would state that I do believe bumblebees can fly, so your model for predicting my beliefs is apparently not working very well.

Hopefully my limited experience in the area of question can be of benefit to someone.

So what practical advice or opinion is it that you are offering those interested in the question again besides the wisdom of realizing that nothing proves anything?

Why do you assume I would not use them? I have 3 external drives hooked up to my computer. I have no idea whether or not they can affect the sound and neither do you because neither one of us or that other fellow have done the testing to prove it one way or another. I use software that loads a file into memory before it plays it which I like to believe mitigates any negative effects reading from any drive might have. It seems perfectly logical but I have no proof of that. For me to state external drives do affect the sound would be just as silly as you stating they don't because neither of us has any proof.

I'm having a hard time believing you are an engineer. If you are then you must have been trained in the scientific method yet you completely ignore the basic premises. You have a hypothesis that you now believe to be a scientific law with very limited testing. Going back to a previous post, using your logic you must believe that bumblebees can't fly. There is no scientific reason they can so therefore they can't. That is exactly the same logic as "People can believe what they want but there is no technical basis for it."

As for wireless I got my sister a 1TB Buffalo NAS drive that hooks to her wireless router via ethernet that works fine. She uses iTunes on a PC to stream from that wirelessly to an Aiport Express hooked into her stereo. No claims whether or not any of that affects the sound as I've done no comparisons but it sounds fine to me and she has no dropouts. The transfer rate is a bit slow but fine for audio. It also has a USB port so you can use that to hook up direct to the PC to speed things up when you load it.

.

Coverto,

Regarding wireless (NAS) drives, I tried one prior to my current external USB drives (and after using the internal disk drive prior to it filling up) and dumped it. It had nothing to do with sound quality, more that it was slow and unreliable, even when used only for backups. Other wireless NAS devices may be better.

My current Seagate USB drives are just the opposite, ie fast and reliable in every aspect. Other model external drives may have a different set of strengths and weaknesses as well.

Sound quality has never been an issue for me either in theory nor in practice because, well, as I pointed out disk drives HAVE NO SOUND. When a difference is heard, it is for other reasons. In my case (NAS, internal, external) I have heard no differences in practice.

Herman,

Well, I am what I say. And someone actually pays me pretty well to be what I am. So there!

I would adapt your position except the problem is then we would both be wrong.

You are free to stay clear of external drives if you prefer, but I will continue to use them.

Assuming you really are, it still doesn't refute any of what I said. If you are not it lends less credence to your position but once again, you can't prove a negative by focusing on one aspect of a problem.

Have you done extensive research and explored every possible reason why changing a component could in any way affect the operation of a computer system and scientifically proven that it does not or could not affect the sound?

I think I've made my point. Unless you can prove it does not then the possibility exists that it does no matter what you choose to believe.

Happy listening.

Mapman - Name brand of the drive is also very important. Names starting with sibilant like Seagate or Sony will bring more sibilant sound (logical) while name brands containing word "digital" - like Western Digital should be avoided at all cost (we all know what digital does to music). Word of caution about Maxtor. On the surface it looks OK but after closer look we learn that Maxtor bought HD business from Quantum in 2000 that bought HD business from DIGITAL Equipment Corporation in 1994. Again digititis could attack our system. One cannot be too careful. It is all perfectly logical but if you don't believe me, let me quote Herman's post:

"but I am saying it is impossible to predict what effect something will have on a system without trying it."

"Are you a hardware and software engineer well versed in this technology?"

As a matter of fact I am.

I would not say it is not possible for the integrated computer and hardware software as a whole to have some effect on resulting sound in certain cases, only that external drives inherently sound no different than internal ones. In fact, there is no sound at all until the bits hit a DAC somewhere.

Various aspects of computer hardware and software can and do affect the DAC process for sure, but using an internal versus external drive in of itself alone is not one of them, so there is no reason to categorically steer someone away from an external drive in the interest of better sound.

People can believe what they want but there is no technical basis for it.

Just because you can't come up with a technical reason why doesn't mean it isn't true. It looks to me like you are dismissing something you don't fully understand. Are you a hardware and software engineer well versed in this technology? Have done extensive research and explored every possible reason why changing a component could in any way affect the operation of a computer system and scientifically proven that it does not or could not affect the sound? I can think of many possibilities, increase or decrease in RF levels, different load on the power supplies, difference in the timing of operations caused by the need to service another device, etc. Until all of these reasons and more have been thoroughly explored and discounted there is no "technical basis" for dismissing the possibility that it has an effect.

.

.

Larry_s is correct.

People can believe what they want but there is no technical basis for it.

If you hear something different it is either a placebo effect or something other than the hard disk being external versus internal is responsible for it.

That's about all that I can say with any certainty.

Oh, and also that I am sure that there is someone out there willing to sell someone who believes different disk drive technologies sound different a very nice sounding audiophile grade hard drive for a very reasonable premium as well. Then you can be rest assured that only the best sounding disk drive technology has been introduced into your system.

I'm going to agree with Mr Stacy on this one. I'm not saying that they do or don't affect the sound as I haven't tried it myself, but I am saying it is impossible to predict what effect something will have on a system without trying it. If a bunch of people say they have heard a difference then no matter how many logical reasons you have why it won't, it is simply guesswork to conclude that they are wrong.

To the finer point of your position.

Claiming the sound is different depending on the type disk storage is the same thing as saying the type of storage causes the audio stream (data) retrieved to be different.

I don't think anybody has stated that the data is different. They are saying that using an external drive somehow affects the sound of their system. There are a myriad of ways that hooking up an additional device to a computer would affect its operation. Focusing on one part of the equation (uncorrupted data transfer) ignores a large number of possibilities.

Until you have tried the experiment on numerous, varied systems then trying to prove a negative (HDs do not affect the sound) with logical arguments is a waste of time since you have undoubtedly ignored many variables some of which we may not even know exist.

It has been scientifically proven that bumblebees can't fly which just goes to show that scientific explanations and logical conclusions don't always result in the correct answers.

.

Richard, you can believe what you want. One doesn't have to know the actual physics or low level mechanisms how disk drives transmit data to the host. If reading disks was so unreliable to the point where data is being modified undetected, then we wouldn't be posting on this forum. Claiming the sound is different depending on the type disk storage is the same thing as saying the type of storage causes the audio stream (data) retrieved to be different. How else can the eventual audio heard be different? We're not talking clocking the stream or retrieving a clock, D/A or anything else. We're talking about moving bits from point A to point B - USB, ethernet, PCI, take your pick. If they're broke, we're not here.

The backing store for music files should have zero impact on sound. All that is required is that the data make it intact to the memory buffer. What happens after that is not part of this discussion.

I'm not debating what the person claimed they heard, just the reasons why they claim what they heard or remembered hearing.

The only thing I can add is that with my music server setup which has used both internal and external storage, I cannot attribute any sonic differences to the disk storage media used and I will loose no sleep over this.

Changes to any of the parts of my system that are involved in making or transmitting the analog music signal (Roku network players, DACs, amps, wires, speakers) as opposed to merely storing and sending digital data are all clearly audible to me.

I suspect clearly there must be cases with devices perhaps not functioning correctly or up to specs where sound or even basic operation must be affected, but this is an exception case and not the norm. The solution is to use devices in good working order, not necessarily to change device type in teh quest for better sound.

Larry...with all due respect, that is a very grandiose position. In the bigger picture, I'm fascinated with posts such as yours where people on internet forums decide...based on their knowledge base...that another poster is imagining the basis for his comments. Ones knowledge base must be quite vast to begin assuming such positions! Especially in an audiophile forum where so many things most folks do not understand have such striking impacts. On paper, your comments may be true (although I seriously doubt it) but in practice they are quite false.

Kijanki - The only reason why some people claim they a difference using different types of disks is because they know they changed something and had faulty recollection of what they heard previously. It's basically impossible for the disk type (local or NAS) to affect the sound. Even if somehow a few bits got flipped, it wouldn't be in such a way to uniformly change/shape the entire audio bit stream. Disk drives don't use S/PDIF to transfer data. :^) Again this assumes everything after the data read is working correctly.

some disk drives are physically noisier than others (fans, etc.). You might be able to hear them if in the listening room. Adding an external drive might add noise to that from the computer itself resulting in more background noise than otherwise. That's the only thing that makes any sense to me regarding the "sound" of disk drives. This has nothing to so with the digital bits or signal source per se.

Cio52

There are similar tweaks that work well too. Mostly those we apply to the audio components themselves, as you pointed out.

Outboard drives, USB or NAS in my home respond to compliant footers by decreasing both vibration and it's inherent noise. yes. With Bright Star nodes and/or some other like affair, the actual noise of the drive diminishes or dies out. In my arrangement, all drives and gear are in a separate room so their vibrating - spinning noises are mostly inconsequential, although I feel there seems to be a slight improvment in Sound Quality or I’d like to think so. If there is it’s pretty small.

Additionally, exchanging the OEM power cords for better ones add audio gains too. Use of electrical conditioning filters - conditioners, are of still more help in keeping out the junk the pc puts off into the homes electrical service... it's just like a CDP. My tower resides in a OEM filled Sound anchor rack with compliant footers beneath it's shelf. it also uses a Voodoo Black Dragon or Nirvana pc. It's fed by a PSA UPC 200.

All outboard drives are fed via a PSA Duet supplied by a Python VX from another dedicated ckt on the same phase.

Merely removing the large access panel from the tower affords better cooling and oddly enough lowers vibration too while reducing heat. Gratefully, my Dell runs so quiet I almost can’t hear it run standing right next to it.. In fact I’ve accidentally had to restart it a couple times as I couldn’t hear it wind up following pushing the Start button on the tower..

Noise in the track associated with the drive itself?
I think that might be accouhnted for by the outlet, wires touching each other or in close proximity to one another somewhere, or junk on the power line more so than the resonance from the HDD.

Larry_s - I don't understand it either. If data is there the only difference could be jitter and it doesn't apply here since data is synchronous (clocked). In addition it goes thru disk cache buffers and output FIFO buffers. At first I thought it was about audible noise of device itself (HD vs. SSD) - this would make sense.

I have to agree with Johnss, in general. To me, there is a most certainly a difference in sound from different types of drives. Why this is, I do not know. What I am learning about computer audio is that so many things matter that we figured should not and I imagine this will continue to get more complicated as new digital sources mature. Personally, I decided not to get into trying to choose a drive based on sound and went with convenience and simplicity. The differences are subtle enough that it was not worth the effort.

"On many systems, you wont hear a difference. On a high res. system, a NAS has a less darker background than a spinning HD, which is not as quiet as a solid state HD."

Sorry, not to be rude, but that's total crap. If you can read/write data to the device without corruption, how can music files retrieved sound different (all other things being equal) depending on the back end storage type?

Really depends on the resolution ability of your system the audio signal is going through.

On many systems, you wont hear a difference. On a high res. system, a NAS has a less darker background than a spinning HD, which is not as quiet as a solid state HD.

It depends mainly on the software you are using for playback, using external hd's with a good music playing software is very effective and i dont hear differences between.

Hello all. Would like to offer a tweak that everyone above will find beneficial. Every piece of gear mentioned above suffers from internal vibration plus digital jitter which lowers the fidelity of your system. Putting your drives (internal or external)and receivers on 3 brass footers supported on a wood plinth (preferably maple) and rubber/cork supports under that will provide significant gain in the quality of the sound produced. Mapleshaderecords dot com can provide pictures of the above solution. I use isoblocks (rubber/cork) to support my Logitech Duet Receiver and home made wood blocks (2 pieces of 1"x1"x8" with 2 deck screws through each) under my PC to penetrate the carpet and drain the vibration from the hard drive. This solution is very cheap and produced positive results for my system. Happy Listening.

Live and learn I suppose. The wireless security precautions seem to have eliminated that nonsense.

Aren’t the File Allocation Tables written & rewritten as they are accessed such as a log of sorts?

Jim -- I think you might be referring to the fact that FAT32, NTFS, and many other file systems store information about when each file was created, modified, and most recently accessed. However what I was referring to were the file tables that define the location(s) of each file on the drive, which are updated whenever a file is written or modified or moved. Those file table updates typically require considerably more than one write operation, and if a power dropout or system crash occurs during that sequence of writes, the file tables of non-journaling file systems such as FAT32 can easily become corrupt.

NTFS, on the other hand, is a journaling file system, which means that it keeps track of the changes it intends to make in a journal before committing them to the main file system. The journal normally allows a crash or power dropout to be easily and quickly recovered from, invisibly to the user.

Another disadvantage of FAT32, btw, is that defragmenting a FAT32 partition is a much slower process than defragmenting an NTFS partition of comparable size.

You are correct that NTFS incorporates file permissions as metadata, while FAT32 does not. I have no idea, though, how the problem you ran into might have happened, in which permissions were somehow changed. I've never heard of that happening before. Just your luck!

Best regards,
-- Al

AL

Like I said it is what it is.. hence some of what I’ve said might be contingent on my use of the Accessibility softw it’s ongoing updates etc. But whatever I’ve said here or elsewhere, even if I’m misinformed, or off the mark a mite, is always the truth as I know it to be.

Aren’t the File Allocation Tables written & rewritten as they are accessed such as a log of sorts?

I use NTFS again, now, exclusively but once lost 50 or so out of 200GB of audio files residing on a NTFS disc . The word I got from my tech who had to use NOPIX to get in there to them, said the permissins had been changed for access. I could see ‘em all but couldn’t run any of them.

That foloowed me finding out someone close by was onto my wireless router without my knowledge. I knew squat about wireless security back then, but a tad more now . It was some WAR driver sitting out on the street using my bandwidth covertly. They must have messed up something. Since I’ve made some changes on my WAP’s security features I’ve had no other issues.

That Geek told me if they’d all been on a FAT drive permissions wouldn’t have been able to be altered, or been a problem and access to them would have been a breeze unlike NTFS which has provisions for permissions to files..

Was he right on that point? I know most of that 50GB were ‘purchased’ files and many were lost altogether . Or scatter across a couple hundred CD compilations

Backing up files has a higher priority for me now

My exp with using govt. pc boxes and the accessibility software I have to run which enables me to see things better is a mixed bag.

With daily use on predominately one box I do the usual things for maintenance and ese of use. Erroe check usually each mo. Defrag about every 60 days. Keep the OS on a smaller active partition and the data on a logical partion and/or an outboard drive.

I run minimal processes. And aps at any one time. Add the full bank of RAM as much as is required.. 3-4GB on 32 bit sys.

I feel the main issue that accounts for a good number of incompatibility issues is the AI squared software. The Zoom Text screen reader magnifier. There are things it simply does not like. Times when it just won’t do what it’s supposed to do. It’s almost like a person. At best it’s a two edged sword. I’ve finally gotten to where the latest box which I’m turning into a dedicated server soon, works great. No bugs so far. Quick, responsive, etc. So I leve well enough alone there.

Even some of the Windows updates affect ZT. And after updating at MS website, a day or so later things tend to act differently. So in all, MS plays a role in all this too. Same thing with the ZT updates, though they normally fix the MS ones . At times. Amazing.

Kijanki: Fat32 is garbage. Using non-journaled format is asking for a disaster.

Excellent point. One way in which such a disaster could happen is if power were to drop out at exactly the wrong moment. The file table could be corrupted, resulting in the entire contents of the drive being lost.

Kijanki: If bits would "decay" then checksum errors would be reported all the time with hundreds of thousand of files on computer, compressed files (including jpegs) would be corrupted etc.

Agreed 100%.

Blindjim: With windows it makes sense on the larger discs 500GB & up, to partition. Error checking and defragging then take way less time... and the data is easier to recover and back up.

Also, partitioning can make the computer faster and more responsive. Read and write times for files near the "beginning" of a hard drive (corresponding to the outermost parts of the platters) are typically about twice as fast as read and write times for files near the "end" of the drive (corresponding to the innermost parts of the platters). The reason being that since the platters are spinning at fixed rpm's, tangential velocity is much faster near the outer edge than near the inner edge.

Since the operating system and program files typically consume just a very small fraction of the size of a modern hard drive, it therefore makes sense to put them on a relatively small partition that is located at the "beginning" of the drive.

Blindjim: If you don't mind things slowing down a bit, and are keeping all the data off the OS drive, you can go a couple years I suppose. I've done that once... my oldest now retired box has 4yrs or more on it, maybe five, without wiping & reloading. it's a JIC box anyhow.

While it is very common for Windows PC's to become increasingly sluggish over time, that need not happen if the right practices are followed. I have five Windows XP PC's in my house, most of them a few years old, and one that I built 7 years ago. I have never had to do an os reinstall, and they all work as well as when they were new. See the second of my two posts dated 11/22/09 in this thread for what I attribute that to.

Best regards,
-- Al

Richard_stacy - I completely forgot about laptops. It's good to hear that it can be done successfully - I might need it one day (wife uses laptop).

Blindjim - the most important that you can manage it over long time. Some things are better in Windows some in Mac. Friend of mine uses Dragon Naturally Speaking (Windows program) on the MAC instead of Mac Speech that is based on the same engine, because it works better for her. Multiple Sclerosis affected vision and her hands are shaking a lot.
I use 1TB drive but with close to 1,000 CDs in ALAC it is only 300GB. I keep second identical backup drive at work but am still worrying about something going very wrong during backup.

Map...

I'm the last guy to ask about image or video file deterioration.

As there's tons of variables in my case (s), I've mixed and pulled in and out drives now into and out of several boxes over the years, all I can account for is the audio side of things getting duller and duller. Again, side by sides show it well. Only the oldest Files I have stored way back from Napster's free file trading deally seem most affected.

Kijanki
yeah... Gatesware. 100% on every box and notebook.

...and all govt boxes too. Meaning over priced and low end units usually. Everytime I get one I'm grateful for it, but have to upgrade a good bit of it for it to be stable and as responsive as I prefer.

lately they'vve come with ACRONIS loaded onto a hidden partition, with an image of the fresh install of OS. A re-do takes only 15-30 min. A full re-do and reload of all my accessiblity software and fav apps takes longer. So I've begun doing an image of the partition once fully restored onto a separate drive, and thereafter simply clone to each successive drive as needed. Takes about an hour, front to back... inst the HDD and loading the completed image.

if you don't mind things slowing down a bit, and are keeping all the data off the OS drive, you can go a couple years I suppose. I've done that once... my oldest now retired box has 4yrs or more on it, maybe five, without wiping & reloading. it's a JIC box anyhow.

With windows it makes sense on the larger discs 500GB & up, to partition. Error checking and defragging then take way less time... and the data is easier to recover and back up.

It's simply what I did and do, until high functioning accessibility software makers take aim at Macs.... which likely isn't going to happen.

maybe it's like driving a stick or an automatic... once you get into it, it's OK.

it is what it is.