Richmalk

esldude, can you possibly post some samples of complex music, rather than simple sine waves, recorded at 44.1 and 176? While I understand how a sine wave can be perfectly reconstructed at the "magic" 44.1 rate, I still can not understand how a complex waveform, with much out of phase content, recorded at 44.1 can be reconstructed to match a 176 recording if you look carefully at the analog output on a scope. Thanks.

I agree with esldude's response, but I believe that this logic only applies to sine waves. Music almost never is played or miked as a sine wave, with multiple sounds and reflections producing complicated waveforms. I believe that both recording at a frequency over Nyquist or using an interpolating algorithm like Wadia does (based on psycho-acoustic theory and testing) can yield a final waveform closer to the source.

My understanding is that there is a potential benefit to over-sampling in the implementation of the low pass filter used after D/A conversion. While Wikipedia is not authoritative, I think this piece makes sense: Oversampling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Also, over-sampling, as used by Wadia for many years (I use Wadia products), when combined with a sophisticated algorithm to interpolate the intermediate sample values between the data presented, can result in a more realistic, detailed and refined sound. It all depends on how you interpolate, using what is essentially a high speed computer. See the Digimaster section here: Technology

Remember that if the issue is image height, it's primarily ceiling and floor reflections.

Image height, from my understanding, is primarily a result of comb filtering by sound reflections, mostlyy from the ceiling and floor, assuming the speaker is functioning properly (speakers and crossovers). Good way to test for this stuff by ear is to feed a mono signal to or from the amp and listen to how it sounds on each side as you flip the balance control. You generally find that your 2 sides don't sound exactly the same from a centered listening position because of room effects. If your listening seat is not exactly equidistant from each speaker, and centered, they will each sound different in several respects, including image height and bass.

I now have the perfect example to explain the concept of "thread hijack" to people.

I think there is a lot of variability here. There are credible scientific explanations for why a wire or component would change with age. Such as magnetization of surrounding materials, grain structure of cable (essentially the impurities), and heat cycling (ask anyone who races cars with new tires). Some components might not be prone to any of this, some are. One hopes that the designer optimized the component to sound best after break-in, thus you would expect better sound with time.

The best classical orchestral recording I have ever heard is Mahler's 1st, by The Chicago Symphony Orchestra under Bernard Haitink, from 2009: Mahler: Symphony No. 1 in D Major | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads The detail, space, clarity and dynamic range are stunning, as well as the performance. Best of my thousands of recordings, and closest to being there. Richard

That makes sense, assuming the computer could actually use SATA 3, rather than the SATA 2 that was available when it was built. Either are potentially faster than the SATA 1 it came with. Seems your observations support improved audio performance in your system from a HD update. Thanks for the info.

Yes. The question is the connection between the drive and the chip set. I believe in 2010 it was probably SATA 1 (a serial connection faster than the prior parallel connections). However, since then the protocol has gone up to SATA 2 and 3, which support much higher data transfers. If you have a receipt it might state what was swapped in.

avta, can you give us the specifics of your before and after hdd on your Mac Mini. Was the protocol connection to the computer changed, too (like SATA level)?

I have excellent results playing 24/96 files on my i3 QuadCore Dell laptop, with 7200 rpm SataII HDD, using Music Monkey with all background programs disabled, streaming via a good USB cable to my updated Wadia 381i. My album files from HDtracks are usually 1.5 to 2.5 GB, and play back on my dash at 2 to 3 GB/sec. Sounds great. Considering a new laptop. Is there any advantage to going with a SSD versus a HDD? Does the speed of a HDD matter (hard to find 7200 rpm now)? Is the extraction of the data from storage to computer or DAC in any way a limiting factor in playback. While I understand SSD can read quicker, is it possible a good HDD and setup is functionally the same? Finally, does size of either type drive matter? No luck getting "real" answers to this on the web! Thanks!