Jump to content

smartin

  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Retained

  • Member Title
    Freshman Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. On what are you basing your statement that is is not audibly transparent? I'm not basing my statement on anything subjective. Based on what mansr has posted (granted he has added the caveat that he can imagine a scenario where it might not be, albeit he has not seen that), and Archimago's analysis, mathematically (objectively) I am very dubious of any claim of difference, either positive or negative.
  2. I actually think this is where the intellectual dishonesty comes in. From a purely mathematical standpoint, MQA is lossy, but it is nearly certain that is it audibly transparent, not subjectively, but mathematically. Using an objectivist argument to convey a subjective assessment that is objectively false...
  3. Why do people care if a process is lossy (strictly definitionionally) if it is audibly transparent? I think there is intellectual dishonesty on both sides. As a consumer, I usually see lossy used derogatively, i.e. I prefer Tidal because it's not lossy like Spotify. While it's possible a person saying that is objecting to the mathematically superior reproduction of Redbook over MP3, I suspect that sentence is more commonly used to convey an opinion about the sound quality. Yes, MQA is mathematically lossy, but why does that matter at all in and of itself. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. The only aspect of 'lossy' that should matter (IMHO, and perhaps I am missing something) is how it effects sound quality. I suspect people that say for example 'we don't need a lossy, DRM loaded, compression scheme' as part of a critique of MQA, use the word lossy fully knowing that for many people the 'lossy' part will be evaluated as an adjective describing its sound characteristics, and not purely as a statement of mathematical precision, devoid of subjective value. In any event, I think this part of the discussion of MQA is pointless. It's literally just arguing semantics.
  4. The MQA filters in HQP just strip out the embedded metadata (the 'folded' stuff) from the file so wierd things don't happen when HQP does it's thing.
  5. As a counterpoint, I haven't found that an external power supply makes an improvement. I tried a JS-2 and a car battery (because Mytek mentioned it, and figured why not try...). I did not notice any improvement. Objectively, the Brooklyn's PSU is very quiet (see figure 9 in the Stereophile review). I am still using the JS-2 as I don't have a use for the second output (I don't really have a use for the first either, currently using it to power an LPS-1 (unneccesary) which powers an Adnaco USB extender), but would happily use the built in PSU if I had another use for the JS-2.
  6. As someone else mentioned, try different USB ports. If you have them, also try USB ports on keyboard and/or monitor.
  7. I use Roon and Brooklyn AISO driver without issues.
  8. smartin

    HQ Player

    The only 'Titan' that the 1080Ti will be faster than (for HQP) is the previous generation Titan X (Maxwell). All other older Titans, (original and Titan Black) are (much) faster. In particular to your case, CUDA offload has CPU overhead. There are certainly circumstances where the benefit of CUDA offload (not speaking about HQP specifically, but in general) are outweighed by the cost. With a marginal CPU, you might be in that category.
  9. smartin

    HQ Player

    Do you have CUDA offload enabled?
  10. smartin

    HQ Player

    My point was that even doing DSD512, the 7700k is unlikely to use anywhere near its max TDP. Worst case scenario, with a few easy BIOS tweaks, you can turn the 7700k into a 7700. All you'd be out is the extra cash for the K over non-K. But I think it's very likely you could run the 7700k at stock, or slightly underclocked, in the FC5 and have more horsepower available compared to the non-k.
  11. smartin

    HQ Player

    P4 is designed to be used in a rack server, where there is high airflow across the board. It is not designed to be passively cooled. It's also designed primarily for int-8 operation, and while it has good fp32, its fp64 (what HQP uses) is capped just like in the retail geforce series. But, all of this is sort of irrelevant. Fanless cases, like the FC5 use the case as a heatsink. If you put a GPU inside (unless it uses a blower type fan that exhausts out the back), you need to add it's heat output to what the case will need to dissipate. Even a Geforce 1060 would likely overwhelm the FC5's dissipation capacity. You'd be much better off getting a 'hotter' cpu (such as a 7700k) downclock it until temps are stable (if necessary, very unlikely will be necessary as even at DSD512, 7700k is not anywhere close to fully loaded, so would not use full 91W TDP) and forgo the GPU.
  12. smartin

    HQ Player

    Yep, all true. A perfect example is the Intel X700 series processors. The K, non-K and T variants are just binned versions of the same processor. But, in this case they really are the same. AMD explicitly acknowledged this. They didn't send out any 1700X review samples, saying if overclocking there is no difference between it and the 1800X. And for what's it's worth, the first 1700 (non x, the 65tdp part) reviews are out and they are reaching the exact same hard cap when overclocking as with the 1800X and 1700X (4-4.1 at same voltages.) All this aside, these chips are testing very strangely. They are doing very well in some math intensive benchmarks, and very poorly in others. Glad you're going to test one =). I'm hoping you'll downclock/undervolt your 1800X to simulate a 1700X/1700 to see how they do...
  13. smartin

    HQ Player

    1700x and 1800x are the same chips, just clocked differently (AMD has acknowledged this). Can save money, get the 1700x, and change the clocks in bios. Get exactly the same chip, just costs less. Not clear yet if the 1700 (non-x) is also the same chip. It doesn't support XFR, so might be different. My bet is it isn't other than disabling XFR. Have to wait and see, but I'd bet the 1700 is from the same parts bin also, it just achieves it's lower TDP from lower clocks (which are easily adjusted).
  14. Companies do this all the time. It's one thing to do a survey asking what people will pay for something, it's another to actually have people commit to it. I'm sure Spotify will offer this service, they are just trying to estimate what pricing scheme will result in the most profit.
  15. Half the invites offered upgrade at $5, the other half at $10. Service is not active at the moment. This looks like a marketing tool rather than an actual 'thing' at this point. They are trying to determine what percentage of people are willing to pay $5 or $10 for CD quality streaming.
×
×
  • Create New...