Will SQ between HDD VS SSD VS RAM be measurable for digital audio?

[Windows X]

I've been curious with this for a while if signal from AES/EBU can be measured to differentiate between HDD VS SSD VS RAM. I'm gonna measure them all through digital recording without passing D/A so there will be no fault in DAC (Though I don't really know how  DAC can plot graph with fault like that.) It would be nice if we can write graph from software alone so we can avoid interferences outside numeric digital domain. I hope effects from inteferences won't be too great to make digital recording through AES/EBU uncomparable.

Has anybody ever try to make measurements on this? I'm going to measure with this configuration

sender: optimized Windows 7 system using Weiss INT202 (I wish I could get better audio interface with AES and word clock sync though)
receiver: optimized Windows 7 system using RME HDSP-AES32
interface: AES/EBU
software: Xonar 8 with WASAPI digital recording optimized for clocking

I will use linear PSU for feeding computers with value grade to sender and audiophile grade to receiver. Right now I'm thinking about proper methods to measure because last time I tried using truncate silence in audicity and foundout they have different samples. If digital domain should always be the same and really reliable, they shouldn't have any difference with same effects applied. While I believe can't be that ideal, it seems some people don't.

Some of you may curious why Windows 7 not Mac for this.....I would say by kernel design and architecture, Windows 7 is superior to Mac when it's configured right.

[PeterSt]

Hi,

Although the question (or quest ) is good within itself, the result is also too obvious to ever bring in practice. I mean, as an explicit test.
So, if I understand you right this is just about the "normal" check for all being bit perfect, and while I hardly can believe myself it is (regarding the huge differences), it just is. I have done this too many times for "random" situations just to know, and besides me doing it, many others did - even on explicit request from myself.
Again, if I understand you correctly.

Keep in mind that with my mentioned "random" I refer to various situations throughout time I did that, and although for myself that will have been on the same physical system, OS would not have, spinning disks will have turned into SSDs, and no, with a RAMDisk I coincidentally never tried. But again there will be no difference to be measured.
Btw, for my own tests I do not refer to HDCD lights or DTS tests or anything, but normally comparing the "recorded" file with the original data, byte for byte.

through digital recording without passing D/A so there will be no fault in DAC (Though I don't really know how  DAC can plot graph with fault like that.)

Well, I even did that. Some results are in this topic : Measuring XXHighEnd ... . But of course this was nothing about comparing HDD/SSD/RAMDisk, but you can bet the differences would have shown. If you hear it (and we do) it shows with this "measuring" means. Everything shows. If a knot in your LS cable makes an audible difference, it will show too. If it doesn't show, the knot doesn't work.

I hope this can do for an answer ?
Regards,
Peter

[Windows X]

This quest is for making concrete proof for non-audiophile people to understand if changes from computer side like storage/playback engine/etc. can cause significant difference in audio output. I tried showing your graph to them but they said that DAC error could cause that.

It would be nice if you can do measurements again without relying on D/A so digital perfectionist elites can accept that as matter of fact. Test can be done by either RME HDSP AES card or Weiss DAC202/Vesta/AFI1. Adding word clock sync from Antelope or Esoteric clocks would be nice.

[PeterSt]

Well, that at least sounds very open, and foremost honest. So (and maybe again) nothing against the idea. But how can e.g. I do that, or anyone else for that matter ? I don't have the particular equipment, and maybe nobody has. Maybe you ?

I sure could help you to set up such a test. It is not *that* difficult, but it needs some guidance.
If you are not into this, just don't respond. If you are, let me know by email or PM. Nobody will know the difference;
I guess you know my objective (proceed on all this stupid stuff), and for you ? sometimes it is hard to tell. But I hope you know I am open to anything with positive sense, so proceed how you think it's good or best.

Peter

[Windows X]

At the moment I have RME HDSP AES-32/Weiss INT202/Antelope Isochrone OCX-V

The issue is I don't really think Weiss INT202 is reliable enough as it doesn't support word clock so I'm trying to get my hands to DAC202 on loan but can't find any right now. The best I can come up with is using INT202 as sender and RME as receiver with masterclock for best digital recording. I mainly wanna compare between storage like HDD/SSD/RAM using Sonar 8 producer trial for recording.

You can list me what to record and I'll send you recorded wav file for making analysis and show the result.

[PeterSt]

If you trust me on creating the results ... I will be happy to do that.
But let me think of how to tell you what to do exactly to create (record) the files in good fashion in the first place.

but

The issue is I don't really think Weiss INT202 is reliable enough as it doesn't support word clock

Let's say your assumptions are correct. But let's also assume that I say it won't matter anyway. What would it tell you if I would come up with "no (bit) changes in anything" ? Wouldn't it be the best result you can ever obtain ? I'd say you can skip the remainder of the test to begin with (with such a result). Or ? (and please don't hesitate to explain further while both you and me are in a good mood ).

[Windows X]

My only concern is bit transparency check of recorded files without changes after each playback. To ensure system's accuracy in measurements, I want to record the same experiment 3 times and make sure they can pass bit-transparency check. While I'm not certain if that could actually be possible, I'd like to make things as good as I can.

For most computer geeka, I know they wouldn't even bother as long as it doesn't mess with bit-perfect thingy. If you think INT202 -> RME AES + Antelope clock recorded by Sonar 8 with configured WASAPI digital recording optimized for clocking is good to go, I'll setup test equipments in next 24hrs.

[PeterSt]

Ok, good. For now I hope this descriptoin will do :

Take a player of which it is guaranteed (!!) that it will use WASAPI Exclusive Mode for output. XX comes to mind (it won't do otherwise (Engine#3) but Foobar is ok too). XX Engine#4 also ok.

I don't know Sonar, but try to set a treshhold on "start recording" of a value -> the lowest (which is just 1). So, preferrably do not start recording because you press a record button; recording should start automatically (after playback started).
Next (or earlier of course), please choose a track which to you idea immediately starts with some slam. So not "easy", but with some burst of (high transient) sound. This is necessary to find the alignment within 30 minutes on my side ...

FileMail me the resulting files and the original of course to "sales" at "you know". I will compare the files and produce the results.

Side note : if you can't use WASAPI for recording while using the Exclusive Mode means for playback, something is wrong. It can be done ... I know.

I'm off now. Good luck !
Peter

[Windows X]

Thanks. I'll take your advice in my consideration for making quality recording. Hope it won't take long to get used to making good ones. It'll be WASAPI exclusive with bit-perfect guaranteed playback.

Besides SSD VS HDD VS RAM, do you want me to make anything else?

[PeterSt]

Only if this first set shows differences.

It'll be WASAPI exclusive with bit-perfect guaranteed playback.

Doesn't this sound funny in this context ?

[PeterSt]

Are you ok ? Can I help ?
I hope you didn't stay awake for 32 hours in a row to get it all going ...

[Windows X]

There're some difficulties here. my OS is heavily trimmed down so most pro applications didn't work like sonar, i-sound, etc. Due to various circumstances, the best I can come up now is recording through MME with Audicity using 2ms recording latency and ram buffer.

I'm testing Audicity right now to see if it can work for this project.

[PeterSt]

Hmm ... My OS is (I think) trimmed down so far it can't be any further, and I just tried GolWave, which works.
I don't know whether you know it, but it is free for a couple of 1000 "clicks"/actions etc.

the best I can come up now is recording through MME

I can't be sure where this restriction (MME) comes from, and on the other hand I can't imagine where a single restriction could be if I'd use GoldWave (but what's the difference) and the normal means I would use for playback (which obviously would be XX).
Does that help ?

[Windows X]

I've finished my recording using Audicity @1ms latency. MME is similar stuff to ASIO but not well supported by most manufactures but still be counted as direct host like ASIO/WASAPI. I can still record @1ms latency so it should be OK for RME's MME. I'm recording on heavily modified music server so taking parts out and in again requires a lot of time and effort.

Anyway, Audicity seems good enough for getting jobs done right. I can hear veiling sound from hdd 2.5, clearing sound in ssd, more revealing details in ramdisk files. I'm uploading it right now. Will send you PM when done.

[PeterSt]

Ok, good.

One question for now : How do you get (RME's) MME running on W7 ? I thought this wasn't possible ...