My SSD install

[LydMekk]

Using the Intel 10ch controller with a 2xVelociraptor raid 0 setup for boot here myself.

Severed made a good point over: the v6a I'm using is definitely better sounding than W3 which I tried today. Have therefore gone back to v6a.

The W3 sounds closed-in and amputated in comparison. See full info in thread under SQ-section.

Have not tried SSD yet here, but frankly...don't think it's there the difference lies. More your use of another controller card Peter, maybe.

Try to hook it directly to the Intel 10CH.

And PLEASE try v6a instead of W...try to hear what I'm hearing here. Maybe it's not only me who's crazy...

[PeterSt]

In fact I should try 0.9-v6 with the SSD. Uh-ooh, now I'm getting really confused :

As said, to me it feels the SSD is better, but it doesn't workout. Now what if it emphasizes the baddyness of 0.9w ? (emphasizes = more accurate). THE NATURE IS QUITE THE SAME ... I must admit that.

Oh boy.

Edit :

Try to hook it directly to the Intel 10CH.

Did that ... (8ch).





(PS : Yes Dave, you suggested that it could be the XX version. Of course I didn't try. ).

[PeterSt]

Hey, thanks for the info Telstar.
Can you point me to a thread about this ? I want to understand what's actually wrong, or maybe contribute to that thread. Depending on how the situation is, get my money back maybe.

In the very end I want to taste the benefits, where one of them is speed (it really matters).

Read all this article:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&p=7

There is some discussion on various hw forums, my favourite is xtreme systems. No thread that i know talks about audio performance.
But the latency issue IS an issue, due to intel ich and the jmicron controller of the majority of MLC SSD drives.
I dont think you can get a refund, but I hope u try soon a different SSD drive and post an update.

Ok, wanted to come back on this one.

Read the article, and all what is in there looks completely, say, logical to me (with some extended knowledge of "performance" issues on computing), and regarding to this, these are my observations :

Yes, there seems to be some "interaction" going on between some backend (the SSD) response, and general things you are doing on the PC (those general things for me would be the development of XX which happens in Vistual Studio). The "response" behaviour (take that literal now) is a little different. Small stalls are there which weren't there before.

During just using XX the comparison is somewhat more difficult. At using the spinning disk

- All is slower in general (note this is about accessing the Galleries only, and of course the OS itself needing the data on the disk).
- It rather frequently happens that I have to wait the standard 6-7 seconds before anything happens, because the disk has to spinup (it stops after 5 minutes of inactivity which latter is rather random (see the tweaked my Vista virtually to dead topic).
- Behaviour is consistent.

At using the SSD :

- No signature of waiting for the disk to "wake up" ever.
- No response at certain tasks, but, never bothering because you're not waiting for it.

The last one is what is described in the thread Telstar referred to, hence I'm sure that is happening. Thus :
At converting (mostly FLACs) at a certain stage a buffer seems to run full, but the way 0.9w works causes you won't notice by means of the sound already playing (this would be different for 0.9v for sure because there all the conversions need to be complete before playback starts).
The only way you notice this is at the XXHighEnd form staying there, all disk activity stops, but also cpu activity stops. So, it stalls. Sound just continues because of the high priority which is put to that, and again, it actually doesn't bother.

Net, I prefer the SSD a 100 times.

I have been thinking whether this could influence sound quality, but keep in mind that "this" would be the stalling "process", and I do not recognize at all that such a thing may happen, or is encouraged for during playback, when - or everything is already in memory - or only disk reads are in order (no large bulk writes). So from that view it can't influence.

Note that it can be proven that when a track of e.g. 10 minutes is loaded into memory, just zero I/O applies, excpect for that 3 times (very small) happening once per 6 - 12 minutes (tweaked to dead thread).

For the spinning disk those I/O's prove to be not important to anything, because when the spinning disk stopped spinning, nothing is bothered by it, and the 7 seconds it takes to spinup the disk doesn't stall anything really (all is just buffered, and no to the user visible process stalls or holds up anything for that user).

What happens when the SSD (controler) can't deal with -I assume- writes i hard to tell. Indeed it will be the controler starting to hold up things because the disk tells "wait a minute please" (the minute being literal almost as per the thread Telstar referred to ) and where the disk will be able to have dealt with writing in a few ms the controler thinks differently about this and just stops longer.
It is here where the dangerous part emerges, because from now on things are dealt with by means of interrupts. Interrupts are dangerous because they can emerge 1000ths of times per second, do not eat cpu,but stall the complete system. And, when something is not communicating properly, even the disk telling it is ready (which would be an interrupt by itself) won't come through because of the stream of interrupts the controller is generating. Note that this stream could be "questions" towards the disk which should happen per e.g. 1 ms, but instead it happens each us occupying the bus concerned, the answer (from the disk) not even coming through.

Remember, it was proven (Telstar thread) that something of this kind happens at burst writes.
These burst writes just don't happen during playback, nor does the OS incur for that (proven by myself), and all 'n all it is my conclusion that this is not related (to sound quality).
Note though that one of the first things I said is that it felt like each memory cell is talking to something (like the controller), which would be a very similar activity as the interrupts I just described. But I think this is a coincidence ...


I could keep on talking about what could be the matter, but right now it would be my idea indeed that the SSD incurs for more accuracy because of just more stable (or hardly noticeable) requirements from the PSU opposed to the spinning disk. Actually no different from how anything works out within the PC for PSU matters. This would come down to better emphasation of the base sound i.e. the stream as spit out by XX, and that stream is wrong. It is wrong (or not as nice) opposed to an earlier version, and it *is* true that the change in sound I noticed from the v to the w verions has a nature that seems to be emphasized with the SSD. So, stop talking and back to 0.9-v6 including going back to the SSD (which I will do in one go).

[SeVeReD]

Using the Intel 10ch controller with a 2xVelociraptor raid 0 setup for boot here myself.

Severed made a good point over: the v6a I'm using is definitely better sounding than W3 which I tried today. Have therefore gone back to v6a.

The W3 sounds closed-in and amputated in comparison. See full info in thread under SQ-section.

Have not tried SSD yet here, but frankly...don't think it's there the difference lies. More your use of another controller card Peter, maybe.

Try to hook it directly to the Intel 10CH.

And PLEASE try v6a instead of W...try to hear what I'm hearing here. Maybe it's not only me who's crazy...

Hi LydMekk,
I hear what you're saying, but just to be clear, I haven't even loaded up any W versions yet.  Last version I've tried and am still using is V7.  I'm in the process of readying the HDD right today.  I'm really curious though, if the SSD that I have isn't fundamentally a different SSD than Peters, even though the same manufacturer.

[PeterSt]

Dave, please don't bother. No matter how I hate it to be true, 0.9w is just no good.
Don't waste your time on it.

Right now I tend to believe playing with the SSD as OS disk has better SQ than I ever experienced. With 0.9v6a that is ...

[PeterSt]

Am I allowed to give this topic a twist ?

I know, it has only be one evening of listening, but I dare say : go for the SSD.
I, and maybe more, have wasting my time on the 0.9w (-1, -2, -3) versions because it was really that doing it (wrongly) ...

Now, at using 0.9v-6a, it turns out that using the SSD for the OS disk just works out for the better. It incurs for more accuracy, and whatever the base of playback is, it is more accurately played.
Note : I used 0.9v-6a because I didn't know there was a 0.9v-7 as well (how could I know ), and I have no reasons to believe 0.9v-7 doesn't work out the same (but has many useful functional enhancements opposed to 0.9v-6a).

0.9w (-1, -2, -3) has something wrong in it, and the SSD indeed emphasizes it. Ah, the SSD just emphasizes. And luckily now things are consistent again, because I seemed to hear the SSD being "better" right from the beginning (read back this topic) ... better at reproducing what it's fed with (hahaha don't think about this latter, or your mind will get into a knot).

I am sorry for all the confusement, and I can only say that sometimes things get really difficult.
One thing I like the very best, and that is that in here we are not just copying each other's words and feelings and hence won't get placebo'd by that.
Keep that up.

Peter

[SeVeReD]

but important hyperbole none the less...
Western digital VelociRaptor HDD http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136296
vs
SSD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227345

K, this was a tough back and forth.  Been doing it most the late afternoon and into this 2am region.  I'm reasonably sure all variables were the same except for the hdd/ssd,  (I can't believe I listened to scheme 3 on hdd vs scheme 1 on ssd for the first hour... hehe; for both the ssd&hdd I've ended this evening on scheme 1, but some of the evening I did scheme 3... another discussion...).  Each drive received the same windows tweaks following Peter's guide.  In the end, it is clear that the SSD presents better SQ than the HDD, and even though it took time to get a handle on it, I'd say the SSD is something I'm really glad to have.

ok, when all is said and done, there is not much to say.
The difference is the added distortion I hear riding on top of the music with the HDD compared to the SSD.  The only question to answer was the SSD striping music to get this more clear see through live view of the music, and that answer is, no.  Distortion came in the way of glare/sibilance/added noise surrounding the music... veiling the music...all very subtle stuff.  The SSD just doesn't do that to the music.... just needed to make sure it wasn't part of the recordings.  The SSD better presents the music without this distortion, and still keeps it whole and round.

In back and forth play were:
Keith Jarrett - At the Bluenote II
Beethoven - Lindsay Quartet - #7
Punch Brothers - Punch
Miracle Fortress - Five Roses
Miles Davis & John Coletrane - Complete Columbia Recordings
Ella Fitzgerald - Clap Hands...
Bebo Valdes & Diego El Cigala -Lagrimas Negras
Richie Vitaleo -Live at Smalls (ya, your wife can be right... lotta noodleling, some songs are ok, recording ok)
Chet Baker - Lerner & Loewe
Poncho Sanchez - Out of Sight
Negativland - Free
Spooky Ruben - Modes of Transportation

... and others, this was a long session, good night

edit
Be careful about jumping into a SSD and do your homework.... some people have had really bad experiences with them not working well with their computers.

[SeVeReD]

Am I allowed to give this topic a twist ?

I know, it has only be one evening of listening, but I dare say : go for the SSD.
I, and maybe more, have wasting my time on the 0.9w (-1, -2, -3) versions because it was really that doing it (wrongly) ...

Now, at using 0.9v-6a, it turns out that using the SSD for the OS disk just works out for the better. It incurs for more accuracy, and whatever the base of playback is, it is more accurately played.
Note : I used 0.9v-6a because I didn't know there was a 0.9v-7 as well (how could I know ), and I have no reasons to believe 0.9v-7 doesn't work out the same (but has many useful functional enhancements opposed to 0.9v-6a).

0.9w (-1, -2, -3) has something wrong in it, and the SSD indeed emphasizes it. Ah, the SSD just emphasizes. And luckily now things are consistent again, because I seemed to hear the SSD being "better" right from the beginning (read back this topic) ... better at reproducing what it's fed with (hahaha don't think about this latter, or your mind will get into a knot).

I am sorry for all the confusement, and I can only say that sometimes things get really difficult.
One thing I like the very best, and that is that in here we are not just copying each other's words and feelings and hence won't get placebo'd by that.
Keep that up.

Peter

aarrrgggggggg you dog heheh
ima havta keel u now.

[Gerard]

Hi sdd owners,

You all are playing music that is stored on HDD and the OS incl XX on the SDD??? But what if you put some music on the SDD en start playing does that sound different/better?

 

[SeVeReD]

Hi sdd owners,

You all are playing music that is stored on HDD and the OS incl XX on the SDD??? But what if you put some music on the SDD en start playing does that sound different/better?

 

I haven't put the music on SDD... with only 128 GB of space on the SSD and TBs of music... I don't want to know... heh.  It really wouldn't make any sense at all that it would sound better...  Especially my whole album wav/cue file ... but maybe I'll give it a whirl some time.

[Gerard]

The difference is the added distortion I hear riding on top of the music with the HDD compared to the SSD 

The reason i asked was this what you wrote... And maybe this will be  also for the music on the hdd. And maybe when you like to listen to a complete cd('s) it could be worth the trouble to copie that cd ('s) ( temporary) to SDD before listening. (


 

[PeterSt]

Gerard, assuming that I have some authority left (which is not likely ), this is what is happening in the base :

- The OS being on the HDD will keep it spinning forever (as long as we can't get rid of those few I/O's it does once per 6-12 minutes);
- The spinning of a disk influences sound (via the PSU);
- At least when you just start playback of a track, the disk providing the music data (which will not be the OS disk) spins just the same. You could say "so, that can't be avoided, why bother". True, but with the OS disk that's two disks spinning now.
- Personally I think there is more to it, meaning that the OS bening on the HDD incurs for more "bad SQ" apart from disks spinning. I mean, the difference in SQ when the OS is on the SSD is just too large to blame "a" (!!) spinning disk.

Then :
- When you play a FLAC (or any file which must be converted) it *is* played from the OS disk (better : from the disk where XX resides).
- IMO this can hardly be related because the only thing what happens is that the converted file is read - done. Of course, with the HDD this incurs for spinning the disk ...

Lastly :
I have already in mind to provide an explicit "copy to the OS disk" of the files to play (as implied by the Playlist Selection), just to allow for what you just asked (copy temporarily). Why ? this will spinup the music containing disks only at the start of playback (mind you Unattended, otherwise the lot won't work), and the explicit copy to the OS disk (conversion needed or not) will from then on let stand still all the disks in the system. Only with the SSD (and the OS being on that) of course.
The explicit copy will hardly be noticeable, just as the conversion including such a copy is not (0.9w and up only !).

Peter

[PeterSt]

K, this was a tough back and forth.  Been doing it most the late afternoon and into this 2am region.  I'm reasonably sure all variables were the same except for the hdd/ssd,  (I can't believe I listened to scheme 3 on hdd vs scheme 1 on ssd for the first hour... hehe; for both the ssd&hdd I've ended this evening on scheme 1, but some of the evening I did scheme 3... another discussion...).  Each drive received the same windows tweaks following Peter's guide.  In the end, it is clear that the SSD presents better SQ than the HDD, and even though it took time to get a handle on it, I'd say the SSD is something I'm really glad to have.

Thank you very much Dave. It is the most convenient to have at least two voices in the same direction (even if one of them is less trustworthy me ).
So you were already used to it, but I think last night I received the best playback in my life. Imagine, in the end I was listening to russian choires.

[SeVeReD]

Thank you very much Dave. It is the most convenient to have at least two voices in the same direction (even if one of them is less trustworthy me ).
So you were already used to it, but I think last night I received the best playback in my life. Imagine, in the end I was listening to russian choires.

Morning Peter,
I trust your ears implicitly by this point.  You heard what you heard and reported back instead of covering up like some in the music industry do.  You just needed to find out what was going on.  When you read through your posts you see you were spot on ... you basically said, there was something good going on, but also something bad, and you couldn't put your finger on it yet ... like two things had changed at once.  I'm pretty happy now to really know that this SSD is a large part of why everything sounds especially good.  And btw everyone, I couldn't really tell a difference in speed with the VelociRaptor HDD (boot up/gallery search), and it wasn't that far behind the SSD SQ wise, but ... which is hard for me to say though, cause once you hear the difference type of thing... I am now even more appreciative of the SSD I guess after picking things apart. 

edit.  Come to think of it, I kinda do think it's a big difference SQ wise.  I've spent a lot more in audiophool stuff and gotten a lot less back... so, well, an inch is a mile in audiophooldom.  I wouldn't want to go back to a spinning drive now.

[PeterSt]

Uhmm, this is just for your information :

During the lifetime of XP, I experienced once, and only once (btw measured over lots of PC's in the company) that XP found problems in the hdd structure, and I had to run the good old CHKDSK/F.

Now, after the SSD being mounted a couple of days, tonight suddenly I couldn't retrieve my C:\Galleries\ because a corrupted file was in there (at the "Enumerate folders" process). So, I added the folder concerned in the message XXHighEnd provided, and could find the causing folder (indicating an artist folder in my case). Found (via normal Explorer) two albums (Gallleries of that) which were corrupted. At trying to tweak things via a Dos box, I was advised (by mr. Vista) to run CHKDSK/F.

I did, and numerous errors were fixed (hundreds if not more).

The errors just emerged at the PC never being down in between or any other anomaly occurring. In fact, it must have happened the PC just waiting for me to come home (not hybernating or sleeping).
Is this a coincidence ? I can't believe that (although it can).

So this is just a warning to myself : may the ssd incur for lost data in very normal circumstances ?