Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Storing Streamed Music into RAM versus "Direct Streaming" (Read 11253 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Storing Streamed Music into RAM versus "Direct Streaming"

Reply #25 –
Quote from: jistme on
Quote from: saratoga on
Yes you are. 

Yes, I am calling him arrogant.

Name calling is unhelpful and probably against the TOS that you agreed to when using the site. 

Quote from: jistme on
So that's why I was honestly wondering: are these people able to actually enjoy music?

We have an offtopic forum where you can ask questions like this without hijacking someone else's thread with irrelevant questions.

Quote from: jistme on
To me that displays an arrogance that is not about enjoyment, or helping people, but mainly about 'being right' and 'being clever'.

The only thing you have done in this thread is insult people.  At least other people tried to help that guy. Maybe you should take your own advice. 

Re: Storing Streamed Music into RAM versus "Direct Streaming"

Reply #26 –
Like the OP, he's just a first time poster to hydrogenaudio who has zero clue about TOS #8.

The irony isn't lost on who is more likely to enjoy music, placebophiles, number chasers, spectrogram chasers, those interested in coaxing foobar2000 to wipe their butts for them while looking really k00lz at the same time, or those who are concerned with the truth regarding claims about sound quality differences.  Hint: one group doesn't listen with their eyes.

Re: Storing Streamed Music into RAM versus "Direct Streaming"

Reply #27 –
Quote from: saratoga on
What is with the name calling in this thread?
Quote from: jistme on
I am not name-calling here, I am just calling that a display of arrogance.
Quote from: saratoga on
Yes you are. 
Quote from: jistme on
Yes, I am calling him arrogant.

Re: Storing Streamed Music into RAM versus "Direct Streaming"

Reply #28 –
Quote from: jistme on
I must say, looking at all the replies to the OP, (including the arrogant moderator), to me it's very difficult to imagine any of you actually enjoying music.

Your arrogance would appear to vastly exceed that of the moderator that you have condemned.

What gives you any authority to make such a pronouncement?

What factual evidence do you base your judgement on?

Isn't your accusation just an outpouring of hate?


Re: Storing Streamed Music into RAM versus "Direct Streaming"

Reply #29 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
This points out a specific problem. In 1950 most audio electronics was so bad that it actually did sound different.

Sure, but its also just as relevant now as horse stirrups to a Airbus A380.

Funny isn't it? It's always the placebophiles making noise (pun intended) with data integrity with modern digital gear when virtually everyone else including people whose lives depend on data integrity and/or need magnitudes more in terms of bandwidth/capacity/processing than audio never seem to have a problem.

Re: Storing Streamed Music into RAM versus "Direct Streaming"

Reply #30 –
Quote from: ArthurDaniels on
retired 8 years ago from a senior management position with a large electronics company
(Emphasis mine)

That should be a GIGANTIC red flag to everyone, right there.

Re: Storing Streamed Music into RAM versus "Direct Streaming"

Reply #31 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Porcus on
Nevertheless, my previous laptop interrupted playback over a battery check no matter how I altered Windows'

Bad code can bring down the largest processor. Whoever did that should be forced to listen to it, incessantly. Sounds like a power management bug, which IME  almost never happens.  What OS?  What laptop?

Two Dell Mini netbooks with, I think, both XP and Windows 7.  Many Dells have audio issues: http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/laptop/f/3517/t/19462013


Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Porcus on
Quote
CPU priority. No matter how much more computing power it had than an eighties box, it had too much latency to play audio. Not always, but a few times a minute, enough to ruin audio playback. (Disabling the battery monitor solved it, but killed the battery.)

Hmm 80s

Not eighties. No matter how much more than, it was. 2009-ish.

My current computer even stutters when waking from screensaver.

Re: Storing Streamed Music into RAM versus "Direct Streaming"

Reply #32 –
Quote from: Palladium on
Funny isn't it? It's always the placebophiles making noise (pun intended) with data integrity with modern digital gear when virtually everyone else including people whose lives depend on data integrity and/or need magnitudes more in terms of bandwidth/capacity/processing than audio never seem to have a problem.

Well ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDacjrSCeq4
Whenever I/O can take more than half a second, I would consider buffering a good idea.

Re: Storing Streamed Music into RAM versus "Direct Streaming"

Reply #33 –
Quote from: Palladium on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
This points out a specific problem. In 1950 most audio electronics was so bad that it actually did sound different.

Sure, but its also just as relevant now as horse stirrups to a Airbus A380.


Exactly, and that's the problem that everybody is harping on. This guy and all the rest of the placebophiles like him are suffering because their model of how audio gear works hasn't changed since the 50's, whether they realise it or not.

Quote
Funny isn't it? It's always the placebophiles making noise (pun intended) with data integrity with modern digital gear when virtually everyone else including people whose lives depend on data integrity and/or need magnitudes more in terms of bandwidth/capacity/processing than audio never seem to have a problem.

"Never have a problem" is probably an over-generalization. As several posts to this thread show, even with modern hardware people manage to paint themselves into a corner and have symptoms of resource starvation and can't fix them themselves.  Thing is, the usual list of placebophile solutions won't help them either but people don't generally go on the web and post about their personal failures. So what most people see are the placebo-induced successes.

Re: Storing Streamed Music into RAM versus "Direct Streaming"

Reply #34 –
Even PCs with a fast processor and a lot of RAM can have dropouts when playing audio.
Most of the time this is a matter of a high DPC latency often caused by ill behaving drivers.
http://www.resplendence.com/latencymon
TheWellTemperedComputer.com

Re: Storing Streamed Music into RAM versus "Direct Streaming"

Reply #35 –
Quote from: Porcus on
latency
Quote from: Roseval on
latency

This does not address the obvious problem at hand:
Quote from: ArthurDaniels on
if I can hear a difference, whether real or only perceived, then I'll choose the appropriate program.

Re: Storing Streamed Music into RAM versus "Direct Streaming"

Reply #36 –
Quote from: Roseval on
Even PCs with a fast processor and a lot of RAM can have dropouts when playing audio.

Yes, and that is another way to state the problem.

Dropouts are generally not subtle at all. They are usually accompanied by clicks and pops and all kinds of $#@@! breaking loose.

Re: Storing Streamed Music into RAM versus "Direct Streaming"

Reply #37 –
Who cares about the different types of non-silent noises that may occur?  Even unexpected silence is not subtle.  Again, this is clearly not what the OP was concerned about.

Besides, he clearly isn't interested in familiarizing himself with the principles upon which this forum was created and is now gone; and it doesn't seem that Porcus is trying to solicit support (if so then there should be a new topic), so why is this discussion still continuing?