On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 11:24 +0100, Jeremy Jongepier wrote: > On 03/08/2013 11:02 AM, Ben Bell wrote: > > Well obviously. Anyone with ears can tell you that. > > > > More importantly, does a vintage kernel sound better than a more recent one? > > I've been doing some testing and the results are pretty clear, not that > > they should surprise anyone who knows anything about recording: > > > > 1) Older kernels sound much warmer than newer ones. > > > > 2) Kernels compiled by hand on the machine they run on sound less sterile > > than upstream distro provided ones which also tend to have flabby low > > end response and bad stereo imaging. > > > > 3) As if it needed saying, gcc4 is a disaster for sound quality. I mean, > > seriously if you want decent audio and you use gcc4 you may as well be > > recording with a tin can microphone. > > > > 4) Kernels sound better after they've been worn in a bit. Don't expect your > > newly built 2.4 kernel to have that warm sound until you've run with it > > for a few weeks, but for a really classy sound here's a trick: compile the > > kernel and then put it somewhere safe (ext2 partition, obviously) to mellow > > for a month and then boot into it at the last minute before you start > > recording an important session. Your clients will thank you. > > > > Ben > > I have a couple of NOS kernels stacked, those sound way better than any > kernel built after 2000. > > On a serious note, people seriously believe a real-time kernel sounds > better than normal kernels. They also think raising the nrpacks value of > the snd-usb-audio module improves the sound quality of their $2000 USB > DAC. Maybe the latter is true but I have no idea how nrpacks relates to > sound quality. There are many things involved and audio jitter easily can make the sound muddy. I never had an audio card mounted to my computers, that did reach the sound quality of my consumer HiFi equipment, so I suspect there's simply jitter making the sound less transparent. I suspect that without audio jitter the sound quality of a RME card should at least reach the sound quality of a Sony consumer DAT recorder, but I doubt that on my machine the RME card does sound as good as the DAT recorders I own. Assumed people make digital copies, than it's still the question if they really make a copy or if they mix sound, don't take care about jack issues etc., I experienced more sound loss for "digital copies" using jack, than for even cheap analog gear. It always depends to the usage. Regarding to the workflow inaudible rounding errors etc. might become audible and who's aware that there could be issues looping a signal from the output of an app to it's input, if you don't take care about the order of the ports. However, back to the topic, I suspect that audio jitter is caused by a combination of chip sets and kernel versions. A lot of issues aren't esoteric. I guess that even many audiophiles aren't idiots, they don't pay 1000,- € for a cable, to get better sound, they pay for the optical design, to get an unique status symbol etc., some people simply have enough money, for some people 10000,- € are less than 1 Cent is for you and me. They don't have the time to become audio experts, audiophiles are consumers, not interested to get the same knowledge most of us have got. They don't need it. My dentist is an audiophile, he has got knowledge about dental medicine and I only expect knowledge about dental medicine, not about audio. "On a serious note, people seriously believe a real-time kernel sounds better than normal kernels." Using a kernel-rt I get less xruns, so it's not impossible that it will increase the sound quality, even when I'm unable to hear an improvement, the better sound quality is visually reported by the counted xruns. Seldom 2 computers are equal, nearly everybody of us has got another machine, so issues are likely and less likely esoteric. Regards, Ralf _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
