Decadent_Spectre
Well-Known Member
Always go with floats your boat. Rest be dammed
This is the only post in this thread that has a shred of logic and common sense.
Buy the SSD if you want, rest be "dammed".
Always go with floats your boat. Rest be dammed
The goal post moved a long time ago... But still a pretty informative discussion...What started as a debate on storage medium/technology become digital vs. analog
For 2-ch music playback, a simple spinner HDD or even a flash drive is sufficient. SSD may be overkill for audio.
And USB 2.0 is fast enough for data transfer too.
Cheers,
Raghu
Was true in the low bandwidth Internet connection days.The problem with Streaming is that they tend to employ variable bit rates as per network conditions. Even though it's advertised as Hi-Res but chances are there that the streams fall back to AAC in between, especially at the start of the stream. If you download a track (raw FLAC) from any popular streaming service and then play it locally, you will notice a difference compared to when streamed online.
This is how jitter (the band) soundsI want to listen to how "jitter" sounds - any examples?
This was my understanding too, but after talking to an insider looks like it's not the case. At the start of the streaming, it monitors the network for a good one minute before elevating the service to FLAC/Hi-Res bit rate in case of a high-speed network. They also check the network for the whole streaming session (this shouldn't affect Broadband but Wireless/4G) and adjust the bit rate accordingly. But in any case, the initial few mins of streaming are not at FLAC/Hi-Res bit rate.A typical good quality home network in 2021 will have over 20x-40x headroom over what’s required for zero lag lossless audio streaming
you can enable streaming stats on your player to see what the real time exact codec / file type and bit rate are for a stream.This was my understanding too, but after talking to an insider looks like it's not the case. At the start of the streaming, it monitors the network for a good one minute before elevating the service to FLAC/Hi-Res bit rate in case of a high-speed network. They also check the network for the whole streaming session (this shouldn't affect Broadband but Wireless/4G) and adjust the bit rate accordingly. But in any case, the initial few mins of streaming are not at FLAC/Hi-Res bit rate.
Done it via network trace... The flip happened anywhere between 30-60 seconds...This is something you can test for yourself rather than taking someone's word for it.
This was my understanding too, but after talking to an insider looks like it's not the case. At the start of the streaming, it monitors the network for a good one minute before elevating the service to FLAC/Hi-Res bit rate in case of a high-speed network. They also check the network for the whole streaming session (this shouldn't affect Broadband but Wireless/4G) and adjust the bit rate accordingly. But in any case, the initial few mins of streaming are not at FLAC/Hi-Res bit rate.
Yes, with wired you will never lose a packet within the lan. Wireless has too many issues, the prominent being buggy wlan drivers. Most of the time the manufacturers just copy existing code for a new piece of hardware. The amount of bloat in wlan drivers should be seen to be believed. Earlier I used to spend good amount of time to fix broadcom drivers whenever fedora came with a new release. It is just not worth it. I have stopped using the onboard wifi and use something that works well with linux. On the raspberry PI for music playback I just don't let a wifi dongle near any of the usb portsIn comparison to those bitrates, audio transmission bitrates are a complete joke! You will probably never lose a packet if your wireless is configured properly. With wired, you will *never* lose a packet within your home network unless you use garbage equipment.
Buy intel based wifi. Broadcom and realtek lan is garbage.Yes, with wired you will never lose a packet within the lan. Wireless has too many issues, the prominent being buggy wlan drivers. Most of the time the manufacturers just copy existing code for a new piece of hardware. The amount of bloat in wlan drivers should be seen to be believed. Earlier I used to spend good amount of time to fix broadcom drivers whenever fedora came with a new release. It is just not worth it. I have stopped using the onboard wifi and use something that works well with linux. On the raspberry PI for music playback I just don't let a wifi dongle near any of the usb ports
SSDs have limited writes, after which the cells cannot be used. The controller intelligently migrates the data to lesser used cells using a process called "wear levelling". So you don't lose data. So far I have had two of my employee macbook pro ssd crashing. The macbooks were heavily used for photoshop. So I would take manufacturers claims about ssd lasting for 100s of years with a pinch of salt. But my own ssd boot disk at home is going strong for 5+ years now.Going back to the OP discussion, I have one question, are SSD's more reliable than HDD? I have to make a decision soon on a 1tb SATA ssd drive and was wondering about this. I had a few external HDD's crash sometimes but don't have much experience with SSD. I currently have 2 SSD's that are working very well. And additionally if SSD's are more reliable then do I have to spend more for the samsung version rather than the cheaper crucial?
Cheers,
Sid
I have had ssd failures as well as hdd failures. Both are not 100% reliable. If one wants enterprise level reliability, using raid configuration with multiple hdds is best option. If raid is not an option it's best to keep data backed up.Going back to the OP discussion, I have one question, are SSD's more reliable than HDD? I have to make a decision soon on a 1tb SATA ssd drive and was wondering about this. I had a few external HDD's crash sometimes but don't have much experience with SSD. I currently have 2 SSD's that are working very well. And additionally if SSD's are more reliable then do I have to spend more for the samsung version rather than the cheaper crucial?
Cheers,
Sid
TL;DR - If the drive is meant purely for music storage, any decent SSD will be a whole lot more reliable than a spin drive.Going back to the OP discussion, I have one question, are SSD's more reliable than HDD? I have to make a decision soon on a 1tb SATA ssd drive and was wondering about this. I had a few external HDD's crash sometimes but don't have much experience with SSD. I currently have 2 SSD's that are working very well. And additionally if SSD's are more reliable then do I have to spend more for the samsung version rather than the cheaper crucial?
Cheers,
Sid
If it is a boot able disk then the boot time of an SSD is incredible. my 10 year old iMac just got on boosters. but if you have the budget, go SSD !Going back to the OP discussion, I have one question, are SSD's more reliable than HDD? I have to make a decision soon on a 1tb SATA ssd drive and was wondering about this. I had a few external HDD's crash sometimes but don't have much experience with SSD. I currently have 2 SSD's that are working very well. And additionally if SSD's are more reliable then do I have to spend more for the samsung version rather than the cheaper crucial?
Cheers,
Sid
Could you kindly recommend or share links online for SSD portable. I would be using strictly for music connecting to allo boss 2. I'm currently using a WD 1.5TB portable HDD.TL;DR - If the drive is meant purely for music storage, any decent SSD will be a whole lot more reliable than a spin drive.
SSD failure stories (barring rare exceptions) are largely on account of low grade SSDs with low write endurance being used for scenarios that involved excessive levels of writing - Of the order of Multiple Terabytes a day
Music storage and playback alone will contribute a really low level of writes - so little in fact that you wouldn't wear out the memory cells practically ever