External HD VS Flash Drive Sound Quality Question

Yes, both are connected to the front jack. The back is used for the hardware region free hack.

I can sympathize Moomoo. Doing these kind of comparisons is a pain in the butt. I do appreciate your sharing your findings with us.

I apologize that I've neglected this thread & the testing. I just haven't had the time to do it thoroughly; while I live in a house my neighbors are quite close & the best time for me is late night when I can't crank it up because of the neighbors.

That said, my current INCOMPLETE conclusion is that for unknown reasons the Flash Drives do sound a bit better than the hard drive; though 96/24 on the Hard Drive still beats the heck out of 44/16 on a cd.

For specifics please see my earlier posts. I will still try to flesh this out eventually.

On the other hand, i am starting to see Flash Drive quality go downhill; especially Lexar which used to be my go to brand. I've had 3 recent manufacture Lexars fail in the last month; & the latest I bought a series new to me called the S23 is the flimsiest Flash drive I have ever seen, though so far it works perfectly.

So far I've never had a bad Adata, nor a bad Sandisk (other than 2 obvious Chinese counterfeit Sandisks I bought on Ioffer). I own around 50 Flash drives; the only total failures have been the 3 Lexars, the 2 fake Sandisks & a no name 64 gb drive that a friend loaned me last year. I've also found HP to be very flaky, but never had a total failure.

I do practice redundant backups on all hi-res music just to make sure. Most of my hi res stuff is on either disc or Flash; + 2-3 external hard drives in addition.

Hi Moomoo, As I'm sure you know, you're not under any obligation to come to any conclusions quickly or even add anything more to this thread. I do appreciate your keeping us informed about your research though.

From what you have posted it seems to me that the differences between thumb drives and hard drives are subtle and one could come to different conclusions in different systems. Would you agree?

Especially in different systems. Though something interesting: The other night I got the chance to compare on my system (Oppo 95 McCormack Line Drive Deluxe, MoCormack DNA 1 ("mod 1" done by CJ), NHT 2.5-I's & old style Quality Aara Cables (Omni, Pandora, Super Analog, add on power cords (can't remember he brands right now, & 2 Adcom power conditioners) the new 96/24 vs 192/24 HD Tracks Gratefuk Dead studio remasters (on the Flash Drive only (Lexar) in the front USB port. I hear a bigger difference between the Flash vs HD I did between the 96 & 192.

When originally writing about this on another board, I also acknowledged that my system & or ears may just not be good enough to hear some of the subtle differences. I heard some small differences between the 96 & 192 but they were nowhere near as dramatic as i expected. I especially expected a much wider sound stage at 192 that at 96; that was not the case. Main differences were more bass at 192 (actually too much with the NHT's, a bit more detail & the 192 was subjectively louder (Foobar's DR meter does not show any DR difference); compared to a BIT more analog ease at 96.

Other than again my againg ears (mid 50's) & or entry level high end system without enough resolution I don't have any other ideas why I heard what I did. Supposedly the original hi def mastering was at 192 & than down sampled to 96 for the lower price point.

As far as not getting more done in the testing, I do feel a bit bad as I brought up the issue.