Does vintage kernel sound better than more recent one?

Re:Does vintage kernel sound better than more recent one? by grapjas on Thursday March 21, 2013 @11:02AM (#5415478)

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.

This is a joke, right?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Does vintage kernel sound better than more recent one? by cnvogel on Thursday March 21, 2013 @11:10AM (#5415539)

No, of course not. It's a true fact.

I only ever play my 192kHz, 24bit quadrophonic recordings of classical concerts with an old 2.4.27-kernel from 2002 I keep around for that special purpose. It's astounding how everything is better localized, more vivid, not as sterile!

Interestingly the effect vanishes after a few hours of uptime, probably the DRAM refresh mechanism wears out the RAM a little. Sound becomes noticeably more dull and void of clarity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Does vintage kernel sound better than more recent one? by kyyd on Thursday March 21, 2013 @11:08AM (#5415525)

Yes, they are mocking a concept in audio called "burn-in" where new audio equipment is supposed to sound better after being used for a while.

[ Parent | on HN ]