Well that depends on how you format your hard drive/SSD. ExFat is no problem. NTFS isn’t either. macOS can read that, but not write to it. Thanks Apple. I’m using NTFS for Mac for that.
But Windows can’t do anything with APFS or MacOS journaled extended which Mac offers. 
You are right. I was reasoning too much from my Windows only perspective 
Thanks guys, very helpful. My take-away is that there is probably no discernable difference between the quality of music sound whether it is stored on an internal or external drive. On that basis I will go for the smaller internal drive.
Cheers Mark.
@organm On my MBP I pay very close attention to the USB bus hierarchy… I do not put my external drive on the same USB bus as my DAC and would never use the system drive as the storage device for my music library…
The quoted insights below are from the inventor of Asynchronous USB protocol, Gordon Rankin, found in this article:
“For optimum results, at least in theory, it’s best not to use a USB hard drive for your library with a USB DAC connected to the same host device. Think of it this way: your music software is reading from the hard drive in a synchronous manner and then writing to the DAC in that same synchronous manner and, as the DAC has priority, the music software might fault when reading the disk – this can lead to really bad sound.”
“Also, it’s probably best not to put the library on the system disk – because system stuff has really high priority over music playback software and again the music software can fault and bad sound will result. When a music app faults it becomes NON-bit true. One workaround for this is to choose a music app with memory buffering but in my experience, even that’s not guaranteed to be 100%.”
“A good example of this is when we transitioned from Full Speed USB to High-Speed USB DACs. A lot of the really expensive USB cables from audio companies failed miserably; I doubt many of these cables were even tested for High-Speed compliance.”
“To summarise: the problem with USB Audio is that Isochronous USB frames are not error-correcting. Therefore the sonic outcome of any USB system is dependent on the host to device differential.”
Thanks, interesting article. So where is the best place to store your FLAC files for playback?
@organm …I’m a headphone-centric audiophile.
15" MacBook Pro w/TouchBar (2016)
2.7 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
16 GB 2133 MHz LPDDR3
macOS 12.3.1
The MBP feeds a Thunderbolt 3 PCIe expansion chassis via a WireWorld USB 3.1 cable, positioned at the top of the system’s 3.1 bus hierarchy… I use the WireWorld USB3.1 cable instead of Thunderbolt 3/4 cable because of it’s superior design architecture and performance as compared to a standard high-quality TB 3/4 cable… The expansion chassis hosts an ElFidelity AXF-107 “Magician” Max Power Purification PCIe card, for power/noise filtering/conditioning/stabilization, and hosts a Sonnet Technologies four-port USB 3.1 card with four independent controllers, using only one output… the other three are screened with AudioQuest USB caps.
The USB 3.1 output from the Thunderbolt 3/4 PCIe chassis feeds and powers an iGalvanic isolation/filter/re-clocker, via a WireWorld USB3.0 cable… the iGalvanic feeds my TEAC DAC via a WireWorld USB2.0 cable…
The entire system architecture resides on, and star-grounded on, it’s own power ‘island’, being quad-filtered and augmented by an ADD-Power EAU2 harmonic resonator on the mains power, for extreme noise reduction. The power cables to the DAC and my HPA are WireWorld…
I use USB 3.x cables because the signaling-lines are separated from the data-lines in the cable architecture. (no adapters)… The USB2.0 cable is a very short lead to the DAC.
Audirvana Studio 1.12.2 is configured with SoX enabled for modulation of PCM to DSD128 being fed by 112DB’s “Redline Monitor” HTRF audio-units plugin…
My library HDD lives at the top of the hierarchy of the system’s USB3.0 bus architecture… I find that separating the HDD USB3.0 data input feed from the USB3.1 data output feed to the PCIe expansion chassis, provides an audible improvement in sound-quality, most likely due to noise/jitter reduction from various operational interference.
I take great care to remove electro-mechanical interference and RF and EMF interference through a diligent and conscientious approach to noise mitigation/suppression. My cable internet feed passes through a Jensen galvanic isolator…
This works for me in my unique personal system environment…
[/quote]
I mean this in a friendly way, you, sir, are weird.
Thanks for sharing this. I had my external Hard Drive and DAC on the same USB bus. I have now rectified this situation by re configuring where these devices were connected.
Good information.
And?
I’ll bet he won’t be noticing any difference.
Sounds the same as far as I can tell but the upside is my external HD were my Music Library is stored is now on a USB 3.0 bus instead of the 2.0 bus previously.
… I presume the majority do not go to the extents that I do to eliminate noise induced jitter potentials in their system architecture configurations… So I understand why any given amalgamation of system components and electro-mechanical environment, may not be able to reveal the subtleties of lowered jitter coefficients.
You went way over the top and I would question the sanity of some of the choices. Not that it hurts, it’s just overkill.
@bitracer …prove that it is “overkill”… Another factor that plays into this is the level of ones listening skills as opposed to hearing acuity…
Hi sandofarrakis,
No audible difference. I have 5 external harddisks connected to a mac mini 2020 that has an internal ssd. The internal ssd I only use for apps like audirvana.
Syrinx
agoldnear, more like agoldimagination.
… @reddog1 From the Wikipedia article “Ad hominem”:
" Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem (Latin for ‘argument to the person’), refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is “A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong”.
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning occurs where the validity of an argument is not based on deduction or syllogism, but on an attribute of the person putting it forward.
Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating. In this case, counter-arguments may be made that the target is dishonest, lacks the claimed expertise, or has a conflict of interest. Another type of valid ad hominem argument generally only encountered in specialized philosophical usage refers to the dialectical strategy of using the target’s own beliefs and arguments against them, while not agreeing with the validity of those beliefs and arguments."
In a series of five studies, Oppenheimer systematically examined the complexity of the vocabulary used in various passages (including job applications, academic essays and translations of Descartes). He then asked people to read the samples and rate the intelligence of the person who allegedly wrote them. The simpler language resulted in significantly higher ratings of intelligence, showing that the unnecessary use of complex language sent out a bad impression.
@reddog1 … Such is the nature of subjective opinion and interpretation…
You are not addressing the subject being discussed…
@reddog1 … From the Wikipedia article “Straw man”:
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] A common form of setting up such a straw man is by use of the notorious formula “so what you’re saying is … ?”, converting the argument to be challenged into an obviously absurd distortion. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the opponent’s proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.[citation needed]
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] A common form of setting up such a straw man is by use of the notorious formula “so what you’re saying is … ?”, converting the argument to be challenged into an obviously absurd distortion. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the opponent’s proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.[citation needed]
Straw man tactics in the United Kingdom may also be known as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name, where patrons throw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittlebalanced on top.[4][5]