analog_sa said:
Misread
And do you hear a difference when first convertinginstead of the player doing it on the fly? I wav and burn because
I still like the sound of my cd players better. Could be the cheap
usb dac and I just might upgrade someday.
Westerp said:
Like ehrmmm, pushing the left channel plug completely into the preamp
Everyone seems to be avoiding the original question because they want to sound intelligent without admitting they don't know the answer. Despite the many names to the contrary there is no such thing as "lossless compression". I know your all getting mad and ready to tell me how wrong I am. But consider this, even though all the information may be there the processor has to work harder at decompressing the information instead of just reading it and when it falls behind it creates errors and these can be audible. If you can't tell the difference between 320kbs and uncompressed wav, your system sucks!! Don't feel bad there are many $20,000+ that really suck! If you have the space don't compress. It's that simple. The only reason to compress is to save space. If you don't need to save space why take the chance, not to mention the time.
We are not talking about 320kbits vs wav and yes lossless compression does exist.
When your dac fails you wil also get something that's not on the original. When jitter
enters in to the picture etc. etc. So which can and should we trust to deliver the
original material as it was written to the cd? Any decent cpu is more than capable
of decoding in realtime without errors and as I said earlier using a cd drive with
good dae features and software like acurate rip will give you a bit for bit exact
copy of the original when decoded.
As I also listen to my music on my iPhone and handing out a copy to friend is
easier when two cd's fit on one I like and use flac compression.
Please do talk to the people who made lossless compression possible and tell them
they are wrong How can I be sure FLAC is lossless?
p.s. Some people really cannot tell the difference between 320kbits compressed
and Red Book even on a good system(tm) I guess they suck as well
When your dac fails you wil also get something that's not on the original. When jitter
enters in to the picture etc. etc. So which can and should we trust to deliver the
original material as it was written to the cd? Any decent cpu is more than capable
of decoding in realtime without errors and as I said earlier using a cd drive with
good dae features and software like acurate rip will give you a bit for bit exact
copy of the original when decoded.
As I also listen to my music on my iPhone and handing out a copy to friend is
easier when two cd's fit on one I like and use flac compression.
Please do talk to the people who made lossless compression possible and tell them
they are wrong
How can I be sure FLAC is lossless?p.s. Some people really cannot tell the difference between 320kbits compressed
and Red Book even on a good system(tm) I guess they suck as well
The difference is your definition of a "good system" most people, including many "audiophiles" have never heard a "good system".Westerp said:[B
p.s. Some people really cannot tell the difference between 320kbits compressed
and Red Book even on a good system(tm) I guess they suck as well
blueskynis said:
REALLY ?
I agree with Brsanko. You do need a VERY good playback sytem to hear the differences, (a friend using a Buffalo DAC with Paul Hynes regulators has no problem hearing the differences between uploaded files.)and a player such as Creative Media Source player. Playback from ANALOGUE OUT of a soundcard is simply not adequate to highlight the subtle differences.
SandyK
When all I had to listen to was B&W DM220 speakers and a Denon receiver I couldn't tell the difference between 128kbs MP3 and an LP (other than the noise on the record) but with fostex fe126e s mounted in compound horns and some Marantz PM300 amps every step up is like a whole new revelation! When I added in the tapped horn subwoofer there was no turning back. I can wait to hear some truly high quality sources and amps!!
OK, never mind what will OP decide to use, but I want to get things straight about FLAC (this also applies to every other lossless format for DATA storage).
WAV file can have many repetitive patterns and/or many 0's and 1's one after another in a row. (I presume you know how analog signals are represented in digital). When you convert music files from WAV format to FLAC, you don't lose any BIT of that information, only 0's and 1's are rearranged (numbered) in such a way they consume less space on hard disk. The similar situation would be if you enabled NTFS file system compression on your HD. When you play FLAC file then the process is reversed and after decompression you got the same DATA stream before compression which is then forwarded to your sound card. This reverse process consume very little processing time. Hack, even old Pentium 2's can happily play any audio codec you throw at them. So, there is NO WAY a person can hear the difference between playback of WAV file and FLAC file converted from that WAV, no I can say it better...the sound card receives the same data either way you play a WAV or FLAC file. If the sound card receives the same digital data then how come you have different sounds? Hmmm...
This also applies to BMP conversion to PNG. PNG is a bitmapped image format that also employs lossless data compression. But when you convert an BMP image to a more common JPEG standard then you will LOOSE the quality of image but this achieves much better DATA compression.
I'm not an English speaker, so I apologize for any grammatical errors.
WAV file can have many repetitive patterns and/or many 0's and 1's one after another in a row. (I presume you know how analog signals are represented in digital). When you convert music files from WAV format to FLAC, you don't lose any BIT of that information, only 0's and 1's are rearranged (numbered) in such a way they consume less space on hard disk. The similar situation would be if you enabled NTFS file system compression on your HD. When you play FLAC file then the process is reversed and after decompression you got the same DATA stream before compression which is then forwarded to your sound card. This reverse process consume very little processing time. Hack, even old Pentium 2's can happily play any audio codec you throw at them. So, there is NO WAY a person can hear the difference between playback of WAV file and FLAC file converted from that WAV, no I can say it better...the sound card receives the same data either way you play a WAV or FLAC file. If the sound card receives the same digital data then how come you have different sounds? Hmmm...
This also applies to BMP conversion to PNG. PNG is a bitmapped image format that also employs lossless data compression. But when you convert an BMP image to a more common JPEG standard then you will LOOSE the quality of image but this achieves much better DATA compression.
I'm not an English speaker, so I apologize for any grammatical errors.
blueskynis
PeterSt from XXHE player has now been able to verify during the development of his new software player, that it is indeed possible to have subtle differences in sound despite the checksums being identical.
SandyK
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.msg6112;topicseen#msg6112
PeterSt from XXHE player has now been able to verify during the development of his new software player, that it is indeed possible to have subtle differences in sound despite the checksums being identical.
SandyK
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.msg6112;topicseen#msg6112
blueskynis
In that case ,you will undoubtedly say the statements at the attached link are also impossible. However, I find it interesting that several of us can compare uploaded comparison files, and all hear the same differences.
SandyK
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=815.msg6083#new
In that case ,you will undoubtedly say the statements at the attached link are also impossible. However, I find it interesting that several of us can compare uploaded comparison files, and all hear the same differences.
SandyK
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=815.msg6083#new
Sandyk is clearly beyond reason, so I won't go there this time around.
As for the trouble of, the extra time taken by, FLAC; FLAC is computational very simple, my relatively slow (old Athlon X2 based) system can encode FLAC at maximum compression faster than my DVD drive can pull data off a CD. In fact if the optical drive wasn't already the limiting factor, FLAC might be faster overall since, though it takes CPU time, it requires less data written to harddisk.
As for the trouble of, the extra time taken by, FLAC; FLAC is computational very simple, my relatively slow (old Athlon X2 based) system can encode FLAC at maximum compression faster than my DVD drive can pull data off a CD. In fact if the optical drive wasn't already the limiting factor, FLAC might be faster overall since, though it takes CPU time, it requires less data written to harddisk.
Digital errors are well known. Quantization, sampling, etc. That's a given.
But the "delivery" is always perfect. Otherwise as someone mention there, my internet bank account would increase (or decrease) everytime I login.
Sometimes we confuse digital with analog. Green marker for CDs anyone ?
... GOLD CD
But the "delivery" is always perfect. Otherwise as someone mention there, my internet bank account would increase (or decrease)
everytime I login.Sometimes we confuse digital with analog. Green marker for CDs anyone ?
... GOLD CD
If there is anybody here, who hasn't got a completely closed mind, and has a good soundcard with SPDIF into a decent DAC, then perhaps they could download the comparison tracks at the attached link, and see if they can hear any differences ?
The tracks are derived from the Sony comparison discs from "Feel the Difference of the Blu-spec CD" where both the Blue Laser derived Stamper version, and the normal CD version of the same are presented. BTW, the checksums were identical for both versions.
The same differences have been reported by a member using a very high quality Buffalo DAC with SOTA Paul Hynes regulators.
SandyK
Track 04 Blood Sweat and Tears - Spinning Wheel
version 1 : http://delivery.vipeers.com/file_sharing?message_hash=myPoV2HtPB5G6zxB79sqSQ==&locale=en
version 2 : http://delivery.vipeers.com/file_sharing?message_hash=7WG_gyPObNNkcs6byoF2vA==&locale=en
The tracks are derived from the Sony comparison discs from "Feel the Difference of the Blu-spec CD" where both the Blue Laser derived Stamper version, and the normal CD version of the same are presented. BTW, the checksums were identical for both versions.
The same differences have been reported by a member using a very high quality Buffalo DAC with SOTA Paul Hynes regulators.
SandyK
Track 04 Blood Sweat and Tears - Spinning Wheel
version 1 : http://delivery.vipeers.com/file_sharing?message_hash=myPoV2HtPB5G6zxB79sqSQ==&locale=en
version 2 : http://delivery.vipeers.com/file_sharing?message_hash=7WG_gyPObNNkcs6byoF2vA==&locale=en
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.