Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 11:45:29 GMT
No good arguing cos none of us are proffesionals at the end of the day. I see it like this i can hear a difference which leads me to believe a CD player circuitry does something during 'playback' that a FLAC does not..
Xquki says 'If you 'remove' something, it is lost!!!' well quite obviously the undesirable i don't like on the CD playback is lost thank heavens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 12:20:49 GMT
Ok, opinion on sound: no comment on why. If I compare the following Cd played on DCS transport, 16/44.1 output to DCS DAC CD ripped to FLAC, stored on Hard disk, 16/44.1 output to DAC CD ripped to FLAC, stored on hard disk, transferred to SSD, 16/44.1 output to DAC SSD replay sounds "better", hdd next, cd last Interesting, I still find that only a downloaded copy of the original file used to make the CD is actually better than the CD itself. (red book) With regards to ripping, the quality of the drive doing the actual ripping and the internals of the ripping machine play a large part in how the overall sound playback actually sounds this is for all 'bit perfect' copies. So many thoughts and comments on this subject always fascinate me.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 22, 2015 12:34:41 GMT
With regard to 'bit perfect' files versus replay quality, if an expanded FLAC creates a perfect copy of the WAV that was used to create it, then it is bit perfect.
This is not equivalent to saying that playing a WAV and a FLAC should sound the same. There is processing overhead in decoding the FLAC on the fly to create the data for the DAC, which playing a WAV has very much less of. This creates delays, more clocking noise, power rail noise etc.
|
|
|
Post by Eduardo Wobblechops on Jun 22, 2015 13:05:09 GMT
FLAC is lossless. Most vinyl ripping programs have the ability to remove extraneous noise. If you 'remove' something, it is lost!!!You are not reading what I posted, removing pops or clicks after the fact using a program such as audacity does not mean the flac isn't a bit perfect copy before you decide to use said program..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 13:27:45 GMT
Sorry to hear you've given up on vinyl Andre. I'm afraid it's main drawback is that you have to invest serious money in hardware as well as really well mastered pressings. One thing I've found is that many original pressings aren't all they're cracked up to be and the properly done audiophile reissues are actually superior. I've even discovered some recent digitally sourced vinyl to be surprisingly good. All these should sound better than hi-res files and certainly better than anything 16 bit. I assume if you find them better than vinyl they are 24 bit flac and not CD rips. I can't imagine Tea For the Tillerman or The Wall sounding better in digital format.
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Jun 22, 2015 13:29:22 GMT
With regard to 'bit perfect' files versus replay quality, if an expanded FLAC creates a perfect copy of the WAV that was used to create it, then it is bit perfect. This is not equivalent to saying that playing a WAV and a FLAC should sound the same. There is processing overhead in decoding the FLAC on the fly to create the data for the DAC, which playing a WAV has very much less of. This creates delays, more clocking noise, power rail noise etc. Is there and does it? When transferring files across network (ie NAS to client) heavier network traffic (WAV) needs to be weighed against lighter network traffic (FLAC). Dealing with the different loads is going to entail similar degrees of processing. When dealing with locally stored files then I agree that the FLAC will have a marginally higher processing overhead. Whether or not that's audible or significant is open to debate, and countless amounts of bandwidth have been wasted on such discussions. Whether that processing is of any great significance is also open to debate, and countless ....... you know where I'm going. I give up on wholly subjective evaluation at this point, because personal bias comes very much into play. A/B/X/Y testing is required. I have and use Foobar as a media player. It's not very pretty, and it's a touch clunky to use, but it is an extremely powerful tool to have nonetheless. However, with appropriate driver plugins installed (ASIO & WASAPI) sound quality gets very good indeed - you need to select the relevant option from the output page. Add in the A/B/X/Y plugin, and it becomes incredibly powerful in removing perceptual bias. The object is a simple one - just see if you can match A to A, and B to B, and then match them to X and Y. Add in just two files, one WAV and one FLAC of the same track and see if you can track which is which. The A/B/X/Y plugin does not tell you which is which, but it does tell you how well you're able to track the differences if there are any. I'd suggest using something like EAC in secure ripping mode to rip a track to wav, or even a full album to separate tracks (gives you more to play with) and afterward use FLAC Frontend to post process the resultant WAV files to being FLAC. If anyone can consistantly track which is which it would be most interesting. Screen shots would of course be most welcome as corroborative evidence
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Jun 22, 2015 13:34:53 GMT
Even though I'm very much into vinyl and run two decks, I also run a file based source. If exclusively buying new vinyl then I wouldn't advocate anyone starting out to buy an expensive new deck. Dabble with 2nd had - yes perhaps. For myself I find older vinyl to sound great (mostly) with the real gems in my collection being 50s / 60s jazz, typically in mono. Transcriptions (re-releases usually remastered in some way) to CD / rips just don't have the same sound. Much of what I hear on old vinyl is as much to do with the lack of processing involved, ie simple recording techniques and great live recordings too.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 22, 2015 13:59:38 GMT
I should have made it clear that my thought experiment* involves the decoding and DAC conversion happening in the same device (for instance, in a Raspberry Pi). In other words, pointing a media streamer at a FLAC or WAV file and letting them get on with it. If the FLAC is decoded before sending to the streamer, all bets are off as it's too complex a replay chain to even know what the outcome would be.
As you say, there are too many variables to consider. Personally, I have not heard a difference between playing a FLAC and a WAV of the same music. Then again, I have very few FLAC files.
*except that I have analysed the comparative CPU loading of FLAC versus WAV and the former requires quite a bit more processing. I published the results in the RPi thread some time ago.
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Jun 22, 2015 15:14:03 GMT
As you say, there are too many variables to consider. Personally, I have not heard a difference between playing a FLAC and a WAV of the same music. Then again, I have very few FLAC files. I haven't heard any differences between WAV and FLAC playback either, at least not using my equipment, be it one of the Squeezebox Touch players here or on one of my laptops/EMU 0404 USB/HiFace2/DAC (mix the hardware up in various combinations). The using my equipment bit is very salient - I have heard differences around at a friend's place with his gear, but I didn't set the gear up for him and I didn't check that he'd used appropriate ASIO or WASAPI drivers. I did once change his Spotify playback to the higher quality streams (he used to have a Premium account), and he was pleasantly surprised by the uplift in quality, so I wouldn't be surprised to find that he'd installed drivers and neglected to point the computer to the relevant drivers on specific bits of hardware. Inappropriate drivers and not knowing what to point where and why are the root cause of audiophile myths regarding sound quality in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Jun 22, 2015 15:17:19 GMT
To add to my previous post, the majority of my library is stored as FLAC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 16:05:11 GMT
Interesting that Flac V's Wav always comes up Are there differences between the two that are really audible, again this comes down to the encoding stage and your file transfer ability of your playback device. I personally feel they are subtle differences between the two, however saying one is better than other I would not. Six of one half a dozen of the other. I would suggest that Wav's have a slightly more richer mid band texture while flac seem to exhibit a touch more leading edge and bass clarity. But certainly nothing striking at all. The vast majority of studio's record with the Flac format. Here's an interesting test for Martin. Choose a CD you know well (but one that is virgin to any of your treatments) using Exact copy or similar set for maximum quality copy (bit perfect) store on your music server in a separate new folder. Then treat that same CD with your two methods, perform the same copying technique so again this is bit perfect store in the same new folder. Now both of these copies are bit perfect to the original CD as you cannot change any of the physical data on the CD without damaging it. Let us know what you find even with the PI
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Jun 22, 2015 16:55:47 GMT
Pedant's hat on here.
FLAC isn't a format. It's a lossless compression method. You don't record to FLAC, you record to WAV or AIFF and then apply the compression.
If you use EAC to rip a CD the first task EAC performs is to rip the track/tracks to WAV. Anything after that is post processing. EAC rips to WAV, and the post processing stuff requires the installation of external encoder software (flac.exe for FLAC files, LAME for MP3). As a ripper EAC simply rips CDs to WAV (because it only works on Windows machines, and the Windows 16/44.1 format is WAV).
So stuff produced by studios may well in the main end up being FLAC, but prior to being FLAC the recording is going to be PCM audio.
My apologies if my pendantic ramblings equate to teaching Grandmother to suck eggs, but you'd be surprised at how many folk don't appreciate the processes involved to get a track from a CD ripped into a FLAC, or that it's possible to convert just about any self recorded file into a FLAC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 18:26:45 GMT
Hello Strat
I was merely being to simplest, you are correct all of our DAW's produce Wav's and AIFF if we are producing music for the apple market.
Flac I would say is the most common used finished file derivative for PCM as you know it is merely a compressed Wav file to a certain standard which around 50% of original file size, though Flac has good speed in un-compressing the files for use along with meta data retention.
My example to Martin actually had nothing to do with the way a Flac file sounds compared to a Wav file per say, as EAC or which ever programe will reuce the file to the desired format selected so using the same finished format will be required to make the comparison.
Personally I do not rip any CD's at all, two fold reason one I just have too many to spend the time to do this and I have yet to hear a ripped CD match the same CD in terms of overall quality and be totally convinced.
Now the original red book file downloaded from a reputable site that's a different matter, it is clearly better no question. This is personal experience with lots of high end systems and studio equipment.
I feel is not just a matter bit perfect copying, but the environment the copying is happening after all with optical media ripping you are converting essentially a specific light frequency shone on a rotating disc which is reflected back to a photo diode where the 'bit's' pit or trough readings as being binary 1's and 0's where as PC's use comparator error reading (By taking blocks of data say 100Meg and performing a direct comparison with the black that was sampled before writing) as opposed to the Reed Salomon interleave error correction code which is very robust and in fairness can read up to and around 2mm worth of small damage to the disc and still correct and play.
The electrical noise inside a PC / lap top /mac book etc, is not ideal to say the least. I have copies of files that have been made by many different people on many different machines all using top notch software and having it set on maximum quality and the results vary quite widely.
Again saving directly to SSD or Flash drive with a quality file will pay dividends.
My playback system, is just purely a digital transport, all file acquisition is from a separate PC and placed on 1TB 850 Evo SSD's before being installed. If I wish for playback services or internet radio I use other devices for this, but I will not compromise on quality
My back up files are kept on Lacie 4 TB raid drive arrays which I have one or two
Has anyone compared say a ripped disc with the equivalent download file format at all?
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 22, 2015 19:23:01 GMT
I agree downloading onto SSD or a flash drive seems to pay off I tend to use WAV as most of the media players I used in the past have tended to be WAV only As for the analogue vs digital each to their own, these days I hear differences but as to which sounds better I am complete loss to say which I prefer. I guess I am lucky to be able enjoy both formats I prefer downloads to ripping a disc if I do on a flash drive. I just wish there was more opportunities to download music I like this way
|
|
|
Post by aurender on Jun 22, 2015 20:25:26 GMT
My final word; a 'copy' of anything cannot be 'better' then the original it is physics, not opinion.
Photograph the Mona Lisa for example and photo-shop it and it is not 'better' than the painting. Convert an album to F.L.A.C. and it cannot be better than the record, removing surface noise is a reduction of the original, therefore it is not 'true'.
I don't need to listen to know these claims, it is a matter of simple physics.
That's not to say one cannot 'prefer' some sort of 'reproduction', but it is not 'better'. Sorry, there is an error in your comments nobody is claiming the FLAC copy is "better" than the digital file on the cd. but we are saying that the fast read of a digital file from an SSD is better than the read from an hdd which in turn can sound better than the slow read by a laser from a cd disk in real time. That is simple physics: you just misunderstood what was being compared.
|
|
|
Post by canetoad on Jun 22, 2015 20:59:24 GMT
If you 'remove' something, it is lost!!! Nothing is removed, it's compressed just like a zip file. A FLAC can be totally reconstructed to be bit for bit the same as a WAV. It really is the same. If a FLAC sounds any different it's due the processing in real-time needed to play it. Of course if there is editing on the file that's a different matter. I agree. Makes perfect sense. The reason flac files sound better than CDs in my system as well.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 22, 2015 21:35:21 GMT
Here's an interesting test for Martin. Choose a CD you know well (but one that is virgin to any of your treatments) using Exact copy or similar set for maximum quality copy (bit perfect) store on your music server in a separate new folder. Then treat that same CD with your two methods, perform the same copying technique so again this is bit perfect store in the same new folder. Now both of these copies are bit perfect to the original CD as you cannot change any of the physical data on the CD without damaging it. Let us know what you find even with the PI I will try that the next time I receive a new good sounding CD.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 21:41:58 GMT
Not just me then Canetoad
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Jun 23, 2015 12:28:11 GMT
I'm pleased to announce that I cannot hear any difference playing music from CD in real time and the same album in ripped form via one of my Squeezebox Touch players. Both devices are connected to my DAC, and the track almost synchronised between players. A switch between players (literally a flick of a switch) and any change in sound (maybe there is no change ) is too small for my earholes to detect. In my experience there is no difference in sound quality between playing a CD and playing my ripped FLAC files. Which is why I do not normally bother running a CD player. It's FLAC and streaming for me (apart from when I feel like playing vinyl), because I'm a lazy arse at heart
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 12:45:48 GMT
You can't hear a difference! But why?
|
|