|
|
Post by John on Nov 27, 2014 8:21:26 GMT
Another typo
Stan like me prefers WAV
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Nov 27, 2014 8:22:43 GMT
Agree about system processing as a reason why I hear this
|
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Nov 27, 2014 10:24:20 GMT
Agree about system processing as a reason why I hear this I have just ripped a CD to WAV files. I used EAC, and EAC has been set up to rip securely. I then loaded the folder into Foobar and compressed the files to FLAC and into another folder. Both sets of files are untagged - the tracks have filenames, but that is all. I then hooked my laptop up to my external DAC and thence into my headphone amp and compared WAV directly against FLAC. The hookup to the DAC is via a M2Tech HiFace2, and the appropriate drivers have obviously been installed and are working fine. The headphone amp is a Graham Slee Solo II, and the headphones are Sennheiser HD650s. The media player is Foobar2000 with the WASAPI push options selected for the HiFace2. I've flipped between WAV/FLAC for a good number of the songs on the CD, and I cannot hear any difference in sound between the versions. My conclusion has to be that anyone getting differences possibly has issues with drivers or machine processes, or a combination of both. |
|
|
|
Post by stanleyb on Nov 27, 2014 10:31:43 GMT
Whether it is the system processing that causes a difference or not, it can be heard in the bass region. How it comes to be that way is another topic of conversation. But before we can go there, we first have to come to consensus that it can be heard in the first place. The fact that some can hear it and others can't makes me wonder if we can suffer from both high as well as low frequency hearing loss. So far all medical attention has concentrated on high frequency hearing loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanleyb on Nov 27, 2014 10:38:02 GMT
Agree about system processing as a reason why I hear this I have just ripped a CD to WAV files. I used EAC, and EAC has been set up to rip securely. I then loaded the folder into Foobar and compressed the files to FLAC and into another folder. Both sets of files are untagged - the tracks have filenames, but that is all. I then hooked my laptop up to my external DAC and thence into my headphone amp and compared WAV directly against FLAC. The hookup to the DAC is via a M2Tech HiFace2, and the appropriate drivers have obviously been installed and are working fine. The headphone amp is a Graham Slee Solo II, and the headphones are Sennheiser HD650s. The media player is Foobar2000 with the WASAPI push options selected for the HiFace2. I've flipped between WAV/FLAC for a good number of the songs on the CD, and I cannot hear any difference in sound between the versions. My conclusion has to be that anyone getting differences possibly has issues with drivers or machine processes, or a combination of both. I'll PM you at some stage about trying out an alternative listening chain to conduct the same test. The differences are mainly noticeable in the bass region. Church organs are a good example of instruments to get a sense of the difference. So dig up your heavy bass track and give it a go again. |
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Nov 27, 2014 11:55:33 GMT
Big heavy bass track - hmmm, there are a couple of tracks I could pick, so I chose Morph The Cat, by Donald Fagen. The guy playing bass has a low B string on it, so it's down in the pipe organ type low frequency area, and the bass is quite loud in the mix. And just to add to the fun I decided to A/B/X my listening, so this is comparing just one track. I thought I could hear differences, and selected accordingly The result of this test is ... I got 3/10. Which means I was guessing when it landed right. And I cannot hear a difference between the WAV and FLAC version of the song concerned. My imagination of difference was purely my imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Nov 27, 2014 12:05:15 GMT
With regard to my previous post in this thread, I do try to be as objective as possible when testing ideas and theories out.
Ultimately I listen to things on a subjective level, but the blind A/B/X thing really does bring out some home truths.
I have used the same test to listen to MP3 files at 256kbps and 320kbps, and surprisingly enough I managed to score 9/10 - the one that I got wrong I put down to me getting bored with the process and my attention starting to wander, because it was the very last comparison in that test.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Nov 27, 2014 12:47:31 GMT
Once you hear the effect mp3 compression has on music, it's pretty recognisable. Saying that, 320kbps encoding with a good encoder like LAME is very close to CD, sometimes indistinguishable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Nov 27, 2014 14:21:36 GMT
I prefer to use AAC at 320kbps - it sounds more natural to me.
Mind you, there's not all that much difference between AAC at 320kbps and MP3 at 320kbps ....
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Nov 27, 2014 19:19:27 GMT
In my system it has more punch and body and as Stan says is in the bass region. My system goes quite low but also accept it might be something about my set up
|
|
|
|
Post by gazjam on Dec 11, 2014 10:40:49 GMT
try AiFF (Apple lossless) vs WAV vs Flac
AIFF is my prefered format (yup, can hear difference, blind tested, wrung my hands about it...all a long time ago).
use Flac format for my backups, smaller size and easily uncompressed with no loss in quality.
YMMV
|
|
|
|
Post by stanleyb on Jan 21, 2015 17:42:59 GMT
I hear that it going to be a free upgrade.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 21, 2015 18:07:47 GMT
I haven't spotted that in the W10 Insider Program, Stan. Where did you see it?
|
|
|
|
Post by stanleyb on Jan 21, 2015 20:01:41 GMT
They are talking about it in Redmond on the live stream.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 21, 2015 20:04:19 GMT
Ok, thanks. I can see Phone 10 being free, but if they're doing that for all W8.1 users, then it looks like a no-brainer. I'm very impressed with the test station we have running.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanleyb on Jan 21, 2015 20:16:20 GMT
The next test build is out soon, so keep an eye out for it.
The update will be free "for the first year" for W7/8/8.1. I am not sure what is meant "for the first year". I hope it ain't a yearly subscription platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 21, 2015 21:13:03 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised. Microsoft have openly said they want to go down the subscription model like Office 365. Try buying anything from Adobe (spit) outright any more. It's all subscription except the educational Elements versions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 21, 2015 22:33:39 GMT
I saw this on the BBC News site and read it that for users of 7/8/8.1 it would be a free upgrade for 12 months and then after that, a paid upgrade. The emphasis being on trying to coax users to adopt it and also encourage more developers to write apps for the O/S. There are lots of other reports and articles now, none of which give any indication it will be subscription - I don't see that and nothing I have read makes me think that, in fact many pundits are predicting they will most likely continue to provide it as a free upgrade to end users after 12 months.
So I think that's an incorrect interpretation of what has been released by Microsoft, in fact I would stake my no claims bonus on it. Not sure how anyone would read it that way to be honest?
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 22, 2015 6:54:23 GMT
So I think that's an incorrect interpretation of what has been released by Microsoft It was speculation from previous Microsoft announcements, so no real basis in fact.
They clearly do want to go subscription for Office (as in Office 365) so I think that's where the assumptions have come from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 14:46:31 GMT
Interesting discussing here.
I record in Flac in the studio at many times greater than the sampling rates that you guys use, hence the need for some reducing of the physical size of the files, some songs recorded at 32/352.8 and higher can take up to 4GB per song! remember a CD is roughly 750-790Mb!
With regard to Flac and Wav sounding better than one another, we have found that we can detect a difference between the to (bit perfect) however I would suggest it is more of a personal preference thing, in some instances the wav sounds a bit fuller and three dimensional (but only by the smallest margin) and other occasions the flac has more life and vitality on our main listening rig. However it is custom built and does have an extraordinary low noise floor and even the tiniest of details can easily be heard and rendered.
Its nice to see other peoples thoughts on this.
Martin's and Stanley s suggestions on processing OS making a difference are quite valid I feel.
|
|
