XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Oct 7, 2011 21:53:33 GMT
Actually, flac is used as an after format, mostly for portability conversion reason, after all the real action had been done at the studio level at wav. No doubt intrinsically it can meta tag but do studio RECORD in flac? That's the point. I think we are beginning to see an "analogue vs digital" scenario here eventhough we are talking purely of digital now. "Analogue" as wav has the potential to sound better than flac. I just don't see how flac will survive when the flash memory of the same capacity for portable gadgets become as cheap as HDDs. Perhaps, it will survive as another iteration as flac2 UNCOMPRESS lossless. Just remember we have Dobly AC3 and now bluray Dolby True HD. Same for DTS. Anyway, as had been written above, all things can be resolved as long as money is involved.
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Oct 7, 2011 22:08:49 GMT
That's my point. How do we know that it isn't just an old PowerMac G5 with it's numerous fans whizzing around inside, and some creating beatnotes and vibration too ? Perhaps, you can sell to the studios your audiophile industrial grade computer audio solutions. Some big money there as long as studios are involved.
|
|
|
Post by lark on Oct 7, 2011 23:41:20 GMT
those of us that still use WAV, have paid for the excellent Tag&Rename software to tag all our files, I paid about 25 USD for this about 5 years ago when Musicmatch was sold to Yahoo Tag&Rename added ID3v2 tag to the ID3 wav riff chunk in the summer of 2006, and it works perfectly, even on my Squeezebox server, and many other players, so I don't know why you are misleading people about not being able to tag WAV files www.softpointer.com/tr.htmeven the European radio stations, and BBC Radio use WAV and Tag&Rename, amongst thousands of other professional organisations who also want to keep wav libraries for no other reason than they can ! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wav and Naim use full bitrate WAV files when a CD is ripped to NainNet systems/servers, they don't use FLAC like Linn do I never said it can't be done. I'll quote what I said with some added emphasis: As a side note, I haven't used Tag&Rename, but I use EasyTag which is open source and free - some might find this a viable alternative. I'm glad you've had success using WAV files with embedded meta data, and perhaps support is getting better, but I've not had such luck in the past. The problem is not the embedding of the data, it's the support for playback systems understanding it. But given your more recent experience, perhaps support is not such an issue any more. But that doesn't change the fact that these are still very few rational reasons to avoid flac and to prefer WAV as a lossless audio storage and playback format, and none of these reasons have anything to do with quality.
|
|
|
Post by lark on Oct 7, 2011 23:50:40 GMT
Actually, flac is used as an after format, mostly for portability conversion reason, after all the real action had been done at the studio level at wav. No doubt intrinsically it can meta tag but do studio RECORD in flac? The studios record in what ever format their software wants to use - it is most likely a propriety format in most software (but not all) (to aid with the recording/mixing process). The main reason to avoid flac in the audio recording chain is to avoid the extra overhead (read latency) of compressing and uncompressing the audio data - again this has no influence on the quality of flac for playback systems - the quality of the audio data is 100% exactly the same as WAV. No - there is no potential for WAV to sound better than flac. I expect flac will survive as it is an open codec, not encumbered with patent litigation and licensing fees and is becoming the most popular lossless format. The future for flac looks better every day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2011 0:19:20 GMT
There are numerous references in MANY forums to .flac files that are decoded to .wav files first, sounding better than .flac files that are decoded " on the fly"
|
|
|
Post by lark on Oct 8, 2011 4:14:32 GMT
There are numerous references in MANY forums to .flac files that are decoded to .wav files first, sounding better than .flac files that are decoded " on the fly" With no technical basis what so ever. As I've said before, on any modern hardware, the playback of flac can often provide performance benefits due to less IO required. IO is typically the bottleneck in most systems. But the data is the same - they will never sound different. I just can't understand your basis for argument based on "other people have said the same so it must be true" will never hold water for me. Especially in the face of technical understanding and common sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2011 5:06:43 GMT
O.K. "Mr. Expert", then explain this relatively new compatible CD format from Sony. Sony also supplies comparison CD sets ( I have a couple) which have identical check sums, yet sound different through affordable CD players. One CD of the set is produced using the standard "red" laser production method, and the other using a Blue Laser for the master, as well as a different CD formulation. The format is quite big in Japan, due to the improved sound from the BluSpec version. I suppose you will claim that Sony is lying, and there can't possibly be any differences in sound ? I would love to see someone try to sue them for false claims ! www.cdjapan.co.jp/grapes/-/archives/2008_11_14__blue_spec_cd
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Oct 8, 2011 6:06:46 GMT
Yeah, don't forget HDCD for the 5% manipulation in the LSB and claim that there is no difference in sound too.
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Oct 8, 2011 6:08:31 GMT
Also, the supposedly no difference between SACD CD layer and the std CD.
|
|
|
Post by lark on Oct 8, 2011 13:04:31 GMT
O.K. "Mr. Expert", then explain this relatively new compatible CD format from Sony. Sony also supplies comparison CD sets ( I have a couple) which have identical check sums, yet sound different through affordable CD players. One CD of the set is produced using the standard "red" laser production method, and the other using a Blue Laser for the master, as well as a different CD formulation. The format is quite big in Japan, due to the improved sound from the BluSpec version. I suppose you will claim that Sony is lying, and there can't possibly be any differences in sound ? I would love to see someone try to sue them for false claims ! www.cdjapan.co.jp/grapes/-/archives/2008_11_14__blue_spec_cd Simple - different cd recording methods can create differing artefacts in the recorded media. CD players live half in the digital domain and half in the analogue domain. These recording artefacts can cause variance in read errors, jitter and other digital to analogue artefacts. Read errors can cause a read failure and can require some "guess work" to fill the read error time region. This can manifest itself in many ways. Jitter will effect the timing and has subtle to significant effects on the data, depending of the severity of the jitter. You understand jitter well, so I wont bore you with the details So no, I will not claim that Sony is lying. As we both know, CD players have a digital stage and an analogue stage. The digital stage pretty much ends at the CD. During playback the CD must read the data in time, this is a real world analogue artefact - "real world timing" but does not effect the digital world the same (rips, files copies, etc). But my argument will be that data on CDs is digital, but CD playback (not ripping) is still influenced by the analogue world and has its flaws. BTW - despite your name calling, I would do not consider myself an expert, there is so much I do not know and there are so many experts that know so much more than I. I call these guys experts. But I do know a some things, and I know some things well - but I'm not arrogant enough (yet ) to call myself an expert. So please Alex, can't we just discuss our views without getting all personal and sensitive about it.
|
|
|
Post by lark on Oct 8, 2011 13:09:15 GMT
Yeah, don't forget HDCD for the 5% manipulation in the LSB and claim that there is no difference in sound too. Sorry, explain that to me again.. 5% manipulation in the Lowest Significant Bit.. What does this even mean... The LSB is a single bit, equalling either exactly 1 or 0. in the digital world 5% of that means nothing. To reuse an expression I've used before - that makes as much sense as questioning the marital status of the number 5.
|
|
|
Post by lark on Oct 8, 2011 13:20:02 GMT
Also, the supposedly no difference between SACD CD layer and the std CD. No, there are significant differences between SACD and CD - Higher sampling rate, Higher dynamic range, higher frequency range, and discrete surround. So yes one would expect there is the possibility for improvement between SACD and CD. There is a lot of technical merit for improvement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2011 14:01:39 GMT
Well that is where we differ, because I can STILL hear a difference between both comparison CDs AFTER they have been saved to HDD or USB memory stick, although the difference is not quite so pronounced as when played via SPDIF of the CD player into a good DAC. According to you though, I must be imagining it ? BTW, I also agree with Chong about the difference between the CD layer of a hybrid SACD, and a normal CD. I am not saying that the checksums are the same in this instance, but the CD layer of a hybrid SACD usually sounds markedly better than the same recording on a redbook CD, and often very close in SQ to the SACD section, some even preferring it to the SACD layer. The mastering MAY be derived from the SACD version, but the end result is normally far better than the normal CD version.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2011 14:24:08 GMT
I don't want to crap on this thread so I'm happy to receive PM responses. I've never before heard of Blue Spec CDs so can someone tell me whether they're played on a Blue-Ray player or a standard CD player or something else? TIA, Dave.
|
|
|
Post by lark on Oct 8, 2011 14:40:06 GMT
Well that is where we differ, because I can STILL hear a difference between both comparison CDs AFTER they have been saved to HDD or USB memory stick, although the difference is not quite so pronounced as when played via SPDIF of the CD player into a good DAC. Yes, here we differ. For reasons unexplainable you hear a difference. But you know my position on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2011 18:40:40 GMT
The bell has chimed for certain people yet most don't even seem to know what that bell sound actually is.
* Mastering: Masters may be analog to 192/24 WAV and whatever is inbetween During this mastering process in MOST cases the music is processed (often substantially) with UNKNOW algorithms. Every mastering gear has their OWN propriety mastering process and the guy (tech ?) that operates it has a plethora of 'tricks' to make it sound he (or in some cases others) THINK/FEEL how it should sound. This CANNOT be undone to get the original studio recording master back. Also not by any program used afterwards, regardless how 'good' the program(mer) is. It is simply TOO complex.
CD (redbook): made by taking a master tape be them analog or digital Doesn't matter one tiny bit, perhaps only differs in somewhat in background noise levels. The studio master is *mastered and converted to 16 bit 44.1kHz CDA format (similarities to WAV). This is then encoded and a certain amount of checksums and interleaving (spreading data over the disc within a certain distance, scrambled as it were) and written on master CD (pits of a certain length and width) which the final CD is pressed from (very similar to vinyl) CD-R(W) doesn't have pits but darker spots.
XRCD : Is quite similar and a propriatry JVC encoding process where dither is involved. Dither is a certain noise that is ADDED to the original signal and is 50% of the value of the smallest SAMPLE. With this technique noise is raised a fractional amount but still WAAAAAYYY lower than the noise floor of any studio master tape. XRCD thus has another algorithm to encode to 16/44.1 CDA format. Further handled as redbook CD. JVC claims a better sound (ofcoarse, they would be silly not to)
HDCD: they use the CD format (16/44.1 CDA) BUT HDCD is compressed AND dither (sort of like XRCD uses) is applied but ultimately stored in redbook CD format. Problem is if you want it to sound as intended you need a special HDCD decoder which uncompresses it to the intended form where you get a 20/44.1 format which can be converted to audio again. The compression technique (in a very rough way) can sortof be thought of like dbx or Dolby-S in the old days. Although having the redbook CD format it should NOT be played on a regular CD as the sound now is NOT as it should be. Without the proper HDCD decoding it is somewhat compressed sounding on a normal CD player. It's compressed by a KNOWN algorithm and can be decoded BACK to the original flawlessly. dbx and dolby S were NOT flawless as it was analog compression techniques.
hybrid SACD: can de played ONLY on players that have a dual wavelength lasers. A redbook CD can read a redbook layer and another wavelength laser can read the SACD layer which is a COMPLETELY different format. NOTE that these CD's have undergone DIFFERENT mastering as normal CD's. More 'polished' as it were and is WHY they sound better than the standard CD's when the REDBOOK CD layer is read (NOT talking about the added value? Of the wider bandwidth and larger dynamic range SACD layer)
Blu-spec CD: a Sony propriety thing to compete with JVC's XRCD. They use their own propriaty encoding process and the master-CD (where CD's are pressed from) is made with a shorter wavelength (blue instead of red) laser with which more precise pits can be made. The same laser that is used to make blu-ray disc b.t.w. The theory is the eyepattern that comes from the CD head is less noisy which should translate to less tracking/focussing and timing (jitter) errors. Never had the pleasure of checking this myself if the claim is true. Sony (like JVC) ofcoarse claims it works. Also JVC and Sony all bring out their old CD's again hoping they sell better/more. A marketing thing IMO as the PCM waveform that is described in the CDA file) is the same.
I hope this ends the silly... Oh I know it better than you and 'my ears tell me' crap. I don't know all of the inside shite neither (nor will the sellers disclose their secrets) before certain people are all over me again with 'superior knowledge'.
b.t.w. FLAC is a container like ZIP/RAR/7zip/ e.t.c. dedicated for audio where covers and tags and other info is added. it's like a grocery bag compared to a cardbourd box as it were. You can put more stuff in it yet takes up less space as an oversized cardboard box. The groceries inside and the picture of your mother and your notebook is also in there and was not included in the box. of course there will be those that say that the cauliflower kept in an open cardboard box will taste better than in that scruffy plastic bag, being pressed against all the other stuff inside. unpacking the cardboard box is done somewhat faster than from that smaller sized yet fuller plastic bag.
One thinks it sounds better others claim they don't hear it. a matter of personal opinion obviously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2011 19:09:09 GMT
It's a question of knowing what to listen out for. Both are equally acceptable and in some cases, listeners prefer the original, before treatment.
On first listen, I had quite a time separating the two, which would account for people not hearing any difference. Many don't listen that closely. Once I identified a difference, I described what I thought I was hearing (with the aid of two players feeding two pairs of the same headphone, K701's) It seemed more obvious on the K701 than anything else.
The one I preferred was a fuller version with less sting in the top and just sounded 'rounder'. It's very slight, but once you identify what the changes are, you can pick it out.
I got the 'correct' files and I don't understand it either!! How2ever, it's a question of knowing what you're listening for and once you've detected it, you can't miss it.
That's why Alex gets exasperated, because he knows what he's listening out for.
It doesn't make sense at all and it has completely baffled me but I can understand why many would not hear a difference. It's something that you need to concentrate on to hear.
I'm getting the correct files blind as well because I was unaware of which file was which. However, if Alex sent me one or the other, I would not be able to identify which one it was. I would need to compare directly and then I would get it.
I don't know whether Lark has compared, but when you have both versions and move quickly from one to the other on the same headphone, the differences seem to appear.
Digital should mean 'no difference', however, I heard a difference and got it right 100%
It always makes me laugh when I see 320kps, CD quality. Most people can't hear any difference, but there are differences, so it depends how 'attuned' you are.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by pcourtney1 on Oct 8, 2011 19:49:06 GMT
I'm with Ian on this one, but using AKG K-340 for listening to all my wav file collection, I have no flac, but often have friends come round with new stuff they have ripped to flac, I ask them to bring the CD round as well, because it is fun to listen to the CD, flac and wav on my headphones all at the same time, the Squeezebox feeds the X-Cans and wav wins every time sq wise, I do agree that you have to know precisely what you are looking for, not many people bother to identify the nuances that can be heard between wav and flac, and it does not really matter to me either, because I have always ripped to wav for the last 10 years, and have no inclination to change now that hard drives are so cheap !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2011 21:27:52 GMT
Well that is where we differ, because I can STILL hear a difference between both comparison CDs AFTER they have been saved to HDD or USB memory stick, although the difference is not quite so pronounced as when played via SPDIF of the CD player into a good DAC. Yes, here we differ. For reasons unexplainable you hear a difference. But you know my position on this. Lark I should have added that your explanation was very good up to the point of saving the data. It's surprising just how many people refuse to accept that the analogue processing involved,and even the type of power supply it uses, SMPS or Linear, can result in players sounding different even when used solely as transports. Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2011 21:43:51 GMT
Frans You mean "The SACD section of a Hybrid SACD... Yes, they often do use the same master as the SACD itself, and the results are usually quite obvious. It beggars the question as to why we have to put up with shit when they can clearly do better ? It's not that most original masters. start out at only 16/44.1 these days.
Re BluSpec :
That reply is a little different to your earlier ones on the subject where you seemed to be saying that it was all marketing hype and purely an attempt just to sell more old back catalogue. The simple fact is that the comparison discs do sound different on a typical CD/DVD player,as Sony is trying to demonstrate, although with far more expensive players the differences are much less noticeable.
Re .flac conversion:
.flac is lossless as claimed, however what many of us are saying is that it is the quality of the power supply used that results in .flac that is decoded on the fly not sounding quite as good as .flac that is first converted to .wav then played. Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2011 22:12:43 GMT
There are numerous references in MANY forums to .flac files that are decoded to .wav files first, sounding better than .flac files that are decoded " on the fly" With no technical basis what so ever. As I've said before, on any modern hardware, the playback of flac can often provide performance benefits due to less IO required. IO is typically the bottleneck in most systems. But the data is the same - they will never sound different. I just can't understand your basis for argument based on "other people have said the same so it must be true" will never hold water for me. Especially in the face of technical understanding and common sense. Oooops, I accidently replied. lark I stopped responding to these types of threads because they always go pear shaped.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2011 22:23:38 GMT
With no technical basis what so ever. As I've said before, on any modern hardware, the playback of flac can often provide performance benefits due to less IO required. IO is typically the bottleneck in most systems. But the data is the same - they will never sound different. I just can't understand your basis for argument based on "other people have said the same so it must be true" will never hold water for me. Especially in the face of technical understanding and common sense. Oooops, I accidently replied. lark I stopped responding to these types of threads because they always go pear shaped. Greg I guess that you will no longer be needing that 3.3V PH regulator, as further improving the quality of the PSU, which is already to typical commercial standards,and using 2 stages of voltage regulation, can't possibly make a difference to the digital area of your DAC ? Alex P.S. Was your earlier reply to Lark an accidental reflex action too ? ;D BTW, RG member Allan Pagan now has a B3 working. We may get to hear it next weekend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2011 1:51:31 GMT
Hi Alex,
I am just trying to support lark at little, just so he doesn't think he is Robertson Crusoe.
I don't want to discuss technical details as it is a never ending story and seems to get personal very quickly.
Regards
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Oct 9, 2011 1:59:15 GMT
I have some time to read part of pcourtney1 link to wav at wikipedia before going to meet the bloody boss again this Sunday. !@#%%^%(*)! Here are some highlights that precisley reflect the sentiments of the subjectivists here. So nothing can be simpler than this. Ah, KISS and I kiss you! So all these overall global sentiments are wrong or inaccurate after the world order had tried it? Sorry folks, have to go now to see boss. Signing out! I'll be back when free again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2011 2:31:50 GMT
Hi Alex, I am just trying to support lark at little, just so he doesn't think he is Robertson Crusoe. I don't want to discuss technical details as it is a never ending story and seems to get personal very quickly. Regards Greg One good thing has come out of this thread though, which is the general agreement that CD is not purely a digital medium as many keep claiming in various Forums, and different CD and DVD players can sound different, even when using their digital outputs as just a Transport. Alex
|
|