Stupid human Tricks (big time Rant inside)

[rickcr42]

THE CASE FOR ANALOG by Rickmonster Rex


And why even DSD is not the answer.................IMO though to most it IS and why ?

Closer to analog is why



www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

www.townshendaudio.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=103

64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:rLCS69gN5QsJ:www.tifr.res.in/~aset/full_text/Colloquium-2006.ppt+Ultrasonic+spectra+and+better+sound+quality&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=34&gl=us

www.stereophile.com/features/282/index3.html#

www.mlssa.com/pdf/Upsampling-theory-rev-2.pdf


ccrma.stanford.edu/courses/192a/SSR/Digital%20Audio.pdf

www.promastering.com/pages/techtalk_mac/tt-3_mac.html




The Future is NOW bubba and it AINT the Jetsons shooting around in flying cars :


www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=60843

hificritic.org/downloads/Archive_A10.pdf

www.edn.com/article/CA276213.html

sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

oreilly.com/catalog/mp3/chapter/ch02.html

Gotta LOVE this part folks :

"MPEG Audio Compression in a Nutshell
Uncompressed audio, such as that found on CDs, stores more data than your brain can actually process. For example, if two notes are very similar and very close together, your brain may perceive only one of them. If two sounds are very different but one is much louder than the other, your brain may never perceive the quieter signal. And of course your ears are more sensitive to some frequencies than others. The study of these auditory phenomena is called psychoacoustics, and quite a lot is known about the process; so much so that it can be quite accurately described in tables and charts, and in mathematical models representing human hearing patterns."



AHFKNMAZING !

Now we are even TOO DAMN STUPID to know what is good music if that music has more than one event going on at the same time........like ANY performance not having a single instrument played by a single human...we are toast because being idiots we have no idea what just happened being far too confused by the event that just took place.Even better,if we are so primitive that we can't distinguish the event why then is there a consensus that one lossy compression format sounds TOTALLY different from another ?

taking something AWAY from the performance then rationalizing it with "scientific proof" then with such crap as "well no one can hear that high anyway" or "ultrasonic response is old fshioned technology and has no relationship to how we do things now" and WE BUY IT ?

Taking something away then telling US why it is a GOOD thing ?

And we wonder why there are those willing to take that information to sell you an even larger bill of goods and that are more than happy to sell you music that lives DOWN to those expectations ?


Does not mean digital can not and does not sound good (or FM radio,or MP3s,or Cassetes but NOT eight track tapes ) just that we are analog creatures by nature (at least so far),highly complex analog computers and that digital is a man made and not natural phenomena so digital unlike music created for and by humans is against the natural order (as is digital Tv BTW where the dropouts goe to pixels and a cat killing screech which is fkng aggravating unlike a soft psst and maybe some fuzzies when analog TV goes bonkers...).

Having grown up with both I KNOW there is a difference while those who either knew nothing else having grown up in the "digital age" or never having the means or will to dip the high end audio waters until later in life accept it being THEIR guage of what is normal or good.

the con of "perfection" was swallowed whole and yet those claiming perfection have spent the last three decades trying to "perfect" and all the while those who had been convinced never evaen asked the simple ;

"OK.Let me get this straight.You gave us perfect sound forever yet before the ink was even dry on the ad copy you were working like dogs to "fix" inherent flaws ? and no one noticed ?"

or-

You claim "sounds like analog" as the selling point for the new technologies/new products,and maybe I am a retard so if i am missing the obvious please tell me,but if analog sound is the goal why then not just shoot BACK to analog and put all your massive corporate resources into perfecting THAT instead of trying to EMULATE that which you poo poo at every oppurtunity ? Is it about the MUSIC or is it just more corporate deception so you can actually reduce cost to produce the masters,save on storing the product (just bits man,hard drive stores it) and cut out the middle man/packaging entirely while charging MORE for the end product (and a product I must say very lacking in most examples of as in the quality of music/performance sense other than some jazz and classic) ?"

We too are easily brainwashed when all we get is the same information from damn near every source that puts that information out and when any go against that information it is THEY considered the whackos as it has always been throughout history when any who dare speak out against what they see as wrong were either imprisoned,stoned or made into persons not to be taken seriously they being "off" in the head (kill the reputation of a person and you no longer need to kill the person ; )


Big Con #1-Redbook CD Digital Audio is PERFECT audio

Reality-Not even close bubba ! Cheaper to manufacture yes.easier for an idiot to use properly yes.Better ? Not in my mind and that from direct 1:1 comparisons with equally priced systems from mid level hi-fi to ultra-fi.At the bottom feeder level of equipment,boom boxes and all in one systems and such yes but is that the measure of "high-fidelity audio" we want ?

Big Con #2-Using five itty bitty speakers and a boom & thud box to replace two "loudspeakers as furntiture" full rangers (maybe with a TRUE subwwofer,maybe not)



The older more sinister cons were the "balance controls ruin the sound" and "tone controls even IF they can be eliminated from the signal path ruin the sound" and "it has to LOOK good in order to SOUND good both inside and out" and notice they also have worked on such a level that if this were a boxing match not only would it be a knockout but the winner would still be punching and kicking the loser until there was no sign of life left the referee being in on the whole deal.


We sweat the nuances of resistor and capacitor sound or how pretty the innards of a piece of gear is and never even comtemplate how much damage has already been done to the "natuaral" musical event played by lving breathing flesh and blood humans (mostly though I DO wonder sometimes if that is actually true) all in the name of "well it IS quiter" or "it IS easier to use" or "the POTENTIAL to be better than analog is there" or even "well this is new and that is ancient technology so it MUST be better" as if "old" automatically means "bad.If that were true why has no one yet "Re" invented the wheel ?


I'll tell you why-because they got it right the first time is why !


and yet ?

that is where we are mostly as consumers so yes,the con worked to perfection and is now in phase II or maybe even III of operation and that is ?

Less and less for more and more................


Extreme ?


Yes.

but so is what I see as the future "norm" where because there is no way it is not going to copy protected compressed downloads only (no matter if lossy or not since digital by NATURE is lossy it being a "sample of" and not the whole thing ; ) unless we as consumers AGAIN want to pay a premium price from specialty companies who for a fee will be glad to rape us for what we now get for cheap because bad as I see digital as a norm in general better the CD than the compressed download with that currently overpriced (IMO) CD going to seriously expensive when the major companies decide to make no more as they did when they took away all analog options.you will not be asked,no vote will be taken,no show of hands,just

WHAMMO !

Download it or go without and worse yet when it does happen most will consider it a blessing having already been convinced downloading music is WAY better than actually going somewhere and talking to an actual human to make a purchase or worse,waiting by the mailbox for an order placed online that being the modern way of shopping (the hard drive manufacturers must be loving this BTW)


Ever hear of Pavlov's doggie ?

Well Under the right conditions you actually CAN piss on another persons leg,tell them it is raining and have them beleive it if the current crop of humans who believe damn near everything they are told if the paper wrk seems in order.................even if the person telling them the how and why have their fingers crossed and actually WINK while saying it............



Then there is this which really does have relevence if you think sideways and not traditional "get with the program dickweed" conformity :


"We need a program of psychosurgery and political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated.
"The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective.
"Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electrical stimulation of the brain."

Dr. Jose Delgado (MKULTRA experimenter who demonstrated a radio- controlled bull on CNN in 1985)
Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University Medical School
Congressional Record No. 26, Vol. 118, February 24, 1974




How's THAT for a rant !


Bet you missed the 'ole rickmonster shaking shit up around these here parts right ?


....OK,maybe not......(walks away grinning like an idiot knowing he has again stirred the pot not knowing exactly what the final stew will taste like but enjoying the kitchen time just the same......)


PS-for whatever reason,maybe this has been addressed somewhere in the audio press but if so i have not read of it,I personally have a need to turn and digital recordings UP in order to enjoy the experience while with my analog sources I find even very low levels of volume pleasant to listen too.what the causal mechanism at work here Is I have zero clue (OK i do have an opinion on this but backed up by nothing will keep it to myself ; ) but for me as a listener of music it is very real and consistantly so.Weird or not is my personal experience.

[Deleted]

Rick
As far as I am concerned, both vinyl and CD have limitations.The fact that they both can sound so good with appropiate equipment and mastering is amazing. Perhaps they should have further refined the high speed tape decks and the tape formulations ? Dolby encoding and decoding to the rescue ? Bullshit ! The encoders and decoders were too bloody slow, as the Dolby licensed chipsets had too many limitations, e.g. bandwidth. BUT, how many people could afford to buy big tape decks, particularly as the female of the species doesn't even like the presence of full range speaker systems. No, they had to find a way to miniaturise everything, and in the process reduce the amount of stored information , for it to be domestically acceptable. Then , to make even more money, they had to invent a way to further reduce size and the amount of stored data , so that people could mindlessly wander around with in ear headphones, and in the process cause severe hearing loss to many people not even in their 30s. This disturbing legacy of the MP3/iPod generation has been recently documented, and we are heading for a generation who will need to be spoken to loudly, and further noise pollution to boot as a result of this. As for the inability of the normal human ear to hear frequencies much above 20KHZ, even when younger, well perhaps this is so, BUT, I am convinced that it is the rise time (mainly ) of the waveform that our ears are sensitive to, and this can only be retained by using either much higher sampling rates and audio bandwidth, or analogue playback where the high frequencies are not rolled off so prematurely. Anyway, that is my take on it !

SandyK

[dotnet]

Jun 12, 2008 5:43:53 GMT @sandyk said:

As for the inability of the normal human ear to hear frequencies much above 20KHZ, even when younger, well perhaps this is so, BUT, I am convinced that it is the rise time (mainly ) of the waveform that our ears are sensitive to, and this can only be retained by using either much higher sampling rates and audio bandwidth, or analogue playback where the high frequencies are not rolled off so prematurely. Anyway, that is my take on it !

But fast rise time means presence of high frequency. The more you limit the bandwidth from the top the slower your rise times will get. If the ear can't hear frequencies above a certain limit then those missing frequencies won't contribute to the wave form we "hear". The ear will act as a low-pass filter.

That said, there is every chance that we can *perceive* frequencies other than the ones we can hear outright. Subsonic bass can be perceived with the stomach, for example, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was something that would let us be aware of frequencies higher than 20kHz somehow...

Cheers
Steffen.

[Deleted]

Steffen
As I understand it, it helps to retain the harmonic structure even up to the 8th harmonic.This helps to give the differentation between different types of instruments and the "air" between them. Even with my damaged hearing, I can appreciate 24/96 Master recordings.
I have also found that for best results, it is best to aim for amplification bandwidth way beyond the accepted norm. I have been readily able to tell the difference between increasing the
-3dB input filter of an amplifier, from (say) 80KHZ to past 200KHZ. My friends and myself always aim for wide bandwidth, and use transistors with a high Ft to accomodate this. Surprisingly, the wider the frequency response of a system, the more impact that instruments like drums have. This was posted in a thread sometime back, where I showed the very fast rising waveform of a drum in a particular recording.
Incidentally, the wider the bandwidth of a phono preamp, the less it is affected by transient "clicks and plops" , and they become far less noticeable. This is the approach used by Graham Slee in recent phono preamps also.Reflex uses 2 x AD817AN, which have a unity gain bandwidth of 50MHZ, and 350V/us slew rate !
BTW, bone conduction has been shown to play some part in the awareness of frequencies as high as 100KHZ.
Alex

[rowuk]

Your analog sources get worse with EVERY playing. What goes first? The top end. Tape suffers from bleedthrough after time, fix that distortion! What about the phono cartridge just lopping off the high frequencies in the groove. What about the mechanical noise in analog record decks, what about saturation of the heads in good tape playback equipment?

I am digitising my entire record collection. Just to be safe!

[Deleted]

Robin
Are you able to do it at 24/96 ? A friend of mine is archiving his vinyl that way at present.
A good soundcard is a necessity of course. It's good insurance, particularly when you consider that most of your precious recordings are unlikely to ever be obtainable in the future, let alone, now !
Alex

[rickcr42]

BTW-if "bits are bits are bits" and being "o" or "1" why then do rips using different software rippers not sound identical using the same computer,the same drive and the same playback system ?

Try it and see.download a copy of every free or "try and buy" program and make a comparison and see if i am not on target here

[Deleted]

BTW-if "bits are bits are bits" and being "o" or "1" why then do rips using different software rippers not sound identical using the same computer,the same drive and the same playback system ?

;D

For that matter, why don't so called "lossless" files sound as good as as the original recording when reconverted to .wav files ?

[dotnet]

Jun 17, 2008 2:03:42 GMT rickcr42 said:

BTW-if "bits are bits are bits" and being "o" or "1" why then do rips using different software rippers not sound identical using the same computer,the same drive and the same playback system?

If "ripping" doesn't also include "encoding into a data reduced format", like it is often the case in common usage of the term then all rips of a tracks should be identical, even if done of different machines using different software, provided:

- the CD isn't too damaged and allows for full recovery of all bits
- the ripping software works properly.

You should be able rip a new unscratched CD free from manufacturing faults to a WAV or AIFF file and get a bit-identical result every time. This is certainly the case for me, and if the rips are not identical I know that the CD has unrecoverable errors that even multiple re-reads can't resolve. You get that with badly scratched CDs sometimes (the ones that would click loudly during playback).

Cheers
Steffen.

[dotnet]

Jun 17, 2008 2:24:17 GMT @sandyk said:

For that matter, why don't so called "lossless" files sound as good as as the original recording when reconverted to .wav files ?

They do. A losslessly compressed file decompresses into an WAV file bit-identical to the original, as can be verified using the file MD5 checksum, for example.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Deleted]

Steffen
Sorry, but I do not agree. This has been mentioned in several threads previously too, and also illustrated with a program called Audio Diffmaker. My friends and myself have readily been able to pick the difference between the original .wav file copied to the HDD using EAC,
then burned to a quality CD-R, and the same files from the HDD converted to FLAC, then reconverted to WAV and burned to the same brand of CD-R at the same speed. I have also previously mentioned several times that I have downloaded FLAC files, reconverted them to WAV and burned them to CD, to be disappointed. Subsequently, where I knew it should have sounded better,because of other material I own from the same artist, I have purchased the disc and been happy with the quality.I have also compared tracks from albums that I own, reconverted them to WAV again, and found that the original sounded better. The main differences appear to be at very low level information, especially ambience. This is when using my ClassA preamp and Class A power amplifier, which have higher resolution than most.
I suspect that the latest version of FLAC may be better than the previous versiojn, however, as I have downloaded purchased 24/96 FLAC material, and burned a very high quality DVD-A from the reconverted files.
BTW, I have 2 versions of our normal compilation test disc, one of which was converted from the same HDD files to FLAC, then back again, for comparison purposes.
Alex

SEE ALSO rockgrotto.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=c&action=display&thread=1184&page=1

[dotnet]

Jun 17, 2008 7:08:23 GMT @sandyk said:

Steffen
Sorry, but I do not agree.

Here's a quick encode/decode of a WAV file using flac with all options on default:

$ file Track1.wav
Track1.wav: RIFF (little-endian) data, WAVE audio, Microsoft PCM, 16 bit, stereo 44100 Hz
$ # Encoding:
$ flac Track1.wav -o Track1.flac

flac 1.1.2, Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005  Josh Coalson
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.  This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.  Type `flac' for details.

options: -P 4096 -b 4608 -m -l 8 -q 0 -r 3,3
Track1.wav: wrote 1365246 bytes, ratio=0.569
$ # Decoding
$ flac -d Track1.flac -o Track1-new.wav

flac 1.1.2, Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005  Josh Coalson
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.  This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.  Type `flac' for details.

Track1.flac: done
$ # MD5 check sums
$ md5sum Track1*.wav
4180b54d2df7c4b6f08c04fdd9ca83a1  Track1-new.wav
4180b54d2df7c4b6f08c04fdd9ca83a1  Track1.wav
$ # SHA-1 checksums:
$ sha1sum Track1*.wav
20cc9c792f1e8e5d7c97022924ca0ee58eae825d  Track1-new.wav
20cc9c792f1e8e5d7c97022924ca0ee58eae825d  Track1.wav


As you can see, the original and the endoded/decoded file are completely identical.

If this wasn't so then compression programs like ZIP would be useless.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Deleted]

Steffen
There are many reasons for things sounding different, take for example, your best sounding normal commercial CD, rip it using EAC, then burn it to a Kodak Gold Archival CD. If your equipment has enough resolution, you will find that the CD-R will sound better than the original, with a superior soundstage .Another reason for downloaded FLAC files sounding inferior after the conversion to the commercial pressing, may be as simple as the quality of the original playback machine due to jitter etc. with the original transport ,laser diode etc, and it's PSU.
I agree with Rick on this one, about different playback results using different ripping software. Checksums notwithstanding !
Alex

[dotnet]

Jun 17, 2008 7:40:48 GMT @sandyk said:

Steffen
There are many reasons for things sounding different, take for example, your best sounding normal commercial CD, rip it using EAC, then burn it to a Kodak Gold Archival CD. If your equipment has enough resolution, you will find that the CD-R will sound better than the original, with a superior soundstage .Another reason for downloaded FLAC files sounding inferior after the conversion to the commercial pressing, may be as simple as the quality of the original playback machine due to jitter etc. with the original transport ,laser diode etc, and it's PSU.

I'm completely with you on this. As long as the inherently shaky CD read-out is involved anything can change the end result, from using different CD-R blanks to different transports. This is the main reason I'm avoiding CD players these days. I try to get a decent rip using cdparanoia and play the music from the computer straight into the external DAC henceforth. Audio CDs are only backup media for me.

I agree with Rick on this one, about different playback results using different ripping software. Checksums notwithstanding !

This is were we disagree, I guess. FLAC encoding and subsequent decoding lacks the capacity to change the digital music file. It is a completely deterministic and reversible transformation, nothing magic is happening there. Very much like zipping and unzipping a text file. If there was any room for imprecision or guesswork in there then computers and IT as we know them wouldn't be possible.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Sol]

If SandyK can hear a difference (blind tested) and ratified by others, then FLAC (which has an adjsutable compression alogrithimn) as a solution, is not the full end to end of CD ripping.

Perosnally I'm normally happy with FLAC results, and I consider them way better than anything MP3 (VBR MP3 can come close), but if you add source jitter, playback jitter, etc then the effect on what we eventually hear is there somehwere in the mix. I can hear some very subtle changes between a streamed FLAC file and a streamed WAV file (small enough to not worry about). Reverting a FLAC file back to wav and streaming I have not tried, and then furtehr taking that wav file back onto CD and cmparing initial CD and reverted CD I have not tried. But it seems plausible that each of those stages involved clocks and jitter, and that each uses the same system to rip and enocde as to measure checksums - so subject to same error?

If I were to hazard a guess, some of the high frequency harmonic keys that give spacial awareness is being lost - SandyK refers to reduced sound stage - which is, in my understanding, provided by harmonic information. If EAC FLAC is losing high frequency (possibly out of audible range) info from source to FLAC caused by clocking error - then surely those errors are transcribed to the FLAC file, and given that the checksum of both is being measured by the same system (jitter included), wouldn't that account for changed spacial informaiton and same checksum?

Anyhow .. this argument is a mainstay of audio forums - but if SandyK says he can hear a difference between encoded and reverted files, then frankly I believe him, and I can simply take on faith that while the maths may suggest otherwise, the two files are not exactly the same.

[rickcr42]

Jun 17, 2008 2:24:17 GMT @sandyk said:

BTW-if "bits are bits are bits" and being "o" or "1" why then do rips using different software rippers not sound identical using the same computer,the same drive and the same playback system ?

;D

For that matter, why don't so called "lossless" files sound as good as as the original recording when reconverted to .wav files ?

Don't be a wise guy man.

You KNOW once you lose data from the lossy compression no amount of wishing can replace it there being no mechanism to store what was lost during the coding so means shit as per the question of variations in sound between one ripper and another when all they are doing theoretically is stripping the bits for storage on a hard drive

[rickcr42]

If "ripping" doesn't also include "encoding into a data reduced format", like it is often the case in common usage of the term then all rips of a tracks should be identical, even if done of different machines using different software, provided:

should be but are not,at least that is my experience and to be honest I have no explaination.

Re-coding the data would obviously mean "change" so if it were not different aurally I would be impressed but if the format remains the same as is on the disc and it is just copied 1:1 there should not be any sonic changes the rip being no more than data yet that is not the actuality

[rickcr42]

As you can see, the original and the endoded/decoded file are completely identical.

If this wasn't so then compression programs like ZIP would be useless.

Cheers
Steffen.

if we listened with our eyes that would close my theory down 1005 but again,no matter what the numbers say there IS a real sonic shift between one ripper and another and even sometimes using the SAME ripper but at different times so the numbers say identical,the ears say "nope,not even"

[Deleted]

if we listened with our eyes that would close my theory down 1005 but again,no matter what the numbers say there IS a real sonic shift between one ripper and another and even sometimes using the SAME ripper but at different times so the numbers say identical,the ears say "nope,not even"

Rick
That is the point I was trying to make previously about the so called "lossless" file formats such as FLAC. It has been my experience that CDs made from reconstituted "lossless" files sound inferior to the original CD, even though the numbers may say identical.
I wasn't trying to be a wise guy ! I have posted similar concerns several times previously in Rock Grotto, and even received flack for trying to make the same point in DiyAudio forum threads.
Alex

[charleyphogg]

Jun 17, 2008 14:49:50 GMT Sol said:

If SandyK can hear a difference (blind tested) and ratified by others, then FLAC (which has an adjsutable compression alogrithimn) as a solution, is not the full end to end of CD ripping.

Perosnally I'm normally happy with FLAC results, and I consider them way better than anything MP3 (VBR MP3 can come close), but if you add source jitter, playback jitter, etc then the effect on what we eventually hear is there somehwere in the mix. I can hear some very subtle changes between a streamed FLAC file and a streamed WAV file (small enough to not worry about). Reverting a FLAC file back to wav and streaming I have not tried, and then furtehr taking that wav file back onto CD and cmparing initial CD and reverted CD I have not tried. But it seems plausible that each of those stages involved clocks and jitter, and that each uses the same system to rip and enocde as to measure checksums - so subject to same error?

If I were to hazard a guess, some of the high frequency harmonic keys that give spacial awareness is being lost - SandyK refers to reduced sound stage - which is, in my understanding, provided by harmonic information. If EAC FLAC is losing high frequency (possibly out of audible range) info from source to FLAC caused by clocking error - then surely those errors are transcribed to the FLAC file, and given that the checksum of both is being measured by the same system (jitter included), wouldn't that account for changed spacial informaiton and same checksum?

Anyhow .. this argument is a mainstay of audio forums - but if SandyK says he can hear a difference between encoded and reverted files, then frankly I believe him, and I can simply take on faith that while the maths may suggest otherwise, the two files are not exactly the same.

I thiunk SandyK and Sol have it the nail on the head. If you take a FLAC file, or any other lossless file, and decode it, then recode the very same wav file back to FLAC, the checksum won't match the original.

[Deleted]

BTW, I tried to do another comparison yesterday between the recent FLAC revision converted, and the original, using Audio Diff Maker.
However, the bloody PC crashed ! I have now given up on that method.

SandyK

[dotnet]

Jun 17, 2008 23:56:52 GMT @sandyk said:

BTW, I tried to do another comparison yesterday between the recent FLAC revision converted, and the original, using Audio Diff Maker.
However, the bloody PC crashed ! I have now given up on that method.

Alex, get a Mac! ;D

Cheers
Steffen.

[dotnet]

Jun 17, 2008 23:37:17 GMT @charleyphogg said:

If you take a FLAC file, or any other lossless file, and decode it, then recode the very same wav file back to FLAC, the checksum won't match the original.

It will. Trust me, I've tried. Subsequent to my previous post, using the same files:

$ flac Track1-new.wav -o Track1-new.flac

flac 1.1.2, Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005  Josh Coalson
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.  This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.  Type `flac' for details.

options: -P 4096 -b 4608 -m -l 8 -q 0 -r 3,3
Track1-new.wav: wrote 1365246 bytes, ratio=0.569
$
$ md5sum *.flac
fcb45b43864130dad7be4baf12d1dd65  Track1.flac
fcb45b43864130dad7be4baf12d1dd65  Track1-new.flac

No matter how many times you encode/decode back and forth, the file isn't gonna change.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Deleted]

Steffen
The only Mac I would ever get would be a Big Mac !
BTW, I had a close look at those files I had tried to compare, (latest version of FLAC) in Sound Forge 9, and couldn't spot any differences this time . However, on playback via the modded SC HA, I have absolutely no doubt that the original version sounded better. It was all there in the other, but seemed to lack "soul"
Hard to describe, but the FLAC version was musically less involving. I played both versions several times. Like Rick with his copying programs, I am not sure why this should be so.So far, the latest version of FLAC, does appear to sound closer to the original than the previous version.
Alex

[Sol]

Jun 18, 2008 7:18:45 GMT @sandyk said:

Steffen
The only Mac I would ever get would be a Big Mac !
BTW, I had a close look at those files I had tried to compare, (latest version of FLAC) in Sound Forge 9, and couldn't spot any differences this time . However, on playback via the modded SC HA, I have absolutely no doubt that the original version sounded better. It was all there in the other, but seemed to lack "soul"
Hard to describe, but the FLAC version was musically less involving. I played both versions several times. Like Rick with his copying programs, I am not sure why this should be so.So far, the latest version of FLAC, does appear to sound closer to the original than the previous version.
Alex

The only explanation I can come up with (pure supposition)is that the CD reader in the PC has an amount of jitter. Any checksum of the CD being read by the PC reader would be subject to that jitter. On conversion to flac, the data is transfered, and stored to the HDD, during which the conversion would be subject to that same jitter. Checksums may be teh same (it's the same data) but the jitter may cause some effects which don't show up in the checksum?

In otherwords the poor jitter performance of a PC's CD reader is being transferred into the HDD data file - the checksums measure the same because the data read/encoding and original CD read are subject to the same jitter.

If you then recode back, the jitter is transfered on to the CDR by the PC CD player during recoding, and furtehr jitter introduced during the write process. So when you take your CDR and play it on the PC direct, or on a HiFi CD player, comparing it against the original CD the CDR has been subject to 2 lots of jitter, plus the jitter from the current player, and the original CD is only subject to the current player's jitter.

Jitter is known to cause a loss of "soul" after all - harmonics being affected that gives spacial keys!

Doest that make sense/sound plausible? I hope so, because my head hurts!

Should I get my coat?