I currently have a Sonos System and stream wirelessly tracks from my computer hard disk. I load CD's onto the computer via iTunes and as such copy them using Apple Lossless. From recent reading is there a better way ie can I load them onto the computer in an uncompressed format. If so, will this benefit and also how do I do it!?! Thank you.
APPLE LOSSLESS vs UNCOMPRESSED
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
there are two types of uncompressed files - wav for a pc and aiff for a mac.
the apple lossless or alac is a lossless compressed file.
in theory, a lossless compressed file shuld sound the same as an uncompressed file. it's just a question of file size and hard disk space.
the apple lossless or alac is a lossless compressed file.
in theory, a lossless compressed file shuld sound the same as an uncompressed file. it's just a question of file size and hard disk space.
Ok. Thanks for that. So am I ok just continuing to copy CD's as Apple Lossless or should I revert to a WAV file?
matengawhat
Well-known member
- Aug 17, 2007
- 698
- 16
- 18,895
but when ppl talk about the best possible audio quality and computer based audio sounding better than CDs due to discs being corrected and not read at time of playing etc would Apple Lossless be that format or would you have to leave it as uncompressed FLAC files or something????
Gerrardasnails
Well-known member
- Sep 6, 2007
- 295
- 1
- 18,890
the_lhc:Just carry on as you are, you won't hear any difference.
I used to think this but after speaking with an expert at WHF towers a few weeks ago, I would not be so sure. I was told that wav sent to a dac is clearly better than FLAC sent to a dac.
I used to think this but after speaking with an expert at WHF towers a few weeks ago, I would not be so sure. I was told that wav sent to a dac is clearly better than FLAC sent to a dac.
professorhat
Well-known member
- Dec 28, 2007
- 992
- 22
- 18,895
matengawhat:but when ppl talk about the best possible audio quality and computer based audio sounding better than CDs due to discs being corrected and not read at time of playing etc would Apple Lossless be that format or would you have to leave it as uncompressed FLAC files or something????
That's normally a reference to the difference in transports i.e. using a hard disk drive rather than a CD player, which should result in fewer errors being transmitted from the hard disk. (*EDIT - I should point out, this is the theory. I'm not saying personally that a computer based system will always sound better than a CD system or even vice versa.*)
There was a Big Question feature a few issues back indicating people can hear a difference between different types of audio formats, lossless or uncompressed etc., but as I remember it wasn't necessarily that everyone thought the uncompressed versions were better, just different. Personally, I use Apple Lossless due to the space savings over WAV / AIFF .
That's normally a reference to the difference in transports i.e. using a hard disk drive rather than a CD player, which should result in fewer errors being transmitted from the hard disk. (*EDIT - I should point out, this is the theory. I'm not saying personally that a computer based system will always sound better than a CD system or even vice versa.*)
There was a Big Question feature a few issues back indicating people can hear a difference between different types of audio formats, lossless or uncompressed etc., but as I remember it wasn't necessarily that everyone thought the uncompressed versions were better, just different. Personally, I use Apple Lossless due to the space savings over WAV / AIFF .
Gerrardasnails:the_lhc:Just carry on as you are, you won't hear any difference.
I used to think this but after speaking with an expert at WHF towers a few weeks ago, I would not be so sure. I was told that wav sent to a dac is clearly better than FLAC sent to a dac.
Can you name this expert so we can get them to come on here and explain their reasoning?
I used to think this but after speaking with an expert at WHF towers a few weeks ago, I would not be so sure. I was told that wav sent to a dac is clearly better than FLAC sent to a dac.
Can you name this expert so we can get them to come on here and explain their reasoning?
Gerrardasnails
Well-known member
- Sep 6, 2007
- 295
- 1
- 18,890
the_lhc:
Gerrardasnails:the_lhc:Just carry on as you are, you won't hear any difference.
I used to think this but after speaking with an expert at WHF towers a few weeks ago, I would not be so sure. I was told that wav sent to a dac is clearly better than FLAC sent to a dac.
Can you name this expert so we can get them to come on here and explain their reasoning?
Ketan. He's not a regular forum visitor. The best thing to do is try it yourself, if you can't discern a difference then it's not an issue. I will try it one day when my source can handle wav.
Gerrardasnails:the_lhc:Just carry on as you are, you won't hear any difference.
I used to think this but after speaking with an expert at WHF towers a few weeks ago, I would not be so sure. I was told that wav sent to a dac is clearly better than FLAC sent to a dac.
Can you name this expert so we can get them to come on here and explain their reasoning?
Ketan. He's not a regular forum visitor. The best thing to do is try it yourself, if you can't discern a difference then it's not an issue. I will try it one day when my source can handle wav.
matengawhat
Well-known member
- Aug 17, 2007
- 698
- 16
- 18,895
reason for asking is i'm currently redoing my whole collection and I went with Apple Lossless as don't want to ever have to do it again as it's very time consuming - only about 70 albums in out of the 1000 or so I have so if it can be done better would prefer to do it now than when I am coming to the end of the 1000s - forgot the most ppl can't tell the difference scenario but what is the absolute best quality that can be achieved to rip audio to that can easily accessed even if that means ripping to one format then copying the whole lot to lossless if thats the best the ipod can handle for example
Gerrardasnails:the_lhc:Gerrardasnails:the_lhc:Just carry on as you are, you won't hear any difference.
I used to think this but after speaking with an expert at WHF towers a few weeks ago, I would not be so sure. I was told that wav sent to a dac is clearly better than FLAC sent to a dac.
Can you name this expert so we can get them to come on here and explain their reasoning?
Ketan. He's not a regular forum visitor.
I've heard the name. What's his background (ie, why do you consider him to be an expert on the matter)?
The best thing to do is try it yourself, if you can't discern a difference then it's not an issue. I will try it one day when my source can handle wav.
The thing that bothers me about this is that if you rip a WAV file from CD, convert it to FLAC or ALAC and then back to WAV, it'll be exactly the same as the WAV file you started with, as will a FLAC file that you rip direct from the CD, so I just don't see how it can sound any different. I might try it, as an experiment, I'll rip a familiar track as WAV, set that and the equivalent FLAC file in a queue on Sonos and flick between the two, see if I can hear any difference.
I used to think this but after speaking with an expert at WHF towers a few weeks ago, I would not be so sure. I was told that wav sent to a dac is clearly better than FLAC sent to a dac.
Can you name this expert so we can get them to come on here and explain their reasoning?
Ketan. He's not a regular forum visitor.
I've heard the name. What's his background (ie, why do you consider him to be an expert on the matter)?
The best thing to do is try it yourself, if you can't discern a difference then it's not an issue. I will try it one day when my source can handle wav.
The thing that bothers me about this is that if you rip a WAV file from CD, convert it to FLAC or ALAC and then back to WAV, it'll be exactly the same as the WAV file you started with, as will a FLAC file that you rip direct from the CD, so I just don't see how it can sound any different. I might try it, as an experiment, I'll rip a familiar track as WAV, set that and the equivalent FLAC file in a queue on Sonos and flick between the two, see if I can hear any difference.
matengawhat:reason for asking is i'm currently redoing my whole collection and I went with Apple Lossless as don't want to ever have to do it again as it's very time consuming - only about 70 albums in out of the 1000 or so I have so if it can be done better would prefer to do it now than when I am coming to the end of the 1000s - forgot the most ppl can't tell the difference scenario but what is the absolute best quality that can be achieved to rip audio to that can easily accessed even if that means ripping to one format then copying the whole lot to lossless if thats the best the ipod can handle for example
I think you'd be better off trying a couple of tracks for yourself and decide which YOU think is better. As far as I'm concerned there is no technical difference between lossless and WAV, other than that WAV doesn't support tagging, which might or might not be an issue for you.
I think you'd be better off trying a couple of tracks for yourself and decide which YOU think is better. As far as I'm concerned there is no technical difference between lossless and WAV, other than that WAV doesn't support tagging, which might or might not be an issue for you.
Gerrardasnails
Well-known member
- Sep 6, 2007
- 295
- 1
- 18,890
the_lhc:
Gerrardasnails:the_lhc:Gerrardasnails:the_lhc:Just carry on as you are, you won't hear any difference.
I used to think this but after speaking with an expert at WHF towers a few weeks ago, I would not be so sure. I was told that wav sent to a dac is clearly better than FLAC sent to a dac.
Can you name this expert so we can get them to come on here and explain their reasoning?
Ketan. He's not a regular forum visitor.
I've heard the name. What's his background (ie, why do you consider him to be an expert on the matter)?
The best thing to do is try it yourself, if you can't discern a difference then it's not an issue. I will try it one day when my source can handle wav.
The thing that bothers me about this is that if you rip a WAV file from CD, convert it to FLAC or ALAC and then back to WAV, it'll be exactly the same as the WAV file you started with, as will a FLAC file that you rip direct from the CD, so I just don't see how it can sound any different. I might try it, as an experiment, I'll rip a familiar track as WAV, set that and the equivalent FLAC file in a queue on Sonos and flick between the two, see if I can hear any difference.
I don't know his exact title but he's well regarded by the people that run the magazine that we buy!
Gerrardasnails:the_lhc:Gerrardasnails:the_lhc:Just carry on as you are, you won't hear any difference.
I used to think this but after speaking with an expert at WHF towers a few weeks ago, I would not be so sure. I was told that wav sent to a dac is clearly better than FLAC sent to a dac.
Can you name this expert so we can get them to come on here and explain their reasoning?
Ketan. He's not a regular forum visitor.
I've heard the name. What's his background (ie, why do you consider him to be an expert on the matter)?
The best thing to do is try it yourself, if you can't discern a difference then it's not an issue. I will try it one day when my source can handle wav.
The thing that bothers me about this is that if you rip a WAV file from CD, convert it to FLAC or ALAC and then back to WAV, it'll be exactly the same as the WAV file you started with, as will a FLAC file that you rip direct from the CD, so I just don't see how it can sound any different. I might try it, as an experiment, I'll rip a familiar track as WAV, set that and the equivalent FLAC file in a queue on Sonos and flick between the two, see if I can hear any difference.
I don't know his exact title but he's well regarded by the people that run the magazine that we buy!
professorhat
Well-known member
- Dec 28, 2007
- 992
- 22
- 18,895
Gerrardasnails:I don't know his exact title but he's well regarded by the people that run the magazine that we buy!
I believe he's the Technical Editor.
matengawhat:reason for asking is i'm currently redoing my whole collection and I went with Apple Lossless as don't want to ever have to do it again as it's very time consuming - only about 70 albums in out of the 1000 or so I have so if it can be done better would prefer to do it now than when I am coming to the end of the 1000s - forgot the most ppl can't tell the difference scenario but what is the absolute best quality that can be achieved to rip audio to that can easily accessed even if that means ripping to one format then copying the whole lot to lossless if thats the best the ipod can handle for example
Yup, would recommend ripping a track to both AIFF and Lossless and doing a comparison yourself to see which you prefer (if either). Of course, as the_lhc has already indicated, since you're ripping into Apple Lossless, this is a lossless format and there's nothing to stop you from changing it to any other format in the future using a converter (unlike ripping with a lossy format like MP3 or AAC) so you don't need to worry about having to re-rip anything in this format.
I believe he's the Technical Editor.
matengawhat:reason for asking is i'm currently redoing my whole collection and I went with Apple Lossless as don't want to ever have to do it again as it's very time consuming - only about 70 albums in out of the 1000 or so I have so if it can be done better would prefer to do it now than when I am coming to the end of the 1000s - forgot the most ppl can't tell the difference scenario but what is the absolute best quality that can be achieved to rip audio to that can easily accessed even if that means ripping to one format then copying the whole lot to lossless if thats the best the ipod can handle for example
Yup, would recommend ripping a track to both AIFF and Lossless and doing a comparison yourself to see which you prefer (if either). Of course, as the_lhc has already indicated, since you're ripping into Apple Lossless, this is a lossless format and there's nothing to stop you from changing it to any other format in the future using a converter (unlike ripping with a lossy format like MP3 or AAC) so you don't need to worry about having to re-rip anything in this format.
As i often try to point out, WHF tests are different to the tests an average joe like me would do at home. Therefore, i would take the word "clearly" (as in a wav sounding different to a flac/alac - sorry forgotten which) with a grain of salt, even tho such a thing is worth taking seriously from a WHF bod.
al7478:As i often try to point out, WHF tests are different to the tests an average joe like me would do at home.
What, sit down, listen to the music and see if you like it or not?
Therefore, i would take the word "clearly" (as in a wav sounding different to a flac/alac - sorry forgotten which) with a grain of salt, even tho such a thing is worth taking seriously from a WHF bod.
I'm more interested in hearing what the technical reasons for WAV being better than lossless are, if someone can explain that, in technical terms to my satisfaction I might pay more attention to the idea but I've not heard or read anything to that effect yet.
What, sit down, listen to the music and see if you like it or not?
Therefore, i would take the word "clearly" (as in a wav sounding different to a flac/alac - sorry forgotten which) with a grain of salt, even tho such a thing is worth taking seriously from a WHF bod.
I'm more interested in hearing what the technical reasons for WAV being better than lossless are, if someone can explain that, in technical terms to my satisfaction I might pay more attention to the idea but I've not heard or read anything to that effect yet.
the_lhc:
al7478:As i often try to point out, WHF tests are different to the tests an average joe like me would do at home.
What, sit down, listen to the music and see if you like it or not?
Please don't be silly.
They have dedicated test rooms and better kit. And they presumably dont have to worry about annoying the neighbours. And they have a whole huge range of kit.
All i can establish on my own is if i can hear a difference with my kit in my listening environment. And i only need to satisfy myself, and my prejudices may well come into it. so i may not exactly comstruct the best test.
al7478:As i often try to point out, WHF tests are different to the tests an average joe like me would do at home.
What, sit down, listen to the music and see if you like it or not?
Please don't be silly.
They have dedicated test rooms and better kit. And they presumably dont have to worry about annoying the neighbours. And they have a whole huge range of kit.
All i can establish on my own is if i can hear a difference with my kit in my listening environment. And i only need to satisfy myself, and my prejudices may well come into it. so i may not exactly comstruct the best test.
To the_lhc and other sceptics here - yes we all agree 'lossless is lossless' and that there are 'bit-perfect' rips, however the transport is also more important than anyone thinks.
If you go over to the Linn DS forums there is a current thread of WAV vs Lossless (or FLAC specifically in this case) and quite a few people are hearing differences between the two - and a few with really high-end non-Linn equipment - I would hesitate to call these people fools. Also remember that if you followed the Linn DS forums like I have for over a year your Linn DS owners were 'bit perfect' zealots - 'lossless and uncompressed will sound the same no matter what' was their mantra - and in this specific thread no Linn engineer, who respond frequently on the forums, has disputed that maybe they do sound different.
Put another way - some think that on the PC some media players sound better than others - so the perfect rip is only one link in the chain, which brings me to another point:
The importance of error-correction in good CD players is overstated within the context of the argument that because 'more error correction' occurs by default CD playback will be inferior, well ultimately that may be, but that hasn't prevented excellent players from appearing - take your NAD 565BEE lovers on the forums here.
It seems purely digital playback has its own issues as well.
If you go over to the Linn DS forums there is a current thread of WAV vs Lossless (or FLAC specifically in this case) and quite a few people are hearing differences between the two - and a few with really high-end non-Linn equipment - I would hesitate to call these people fools. Also remember that if you followed the Linn DS forums like I have for over a year your Linn DS owners were 'bit perfect' zealots - 'lossless and uncompressed will sound the same no matter what' was their mantra - and in this specific thread no Linn engineer, who respond frequently on the forums, has disputed that maybe they do sound different.
Put another way - some think that on the PC some media players sound better than others - so the perfect rip is only one link in the chain, which brings me to another point:
The importance of error-correction in good CD players is overstated within the context of the argument that because 'more error correction' occurs by default CD playback will be inferior, well ultimately that may be, but that hasn't prevented excellent players from appearing - take your NAD 565BEE lovers on the forums here.
It seems purely digital playback has its own issues as well.
al7478:the_lhc:al7478:As i often try to point out, WHF tests are different to the tests an average joe like me would do at home.
What, sit down, listen to the music and see if you like it or not?
Please don't be silly.
I'm not! I'm being absolutely, utterly serious.
They have dedicated test rooms and better kit. And they presumably dont have to worry about annoying the neighbours. And they have a whole huge range of kit.
So what? the folks at WHF have repeatedly stated they don't publish the sort of technical test information that a number of other magazines produce, because the readers simply aren't interested in it, so one would presume they aren't carrying out those tests (because it would be a monumental waste of time to do the tests and then not bother refering to them...), so, what are they doing? They're sitting down, and listening to the music, to determine if there's any difference.
All i can establish on my own is if i can hear a difference with my kit in my listening environment. And i only need to satisfy myself, and my prejudices may well come into it. so i may not exactly comstruct the best test.
That's pretty much all anyone can do. have you heard a difference?
What, sit down, listen to the music and see if you like it or not?
Please don't be silly.
I'm not! I'm being absolutely, utterly serious.
They have dedicated test rooms and better kit. And they presumably dont have to worry about annoying the neighbours. And they have a whole huge range of kit.
So what? the folks at WHF have repeatedly stated they don't publish the sort of technical test information that a number of other magazines produce, because the readers simply aren't interested in it, so one would presume they aren't carrying out those tests (because it would be a monumental waste of time to do the tests and then not bother refering to them...), so, what are they doing? They're sitting down, and listening to the music, to determine if there's any difference.
All i can establish on my own is if i can hear a difference with my kit in my listening environment. And i only need to satisfy myself, and my prejudices may well come into it. so i may not exactly comstruct the best test.
That's pretty much all anyone can do. have you heard a difference?
manicm:To the_lhc and other sceptics here - yes we all agree 'lossless is lossless' and that there are 'bit-perfect' rips, however the transport is also more important than anyone thinks.
If you go over to the Linn DS forums there is a current thread of WAV vs Lossless (or FLAC specifically in this case) and quite a few people are hearing differences between the two - and a few with really high-end non-Linn equipment - I would hesitate to call these people fools. Also remember that if you followed the Linn DS forums like I have for over a year your Linn DS owners were 'bit perfect' zealots - 'lossless and uncompressed will sound the same no matter what' was their mantra - and in this specific thread no Linn engineer, who respond frequently on the forums, has disputed that maybe they do sound different.
Sorry, can you say that again, the last sentence is not clear? Is that no Linn engineer has taken part in the discussion, or that they have and haven't disputed there's a difference or that they've disputed there's any difference?
Put another way - some think that on the PC some media players sound better than others - so the perfect rip is only one link in the chain, which brings me to another point:
Well, hang on, you just said these are people using high-end Linn and non-Linn equipment, now you're saying they're playing from the PC. I've said it before and I'll say it again now, anyone who uses a PC to play music directly into an amp is wasting their time, you cannot guarantee that the OS won't interfere with the sound, I've heard this myself, the same files on my PC sound different played back by dbPowerAmp and Media Monkey, that's why I took the PC out of the equation and got Sonos, that does the playing, the PC then has no influence on the sound (beyond the initial rip).
The importance of error-correction in good CD players is overstated within the context of the argument that because 'more error correction' occurs by default CD playback will be inferior, well ultimately that may be, but that hasn't prevented excellent players from appearing - take your NAD 565BEE lovers on the forums here.
I'm not really sure what your argument is here, it has no bearing on whether uncompressed and lossless files sound the same or not.
It seems purely digital playback has its own issues as well.
Yes it does, like anything, and I'm still waiting for a decent technical explanation as to why lossless would sound different to uncompressed files.
If you go over to the Linn DS forums there is a current thread of WAV vs Lossless (or FLAC specifically in this case) and quite a few people are hearing differences between the two - and a few with really high-end non-Linn equipment - I would hesitate to call these people fools. Also remember that if you followed the Linn DS forums like I have for over a year your Linn DS owners were 'bit perfect' zealots - 'lossless and uncompressed will sound the same no matter what' was their mantra - and in this specific thread no Linn engineer, who respond frequently on the forums, has disputed that maybe they do sound different.
Sorry, can you say that again, the last sentence is not clear? Is that no Linn engineer has taken part in the discussion, or that they have and haven't disputed there's a difference or that they've disputed there's any difference?
Put another way - some think that on the PC some media players sound better than others - so the perfect rip is only one link in the chain, which brings me to another point:
Well, hang on, you just said these are people using high-end Linn and non-Linn equipment, now you're saying they're playing from the PC. I've said it before and I'll say it again now, anyone who uses a PC to play music directly into an amp is wasting their time, you cannot guarantee that the OS won't interfere with the sound, I've heard this myself, the same files on my PC sound different played back by dbPowerAmp and Media Monkey, that's why I took the PC out of the equation and got Sonos, that does the playing, the PC then has no influence on the sound (beyond the initial rip).
The importance of error-correction in good CD players is overstated within the context of the argument that because 'more error correction' occurs by default CD playback will be inferior, well ultimately that may be, but that hasn't prevented excellent players from appearing - take your NAD 565BEE lovers on the forums here.
I'm not really sure what your argument is here, it has no bearing on whether uncompressed and lossless files sound the same or not.
It seems purely digital playback has its own issues as well.
Yes it does, like anything, and I'm still waiting for a decent technical explanation as to why lossless would sound different to uncompressed files.
idc, this all started because of my point that i would take with a pinch of salt teh assertion that they sound "clearly" different; you seem to be making something out of something that isnt there. This, to me, implies that i would hear a difference, if it is that clear. However, because WHF will try harder than me for the sake of the readers, adn use good kit turned up loud in deicated rooms, it may be clear to them, but not to me in my environment. And, therefore, not at all clear by my definition of the word. i understand that satisfying myself is all that is required, and ive said as much myself. But here you have someone (aparently; he isnrt here to defend himself) who has made this assertion. I said recently that there can be a lot of exaggeration in this game, and that i too have been guilty of it.
Speaking of which: your wasting your time playing your files straight from a pc? Is that not going just a tad far? Sound ok to me. I accept maybe it could sound better, but to say i am wasting my time really is being silly. No. stop giggling. You know it is.
EDIT but i too hear differences in media players and am glad im not the only one
Speaking of which: your wasting your time playing your files straight from a pc? Is that not going just a tad far? Sound ok to me. I accept maybe it could sound better, but to say i am wasting my time really is being silly. No. stop giggling. You know it is.
EDIT but i too hear differences in media players and am glad im not the only one
al7478:adn use good kit turned up loud in deicated rooms
Not the case, I'm afraid - sometimes when listening in our main hi-fi room, I swear I can hear my watch ticking...
Not the case, I'm afraid - sometimes when listening in our main hi-fi room, I swear I can hear my watch ticking...
the_lhc:manicm:To the_lhc and other sceptics here - yes we all agree 'lossless is lossless' and that there are 'bit-perfect' rips, however the transport is also more important than anyone thinks.
If you go over to the Linn DS forums there is a current thread of WAV vs Lossless (or FLAC specifically in this case) and quite a few people are hearing differences between the two - and a few with really high-end non-Linn equipment - I would hesitate to call these people fools. Also remember that if you followed the Linn DS forums like I have for over a year your Linn DS owners were 'bit perfect' zealots - 'lossless and uncompressed will sound the same no matter what' was their mantra - and in this specific thread no Linn engineer, who respond frequently on the forums, has disputed that maybe they do sound different.
I answer your questions in bold italic:
Sorry, can you say that again, the last sentence is not clear? Is that no Linn engineer has taken part in the discussion, or that they have and haven't disputed there's a difference or that they've disputed there's any difference?
If you follow any thread on the Linn forums Linn DS engineers promptly reply when giving or correcting information - and so far not one has responded on this thread - if they felt so strongly they would have responded - on older topics they, perhaps correctly, were adamant about 'bit perfect' rips.
Put another way - some think that on the PC some media players sound better than others - so the perfect rip is only one link in the chain, which brings me to another point:
Well, hang on, you just said these are people using high-end Linn and non-Linn equipment, now you're saying they're playing from the PC. I've said it before and I'll say it again now, anyone who uses a PC to play music directly into an amp is wasting their time, you cannot guarantee that the OS won't interfere with the sound, I've heard this myself, the same files on my PC sound different played back by dbPowerAmp and Media Monkey, that's why I took the PC out of the equation and got Sonos, that does the playing, the PC then has no influence on the sound (beyond the initial rip).
No, you got my point wrong here - the OP of the thread is Linn DS owner NOT using a PC but a NAS and thought WAV sounded better than FLAC on his DS.
My point was that the DS plays the role of 'transport' as well - and in the PC the media player (WMA, iTunes etc) is the transport - and this could possibly influence the sound, just as a pure transport for CDs could. So we agree here somewhat.
The importance of error-correction in good CD players is overstated within the context of the argument that because 'more error correction' occurs by default CD playback will be inferior, well ultimately that may be, but that hasn't prevented excellent players from appearing - take your NAD 565BEE lovers on the forums here.
I'm not really sure what your argument is here, it has no bearing on whether uncompressed and lossless files sound the same or not.
My point here is that as an integrated player the 565's combination of transport and DAC is obviously good, and that if error correction was such an issue in CD players then it would simply sound mediocre or worse - I just used the 565 as an example as it seems to be a popular CDP amongst WHF readers/posters.
It seems purely digital playback has its own issues as well.
Yes it does, like anything, and I'm still waiting for a decent technical explanation as to why lossless would sound different to uncompressed files.
I've answered in bold italic above, and to answer your very last question:
My whole point is that 'lossless' or 'bit perfect' may be a moot point because obviously the transport is a factor too, which may bring up sonic differences, perceived or otherwise, between lossless and uncompressed formats, or formats in general.
If you go over to the Linn DS forums there is a current thread of WAV vs Lossless (or FLAC specifically in this case) and quite a few people are hearing differences between the two - and a few with really high-end non-Linn equipment - I would hesitate to call these people fools. Also remember that if you followed the Linn DS forums like I have for over a year your Linn DS owners were 'bit perfect' zealots - 'lossless and uncompressed will sound the same no matter what' was their mantra - and in this specific thread no Linn engineer, who respond frequently on the forums, has disputed that maybe they do sound different.
I answer your questions in bold italic:
Sorry, can you say that again, the last sentence is not clear? Is that no Linn engineer has taken part in the discussion, or that they have and haven't disputed there's a difference or that they've disputed there's any difference?
If you follow any thread on the Linn forums Linn DS engineers promptly reply when giving or correcting information - and so far not one has responded on this thread - if they felt so strongly they would have responded - on older topics they, perhaps correctly, were adamant about 'bit perfect' rips.
Put another way - some think that on the PC some media players sound better than others - so the perfect rip is only one link in the chain, which brings me to another point:
Well, hang on, you just said these are people using high-end Linn and non-Linn equipment, now you're saying they're playing from the PC. I've said it before and I'll say it again now, anyone who uses a PC to play music directly into an amp is wasting their time, you cannot guarantee that the OS won't interfere with the sound, I've heard this myself, the same files on my PC sound different played back by dbPowerAmp and Media Monkey, that's why I took the PC out of the equation and got Sonos, that does the playing, the PC then has no influence on the sound (beyond the initial rip).
No, you got my point wrong here - the OP of the thread is Linn DS owner NOT using a PC but a NAS and thought WAV sounded better than FLAC on his DS.
My point was that the DS plays the role of 'transport' as well - and in the PC the media player (WMA, iTunes etc) is the transport - and this could possibly influence the sound, just as a pure transport for CDs could. So we agree here somewhat.
The importance of error-correction in good CD players is overstated within the context of the argument that because 'more error correction' occurs by default CD playback will be inferior, well ultimately that may be, but that hasn't prevented excellent players from appearing - take your NAD 565BEE lovers on the forums here.
I'm not really sure what your argument is here, it has no bearing on whether uncompressed and lossless files sound the same or not.
My point here is that as an integrated player the 565's combination of transport and DAC is obviously good, and that if error correction was such an issue in CD players then it would simply sound mediocre or worse - I just used the 565 as an example as it seems to be a popular CDP amongst WHF readers/posters.
It seems purely digital playback has its own issues as well.
Yes it does, like anything, and I'm still waiting for a decent technical explanation as to why lossless would sound different to uncompressed files.
I've answered in bold italic above, and to answer your very last question:
My whole point is that 'lossless' or 'bit perfect' may be a moot point because obviously the transport is a factor too, which may bring up sonic differences, perceived or otherwise, between lossless and uncompressed formats, or formats in general.
al7478: idc,
No, that's somebody else...
this all started because of my point that i would take with a pinch of salt teh assertion that they sound "clearly" different; you seem to be making something out of something that isnt there. This, to me, implies that i would hear a difference, if it is that clear.
We're on the same side then, I'm not convinced at all that you'll hear any difference, because I don't think there is a difference.
However, because WHF will try harder than me for the sake of the readers, adn use good kit turned up loud in deicated rooms, it may be clear to them, but not to me in my environment. And, therefore, not at all clear by my definition of the word. i understand that satisfying myself is all that is required, and ive said as much myself.
And I agree with all that, that's my point, I don't think many people will hear any difference and I've yet to come across anyone who can give me a technical reason why WAV would sound better than FLAC.
But here you have someone (aparently; he isnrt here to defend himself) who has made this assertion.
Are we talking about Ketan now? It wouldn't take long for him to give the explanation he gave to Gerrardasnails, that's all I'm asking for.
Speaking of which: your wasting your time playing your files straight from a pc? Is that not going just a tad far? Sound ok to me. I accept maybe it could sound better, but to say i am wasting my time really is being silly. No. stop giggling. You know it is.
Again, I'm completely serious, I just don't trust the PC not to do anything stupid with the output and the number of people who have shown just on this forum that it's VERY difficult to get a PC to play a file without changing the sample rate, for example, would seem to uphold that viewpoint. Then there's the more trivial points, such as all the other noises a PC makes whenever there's new mail delivered or an instant message or some other rubbish that cut in on the music. That used to drive me up the wall and I don't get much mail or IMs (no friends you see...). Stream via the network and you get none of that, use a NAS and you don't even need to worry about the PC crashing, however rare that might be (when was the last time your CD player crashed? Why should you have to put up with that because the music is now "computer-based"?). PCs aren't hi-fi, it's that simple.
No, that's somebody else...
this all started because of my point that i would take with a pinch of salt teh assertion that they sound "clearly" different; you seem to be making something out of something that isnt there. This, to me, implies that i would hear a difference, if it is that clear.
We're on the same side then, I'm not convinced at all that you'll hear any difference, because I don't think there is a difference.
However, because WHF will try harder than me for the sake of the readers, adn use good kit turned up loud in deicated rooms, it may be clear to them, but not to me in my environment. And, therefore, not at all clear by my definition of the word. i understand that satisfying myself is all that is required, and ive said as much myself.
And I agree with all that, that's my point, I don't think many people will hear any difference and I've yet to come across anyone who can give me a technical reason why WAV would sound better than FLAC.
But here you have someone (aparently; he isnrt here to defend himself) who has made this assertion.
Are we talking about Ketan now? It wouldn't take long for him to give the explanation he gave to Gerrardasnails, that's all I'm asking for.
Speaking of which: your wasting your time playing your files straight from a pc? Is that not going just a tad far? Sound ok to me. I accept maybe it could sound better, but to say i am wasting my time really is being silly. No. stop giggling. You know it is.
Again, I'm completely serious, I just don't trust the PC not to do anything stupid with the output and the number of people who have shown just on this forum that it's VERY difficult to get a PC to play a file without changing the sample rate, for example, would seem to uphold that viewpoint. Then there's the more trivial points, such as all the other noises a PC makes whenever there's new mail delivered or an instant message or some other rubbish that cut in on the music. That used to drive me up the wall and I don't get much mail or IMs (no friends you see...). Stream via the network and you get none of that, use a NAS and you don't even need to worry about the PC crashing, however rare that might be (when was the last time your CD player crashed? Why should you have to put up with that because the music is now "computer-based"?). PCs aren't hi-fi, it's that simple.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Question What to do first? Stylus of preamp upgrade?
- Started by Feelio
- Replies: 6
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram