APPLE LOSSLESS vs UNCOMPRESSED

[The_Lhc]

manicm:the_lhc:

If you read my posts carefully I did not dispute the integrity of say a FLAC lossless rip. My point was and is that a 'bit-perfect' rip is only one link in the chain and the transport might be responsible for perceived differences in the sound between equivalent audio file formats.

And you're right - perhaps the Linn DSs and Sonos's of this world are not perfect if owners ears are hearing differences.

Oh I don't think there's any question about that, these new fangled digital streamers are a relatively new technology, it will take time for manufacturers to get things right, not least because they're as much about software as they are hardware now. That's where CD players have one advantage, it's a well known, proven technology, there's no surprises left for manufacturers in the CD player now, so really there's no excuse for them not to knock out the best players they're capable of. It'll be a while before we can say the same about media streamers and given the speed which technology moves on these days, we may never be able to say it, I doubt any one format is going to last 25 years again, like CD has, never mind knocking on a century, like the phonograph...

 

[Anonymous]

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.

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.



Lossless is the new cable debate. I wondered how long it would take for audiophiles to call this one. This debate will be promoted by people with things to sell.

 

[professorhat]

Cable Lover:Lossless is the new cable debate. I wondered how long it would take for audiophiles to call this one. This debate will be promoted by people with things to sell.

Unless someone starts charging for the use of the formats, I can't see how anyone can make money from saying that using WAV or AIFF etc. sounds better than using ALAC or FLAC etc. (or vice versa).

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not talking about the file formats themselves. There will be foo in the form of s/w or devices claiming to influence the 1's and 0's. There is already a USB cable that claims to be audiophile, that is ridiculously expensive.

 

[Dave_]

Cable Lover:I'm not talking about the file formats themselves. There will be foo in the form of s/w or devices claiming to influence the 1's and 0's. You only only have to look at the computer-based music forum on this site to see that there are plenty of people going to a lot of time and effort to make sure the S/W & hardware they use Doesn't influence the "1's and 0's" in anyway.......

I'd hate to live in your world-where all companies only exist to rip people off!

 

[Gerrardasnails]

Cable Lover: There is already a USB cable that claims to be audiophile, that is ridiculously expensive.

Which you have tried of course.

 

[professorhat]

No! Sceptics never try anything out - there's no need! Why sail round the world when you know the earth is flat?

 

[manicm]

daveh75:Cable Lover:I'm not talking about the file formats themselves. There will be foo in the form of s/w or devices claiming to influence the 1's and 0's. You only only have to look at the computer-based music forum on this site to see that there are plenty of people going to a lot of time and effort to make sure the S/W & hardware they use Doesn't influence the "1's and 0's" in anyway.......

It's a moot point.

If you're using USB, and unless you're using one of the newer, very expensive and esoteic 'asynchronous' USB DACs, those 0s and 1s ARE going to be affected anyway.

Now with the technicalities out of the way, as decent vinyl systems still sound marvellous, I'm sure people are getting excellent results out of their PC / 'soft' digital systems.

As analogue, as digitial, it's still trial and error.

Such is hifi - the song remains the same.

 

[PJPro]

the_lhc:
PJPro:idc:You can turn off background beeps and stuff. Go to control panel - Sounds and audio devices - Sounds tab - Sound scheme box and select No sounds and then apply.
If you can use WASAPI with exclusive lock e.g. with foobar2000 and a compatible sound card, it handles this for you. No other sound can interrupt your tunes when they are playing.

I just press "play" on the Sonos controller.

Well, I just press on my foobar button menu.

 

[PJPro]

professorhat:
No! Sceptics never try anything out - there's no need! Why sail round the world when you know the earth is flat?

Is it necessary to try an audiphile USB cable to know that it will be the same as a bog standard one?

 

[Anonymous]

PJPro:professorhat:

No! Sceptics never try anything out - there's no need! Why sail round the world when you know the earth is flat?

Is it necessary to try an audiphile USB cable to know that it will be the same as a bog standard one?

Of course not.

 

[Anonymous]

PJPro:professorhat:
No! Sceptics never try anything out - there's no need! Why sail round the world when you know the earth is flat?

Is it necessary to try an audiphile USB cable to know that it will be the same as a bog standard one?of course not especially if you know the computer science behind them

ph your example is a bit skewed if we use our eyes we can see the world is flat only the science proves it is round

 

[professorhat]

one off:PJPro:professorhat:
No! Sceptics never try anything out - there's no need! Why sail round the world when you know the earth is flat?

Is it necessary to try an audiphile USB cable to know that it will be the same as a bog standard one?of course not especially if you know the computer science behind them

ph your example is a bit skewed if we use our eyes we can see the world is flat only the science proves it is round

Wasn't meant to be scientifically accurate, just to point out the flawed thinking of if something can't be in theory, there is no need to prove it in practise. If everyone thought this way, science would never progress, the accepted thinking of the time would just carry on being the accepted thinking as no one would ever question it.

 

[Anonymous]

certainly agree with that just saying there are some things about which you must trust the science whichever branch that might happen to be

to me its the same as saying there can be audiophile ethernet cables or wifi protocols both of which are impossible because of how they work but which im sure will hit the market soon

 

[professorhat]

one off:certainly agree with that just saying there are some things about which you must trust the science whichever branch that might happen to be

I agree on some things e.g. I don't feel the need to check my garden for fairies every day just to prove to myself they don't exist. However, when it comes to something where numerous trusted people are reporting that a difference can be heard, I don't think it takes a lot to obtain a sample of a cable and try it for yourself rather than just stating those who have tried it must be wrong because, in all your superior smugness, you know better (I'm not referring to you by the way, merely those people who have this attitude). That to me smacks of arrogance - if you haven't tried it, how can you possibly state that all those people are wrong?

 

[Anonymous]

YOUR MUM vs YOUR FATHER'S WIFE?

Same thing.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

professorhat:
one off:certainly agree with that just saying there are some things about which you must trust the science whichever branch that might happen to be

I agree on some things e.g. I don't feel the need to check my garden for fairies every day just to prove to myself they don't exist. However, when it comes to something where numerous trusted people are reporting that a difference can be heard, I don't think it takes a lot to obtain a sample of a cable and try it for yourself rather than just stating those who have tried it must be wrong because, in all your superior smugness, you know better (I'm not referring to you by the way, merely those people who have this attitude). That to me smacks of arrogance - if you haven't tried it, how can you possibly state that all those people are wrong?

I agree with the Prof. To suggest that science proves something in AV is to suggest that someone knows everything about everything.

As for the other poster with Mum, Father's Wife. That's just stupid. How about this, and I have no idea if it has any relevance but it's a theory. You know, those things that scientists have.

A lossless codec like FLAC, WMA Lossless, Apple Lossless etc, has often been described as being like a zip file. The size is reduced but nothing is lost. However, does zipping and unzipping effect the sound of the file compared to the raw WAV file that needs no unzipping?

 

[Anonymous]

professorhat:
one off:certainly agree with that just saying there are some things about which you must trust the science whichever branch that might happen to be

I agree on some things e.g. I don't feel the need to check my garden for fairies every day just to prove to myself they don't exist. However, when it comes to something where numerous trusted people are reporting that a difference can be heard, I don't think it takes a lot to obtain a sample of a cable and try it for yourself rather than just stating those who have tried it must be wrong because, in all your superior smugness, you know better (I'm not referring to you by the way, merely those people who have this attitude). That to me smacks of arrogance - if you haven't tried it, how can you possibly state that all those people are wrong?i should have specified my comments referred to usb and ethernet cables plus wifi where it is the nature of the beast that different cables cant sound different unless the cables themselves have the means of distinguishing data and also changing it

like most of us my senses are fooled every day in order to hear stereo and even watch tv but i believe the underlying technology without question depite the fact i know im being fooled

as i said there are instances when you must accept the science and i think usb ethernet and wifi are cases in point in the same way i accept the world is broadly round

however there is always doubt

 

[The_Lhc]

Gerrardasnails:

A lossless codec like FLAC, WMA Lossless, Apple Lossless etc, has often been described as being like a zip file. The size is reduced but nothing is lost. However, does zipping and unzipping effect the sound of the file compared to the raw WAV file that needs no unzipping?

It certainly shouldn't because there is no "sound" in a file, it's just data and if that data can't be zipped and unzipped with the data being changed then there's something wrong, it's like I said before, you wouldn't expect zipping and unzipping a word document to change the contents of the document (that's why the Zip format has CRC checking to make sure nothing's changed).

Of course all that is irrelevant if FLAC doesn't work in a similar way to zip. The only way to check for sure is to convert a WAV file to FLAC and then back to WAV and compare the before and after WAV files, if they're not identical to the bit level then the FLAC codec or the conversion routine is at fault.

 

[Anonymous]

Gerrardasnails: I agree with the Prof. To suggest that science proves something in AV is to suggest that someone knows everything about everything.no it doesnt and dont follow your logic here as far as i know only one being knows everything about everything and im certain your not arguing for creationism in hifi

 

[Alec]

Well i can tell earth is round just by looking at it.

 

[Anonymous]

al7478:
Well i can tell earth is round just by looking at it.

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...rth&hl=en&sa=N&um=1&ei=IL1ES4jdNtX44gaJvtzTAw
sorry thats a flat earth taken by a camera with a fisheye lens then modified with photoshop

 

[Alec]

Shhh. Thought i did rather well.

 

[idc]

professorhat:

.... However, when it comes to something where numerous trusted people are reporting that a difference can be heard..... if you haven't tried it, how can you possibly state that all those people are wrong?

That is the part that stops me from joining the sceptics. They often dress up reasoning as science and miss out experimentation. I have posted on the forum that I found no difference whatsoever between three different USB cables. That is more actual real world experimenting than many of the sceptics. If a raft of experiments listening to cables etc had found no difference, then these debates would no happen.

 

[Anonymous]

actually i think youll find most people accept that theres no difference in usb cables because we all tend to be computer literate these days and the sceptics are those that doubt the science