It seems non-audiophiles never tire of proving that everything sounds the same.

[Anonymous]

So?

If someone hears/imagines an improvement between using item A and item B, and that enhances their enjoyment, isn't that enough? This constant quest by some to A/B/X and provide proof is so frustrating.

Press play, sit back, close eyes, enjoy. Honestly, the day you start re-ripping, comparing rips, downloading A/B/X software and testing yourself is the day you stopped enjoying music for what it is.

+1

I don't care whether I hear a difference, think I hear a difference, or believe I hear a difference. Life's too short.

I've spent quite a lot on cables and I'm happy. I might be deluded in some people's minds but I really couldn't care less what others think in that respect. 'Nuff said!

 

[Anonymous]

Why on earth would it have more jitter? It all comes from a buffer in memory anyway. And if you are really worried, many software players use memory playback. In the end the data is exactly the same. Playback doesn't occur "just-in-time". Even a flaky 20 year old CD player can provide good playback. What think you then of a present day system that thinks 1 tenth of a second is an eternity?

Not to mention that with most modern DAC implementations, even high levels of jitter are completely irrelevant.

1 tenth of a second is an eternity when it comes to jitter which can be measured in picoseconds. :wall:

FWIW I'm not saying there is an audible difference between WAV and FLAC, I'm just saying some might be able to hear a difference (or imagine they're hearing the difference, whatever...). No one can prove or disprove what someone else might be hearing and frankly I don't care to try.

I store my lossless files in FLAC level 0 format on a laptop to stream to my #2 hifi, its sounds fine to me WAV would take up too much extra space for no discernable benefit.

I still play the CDs if I want to hear it on the best quality on #1 hifi.

 

[fr0g]

You will only hear a difference, if there is a difference..

But you can imagine you've heard a difference even if there isn't a difference..

If one thinks that one knows for sure, the difference between hearing, and imagining, then a blind test is the only way one can prove so.

*Most subsequently realise what they thought they were hearing, they were imagining.

*Cables, flac v wav, interconnects etc...

So?

If someone hears/imagines an improvement between using item A and item B, and that enhances their enjoyment, isn't that enough? This constant quest by some to A/B/X and provide proof is so frustrating.

Press play, sit back, close eyes, enjoy. Honestly, the day you start re-ripping, comparing rips, downloading A/B/X software and testing yourself is the day you stopped enjoying music for what it is.

I disagree. If you personally don't wish to do it, then that's fine. Enjoy. Nobody is forcing you.

But since I started to do such tests I have emjoyed music far more...No longer do I have a nagging doubt about the quality of my interconnects or speaker cables...as they make no discernable difference imo.

No longer do I search for high definition versions of music I like. Nope, I use Spotify, and order the CD in my own time.

The testing may seem boring to some, but it's a one time thing on each comparison, and removes self-doubt and the urge to fiddle.

I personally feel released.

But as I said, if you aren't interested, then that's fine also. But bear in mind that any wild claims of night and day differences will subsequently taken as pure conjecture and dismissed.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

 

[fr0g]

Why on earth would it have more jitter? It all comes from a buffer in memory anyway. And if you are really worried, many software players use memory playback. In the end the data is exactly the same. Playback doesn't occur "just-in-time". Even a flaky 20 year old CD player can provide good playback. What think you then of a present day system that thinks 1 tenth of a second is an eternity?

Not to mention that with most modern DAC implementations, even high levels of jitter are completely irrelevant.

1 tenth of a second is an eternity when it comes to jitter which can be measured in picoseconds. :wall:

You misunderatand the point of the 1/10th second. It's the point that modern playback systems are so powerful as to render any small conversion algorithm irrelevant. The FLAC is converted to PCM before playback. Jitter isn't an issue.

WAV and FLAC sound identical because they are identical at the point at which it matters.

 

[bigboss]

You will only hear a difference, if there is a difference..

But you can imagine you've heard a difference even if there isn't a difference..

If one thinks that one knows for sure, the difference between hearing, and imagining, then a blind test is the only way one can prove so.

*Most subsequently realise what they thought they were hearing, they were imagining.

*Cables, flac v wav, interconnects etc...

So?

If someone hears/imagines an improvement between using item A and item B, and that enhances their enjoyment, isn't that enough? This constant quest by some to A/B/X and provide proof is so frustrating.

Press play, sit back, close eyes, enjoy. Honestly, the day you start re-ripping, comparing rips, downloading A/B/X software and testing yourself is the day you stopped enjoying music for what it is.

ABX may be frustrating for you, but for a lot of people, it is important in order to make an informed choice. Cables etc. can be ridiculously expensive & often sold by pushy salespeople.

 

[Paul.]

Yes, I'm sure; they were all at good prices until fairly recently. I was surprised when I found out (on another forum), but can't recall what caused the increase.

I believe it was the Thailand floods, as this also affected the supply of various AV products as well.

A bit late to the party here, but there is a company called Nidec which flooded (you are correct sirs, in Thailand), they account for 70% of the worlds HD motors. If you are nosey like me, you can see their damages in the link below...

http://www.nidec.co.jp/english/ir/indexdata_e/2011/1107.pdf

 

[Anonymous]

It's the point that modern playback systems are so powerful as to render any small conversion algorithm irrelevant. The FLAC is converted to PCM before playback. Jitter isn't an issue.

WAV and FLAC sound identical because they are identical at the point at which it matters.

Wow, that is a sweeping statement, and utter nonsense IMHO. Jitter isn't an issue? Really???

I recall WHF did a readers review where they tried different NAS hard drives which according to your statements above should make no difference since the digitally stored music is identical. But the readers were able to tell a difference, or perhaps they were imagining it all? If hard drives can make a difference, it stands to reason that may other factors can make a difference too...networks, cabling, racks, main cables etc. I'm not saying they do make a difference, only that they might, and no one can prove either way. Certainly the absence of any difference can never be proved.

 

[fr0g]

Wow, that is a sweeping statement, and utter nonsense IMHO. Jitter isn't an issue? Really???

I recall WHF did a readers review where they tried different NAS hard drives which according to your statements above should make no difference since the digitally stored music is identical. But the readers were able to tell a difference, or perhaps they were imagining it all? If hard drives can make a difference, it stands to reason that may other factors can make a difference too...networks, cabling, racks, main cables etc. I'm not saying they do make a difference, only that they might, and no one can prove either way. Certainly the absence of any difference can never be proved.

If you read what I say more carefully you'll avoid reading into it that which is not there.

I said "Jitter isn't an issue" in the context of playing WAV or FLAC. It isn't.

I personally don't think jitter is an issue at all these days, but that's another topic.

Look, I don't want to get confrontational here, but when claims are made that go against logic, then they must be backed up with empircal evidence, otherwise they can rightfully be dismissed as conjecture.

My own aim was and is to get to a far more happy place, where things that genuinely matter are dealt with and things that don't, such as (IMO) jitter are consigned to the mental recycle bin. It's possible that someone here, or more likely on the Hydrogen Audio forum where this stuff really (and I mean really matters) comes up with a 20/20 ABX test on something previously thought to be audiophoolery. At that point I will re-assess the contents of my mental recycle bin. Until then, I'm with logic and the results of my own testing.

If none of this matters and is boring, then leave it, nothing to see here. If it does, and you really want to prove something to yourself or others, then do some tests. It's that easy.

 

[Lee H]

You will only hear a difference, if there is a difference..

But you can imagine you've heard a difference even if there isn't a difference..

If one thinks that one knows for sure, the difference between hearing, and imagining, then a blind test is the only way one can prove so.

*Most subsequently realise what they thought they were hearing, they were imagining.

*Cables, flac v wav, interconnects etc...

So?

If someone hears/imagines an improvement between using item A and item B, and that enhances their enjoyment, isn't that enough? This constant quest by some to A/B/X and provide proof is so frustrating.

Press play, sit back, close eyes, enjoy. Honestly, the day you start re-ripping, comparing rips, downloading A/B/X software and testing yourself is the day you stopped enjoying music for what it is.

ABX may be frustrating for you, but for a lot of people, it is important in order to make an informed choice. Cables etc. can be ridiculously expensive & often sold by pushy salespeople.

I've maybe not explained myself very well. If someone says (words to the effect of), "I thought 'a' was way better than 'b'" the first repsonse shouldn't be a call to prove it. If you want to ABX then fine, but it's wrong to insist that we should all do it or make no claim.

I haven't ABX'd anything at home. I feel that FLAC is better than Spotify, hence I still buy a CD and rip it. I use Spotify for trying new stuff and music on the go. This, in part, is a desire to feel in control of the quality. I don't feel any compunction to prove it one way or the other. I think it's better, therefore it gives me pleasure.

 

[WinterRacer]

It's the point that modern playback systems are so powerful as to render any small conversion algorithm irrelevant. The FLAC is converted to PCM before playback. Jitter isn't an issue.

WAV and FLAC sound identical because they are identical at the point at which it matters.

Wow, that is a sweeping statement, and utter nonsense IMHO. Jitter isn't an issue? Really???

I recall WHF did a readers review where they tried different NAS hard drives which according to your statements above should make no difference since the digitally stored music is identical. But the readers were able to tell a difference, or perhaps they were imagining it all? If hard drives can make a difference, it stands to reason that may other factors can make a difference too...networks, cabling, racks, main cables etc. I'm not saying they do make a difference, only that they might, and no one can prove either way. Certainly the absence of any difference can never be proved.

Dr Lodge,

I don't believe jitter is a problem, the SPDIF spec. contains lots of information to allow DACs to do a very good job of locking on to the signal and re-clocking when necessary.

However, I don't think that's what Fr0g was saying. I think he is saying, quite rightly, that whether a file is a FLAC, WAV, Ogg, M4A, MP3 or whatever, it has nothing to do with the jitter in the SPDIF stream. Jitter (as commonly discussed in this forum) is timing problems in that SPDIF stream and happens long (in computing terms) after conversion from FLAC.

 

[Anonymous]

Look, I don't want to get confrontational here, but when claims are made that go against logic, then they must be backed up with empircal evidence, otherwise they can rightfully be dismissed as conjecture.

That's the problem - one person's logic is another person's conjecture.

Can cables make a difference? Logically, I say yes as all cables have an impedence property so of course they can make a difference. Digital cables can make a difference too, as the properties of different cables can affect jitter to varying degrees.

You may say the opposite, that logically cables cannot make a difference. In the end it comes down to personal opinion. I don't care what empirical evidence does or does not exist, I simply trust my ears and what my brain interprets that sound to be.

Logically I don't see how mains cables can make a difference. But I'm open minded enough to believe that they could, if I could hear a difference between cable A and cable B. I don't need any empirical evidence for that, albeit it would help me to accept there is a difference if some logical explanation was provided as well.

 

[Anonymous]

Wav versus flac is a non-issue. If you believe there is a loss in quality during playback of flac, then simply convert all your flac to wav files. I am truly amazed that persons debate this topic.

In this current premse_ Everyone is. .............FYI..Sheldon cooper.

 

[Craig M.]

like a lot of things in audio, jitter isn't a problem.

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/50/_pdf

 

[Anonymous]

I think he is saying, quite rightly, that whether a file is a FLAC, WAV, Ogg, M4A, MP3 or whatever, it has nothing to do with the jitter in the SPDIF stream.

Jitter (as commonly discussed in this forum) is timing problems in that SPDIF stream and happens long (in computing terms) after conversion from FLAC.

I agree with the first part - the format of the original file has nothing to do with jitter in the SPDIF stream per se.

What I am saying, is that depending on the way the original file is converted into the stream, may impact on the amount of jitter that ends up in the stream in the first place. E.g. WAV files might be "squirted" directly into the PCM stream, whereas FLAC and other file types have to be converted before being squirted into the stream. This conversion may introduce additional jitter.

Essentially if two different formats go through two different types of processing before ending up in the SPDIF stream, then it logically stands to reason that they won't be identical in terms of jitter. Whether that difference can be measured either empirically or by the human ear I don't know.

And just because no difference can be measured or heared, it doesn't mean there is no difference...just that the difference isn't worth debating

 

[BenLaw]

like a lot of things in audio, jitter isn't a problem.

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/50/_pdf

Thanks Craig.

 

[BenLaw]

I think he is saying, quite rightly, that whether a file is a FLAC, WAV, Ogg, M4A, MP3 or whatever, it has nothing to do with the jitter in the SPDIF stream.

Jitter (as commonly discussed in this forum) is timing problems in that SPDIF stream and happens long (in computing terms) after conversion from FLAC.

I agree with the first part - the format of the original file has nothing to do with jitter in the SPDIF stream per se.

What I am saying, is that depending on the way the original file is converted into the stream, may impact on the amount of jitter that ends up in the stream in the first place. E.g. WAV files might be "squirted" directly into the PCM stream, whereas FLAC and other file types have to be converted before being squirted into the stream. This conversion may introduce additional jitter.

Essentially if two different formats go through two different types of processing before ending up in the SPDIF stream, then it logically stands to reason that they won't be identical in terms of jitter. Whether that difference can be measured either empirically or by the human ear I don't know.

And just because no difference can be measured or heared, it doesn't mean there is no difference...just that the difference isn't worth debating

The converted files have been demonstrated to be identical, so that identical files are being played. They would not be identical if there were variations in jitter.

 

[Anonymous]

The converted files have been demonstrated to be identical, so that identical files are being played. They would not be identical if there were variations in jitter.

Sorry but I don't understand. Even the same identical file, if played twice, will have differing amounts of jitter, since jitter is somewhat random. So two "identical" files played twice won't be identical since they will have varying amounts of random jitter in them.

How were the two files demonstrated to be identical? In terms of 1s and 0s then yes they are identical. But the timing of those 1s and 0s arriving will vary (which is what jitter is).

 

[WinterRacer]

Sorry but I don't understand. Even the same identical file, if played twice, will have differing amounts of jitter, since jitter is somewhat random. So two "identical" files played twice won't be identical since they will have varying amounts of random jitter in them.

How were the two files demonstrated to be identical? In terms of 1s and 0s then yes they are identical. But the timing of those 1s and 0s arriving will vary (which is what jitter is).

I think you're agreeing with my point here, which is FLAC vs. WAV has nothing to do with jitter. How could it? WAV et al have to go through lots of processing before being emitted as an SPDIF stream. Jitter is caused by inaccuracies in the timing clock in the device and nothing to do with file conversion prior to transmission.

In the scheme of things there are far bigger things (even in hi-fi) to worry about than WAV vs Flac.

 

[Anonymous]

The converted files have been demonstrated to be identical, so that identical files are being played. They would not be identical if there were variations in jitter.

Sorry but I don't understand. Even the same identical file, if played twice, will have differing amounts of jitter, since jitter is somewhat random. So two "identical" files played twice won't be identical since they will have varying amounts of random jitter in them.

How were the two files demonstrated to be identical? In terms of 1s and 0s then yes they are identical. But the timing of those 1s and 0s arriving will vary (which is what jitter is).

Says Chord, QED, Hifi dealers, people who've read it somewhere, etc???

Independant studies have found jitter to be a non issue..

 

[Craig M.]

Sorry but I don't understand. Even the same identical file, if played twice, will have differing amounts of jitter, since jitter is somewhat random. So two "identical" files played twice won't be identical since they will have varying amounts of random jitter in them.

so, does your music sound different every time you play it, given the different jitter each time? no? must be a non-issue then.

 

[Thaiman]

Yes, I'm sure; they were all at good prices until fairly recently. I was surprised when I found out (on another forum), but can't recall what caused the increase.

I believe it was the Thailand floods, as this also affected the supply of various AV products as well.

Everything in Thailand went up in price, damm political flood |(

 

[hammill]

Sorry but I don't understand. Even the same identical file, if played twice, will have differing amounts of jitter, since jitter is somewhat random. So two "identical" files played twice won't be identical since they will have varying amounts of random jitter in them.

How were the two files demonstrated to be identical? In terms of 1s and 0s then yes they are identical. But the timing of those 1s and 0s arriving will vary (which is what jitter is).

I think you're agreeing with my point here, which is FLAC vs. WAV has nothing to do with jitter. How could it? WAV et al have to go through lots of processing before being emitted as an SPDIF stream. Jitter is caused by inaccuracies in the timing clock in the device and nothing to do with file conversion prior to transmission.

In the scheme of things there are far bigger things (even in hi-fi) to worry about than WAV vs Flac.

Precisely.

 

[Anonymous]

WAV et al have to go through lots of processing before being emitted as an SPDIF stream. Jitter is caused by inaccuracies in the timing clock in the device and nothing to do with file conversion prior to transmission.

In the scheme of things there are far bigger things (even in hi-fi) to worry about than WAV vs Flac.

Yes, we agree However on the same principle, the use of different HDDs could not have any difference on the SQ, but the recent WHF review says otherwise. So I remain open minded as to whether audible differences can be explained logically.

The Squeezebox Touch Toolbox also suggests using Windows 7 over Linux, FLAC over WMA and the lowest possible compression (biggest file, '0') for FLAC conversion. None of these should make a difference, but the author clearly thinks otherwise. I think whatever differences may exist, they are too small to worry about.

My biggest worry is what to listen to next... :cheers:

 

[BenLaw]

The converted files have been demonstrated to be identical, so that identical files are being played. They would not be identical if there were variations in jitter.

Sorry but I don't understand. Even the same identical file, if played twice, will have differing amounts of jitter, since jitter is somewhat random. So two "identical" files played twice won't be identical since they will have varying amounts of random jitter in them.

How were the two files demonstrated to be identical? In terms of 1s and 0s then yes they are identical. But the timing of those 1s and 0s arriving will vary (which is what jitter is).

Yeah, it may indeed have different amounts of jitter, but that is nothing to do with the file that was stored. I have no personal experience of whether different amounts of jitter have an audible effect, but the PDF Craig linked to suggests not (and it seems a fairly well done study on my brief perusal). I think the point has been fairly made that the chances of wav v flac sounding different are the same as playing the same flac file twice. If they are different, not significantly or noticeably so.

 

[BenLaw]

WAV et al have to go through lots of processing before being emitted as an SPDIF stream. Jitter is caused by inaccuracies in the timing clock in the device and nothing to do with file conversion prior to transmission.

In the scheme of things there are far bigger things (even in hi-fi) to worry about than WAV vs Flac.

Yes, we agree However on the same principle, the use of different HDDs could not have any difference on the SQ, but the recent WHF review says otherwise. So I remain open minded as to whether audible differences can be explained logically.

The Squeezebox Touch Toolbox also suggests using Windows 7 over Linux, FLAC over WMA and the lowest possible compression (biggest file, '0') for FLAC conversion. None of these should make a difference, but the author clearly thinks otherwise. I think whatever differences may exist, they are too small to worry about.

My biggest worry is what to listen to next... :cheers:

I should add, I remain deeply skeptical as to the validity of that article proving anything. It would take a lot of b*lls to travel all the way to WHF towers, have your photos taken, your conversations recorded and say 'they all sound the same to me'. The differences remarked upon were extremely minor and, without more, I would put this down to expecting to hear (almost needing to hear) a difference. It certainly was not a scientific study, nor do WHF suggest it was.