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

[John Duncan]

For the record, I loved Sc rappy doo.

Only a matter of time in these threads before someone posts a ludicrous opinion such as this.

Commonly known as Reductio ad Scrappum.

 

[John Duncan]

I make none of those assumptions about your system John, or anyone's.

Acknowledged.

 

[manicm]

As for lossless and wav, there isn't an audible difference. This has been measured. It's probably why they called it lossless.

Please substantiate this with 'scientific fact' - where has this been measured???? Yes the bits and bytes add up, but you've got scientific proof that they sound alike? I'm not denying the perfect rip, but as far as playback goes I'd like some proof.

Naim would clearly disagree with you here, and so would Wadia.

EDIT: I had previously crossed this post out, but what the hell, Igglebert I challenge you to provide the measurements in playback to reveal no difference.

 

[the record spot]

As for lossless and wav, there isn't an audible difference. This has been measured. It's probably why they called it lossless.

Please substantiate this with 'scientific fact' - where has this been measured???? Yes the bits and bytes add up, but you've got scientific proof that they sound alike? I'm not denying the perfect rip, but as far as playback goes I'd like some proof.

Naim would clearly disagree with you here, and so would Wadia.

EDIT: I had previously crossed this post out, but what the hell, Igglebert I challenge you to provide the measurements in playback to reveal no difference.

At this point in the proceedings (I don't mean the above post(s), you have to get to a point where you think: life's too short for this. WAV or Lossless. I go with WAV, I've used Apple Lossless, 320kbps, FLAC...it's an even more redundant comparison activity than (IMO) cables. Argue over this by all means folks, but you know, you don't get those minutes back!

 

[SteveR750]

Surely anyone who has heard a live version of the kind of music they like to listen to at home will realise within nanoseconds that a home hi fi system doesn't come remotely close to reproducing the real thing, so arguably it's pointles debating whether it's accurate or not, any more than trying to convince yourself that 3D TV is similar to the real world.

 

[Thaiman]

years ago I couldn't tell the different between 320kps to a Wav files, as system change, upgrade over the years, the sound different between compressed and non-compressed files became more apparant. Yes, even Flac!

 

[matthewpiano]

Surely anyone who has heard a live version of the kind of music they like to listen to at home will realise within nanoseconds that a home hi fi system doesn't come remotely close to reproducing the real thing, so arguably it's pointles debating whether it's accurate or not, any more than trying to convince yourself that 3D TV is similar to the real world.

Totally agree.

 

[fr0g]

As for lossless and wav, there isn't an audible difference. This has been measured. It's probably why they called it lossless.

Please substantiate this with 'scientific fact' - where has this been measured???? Yes the bits and bytes add up, but you've got scientific proof that they sound alike? I'm not denying the perfect rip, but as far as playback goes I'd like some proof.

Naim would clearly disagree with you here, and so would Wadia.

EDIT: I had previously crossed this post out, but what the hell, Igglebert I challenge you to provide the measurements in playback to reveal no difference.

This is a good example of my last statement on the subject and why antagonism remains.

Manicin. Simply try it for yourself. While I acknowledge that people can have their own opinions on subjective differences between kit, this one is a scientific "fact".

The difference between FLAC (or any lossless) and WAV, is simply the conversion that happens to the lossless file to make it a WAV (or more precisely PCM) before playback. This works fine on a cheap flac compatible mp3 player. On a modern piece of equipment it is an irrelevance.

When making claims like this, it is those who claim a difference who need scientific proof, not those merely stating the scientific fact..

"EDIT: [/b]I had previously crossed this post out, but what the hell, Igglebert I challenge you to provide the measurements in playback [/b]to reveal no difference."

prove no difference? really. The only proof needed in this case is that there is.

analogy..."PROVE that nothing can go faster than light".

No, you have to prove that "it can"

The only way to "prove" such a debate is to prove the positive, not the negative.

But hell. Playback a WAV and record it in Audacity. Playback a FLAC and do the same. Look at the files that they create...(remember, the FLAC is converted to WAV/PCM before playback, so I can guarantee they will be the same).

The only way for "you" to truly believe maybe is to do a boring ABX test. Foobar has this if you care to try it...

 

[fr0g]

Surely anyone who has heard a live version of the kind of music they like to listen to at home will realise within nanoseconds that a home hi fi system doesn't come remotely close to reproducing the real thing, so arguably it's pointles debating whether it's accurate or not, any more than trying to convince yourself that 3D TV is similar to the real world.

Far more to do with the recording equipment and environment than the playback hardware...

 

[Anonymous]

But hell. Playback a WAV and record it in Audacity. Playback a FLAC and do the same. Look at the files that they create...(remember, the FLAC is converted to WAV/PCM before playback, so I can guarantee they will be the same).

That's not quite what was being got at...listen to both FLAC and WAV files on a revealing hifi and see if you can hear the difference. Now Im not convinced I would hear any difference, but hell, may be I would, who knows.

The two formats WAV and FLAC are essentially identical in the digital storage domain. They may be subtly different during playback because of the conversion process and subsequent jitter. IF there is a difference, Im guessing its due to FLAC having more jitter due to the additional conversion that takes place.

 

[fr0g]

But hell. Playback a WAV and record it in Audacity. Playback a FLAC and do the same. Look at the files that they create...(remember, the FLAC is converted to WAV/PCM before playback, so I can guarantee they will be the same).

That's not quite what was being got at...listen to both FLAC and WAV files on a revealing hifi and see if you can hear the difference. Now Im not convinced I would hear any difference, but hell, may be I would, who knows.

The two formats WAV and FLAC are essentially identical in the digital storage domain. They may be subtly different during playback because of the conversion process and subsequent jitter. IF there is a difference, Im guessing its due to FLAC having more jitter due to the additional conversion that takes place.

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.

 

[Ajani]

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.

 

[fr0g]

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.

I agree to some extent, but one reason is to avoid giving misinformation. It costs money and time. There really is no issue. Nobody as far as I know has ever scientifically proved that using WAV over FLAC is worthwhile.

Just like nobody has proved anything can go faster than "c". Until then, claims to the contrary are meaningless.

 

[Ajani]

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.

I agree to some extent, but one reason is to avoid giving misinformation. It costs money and time. There really is no issue. Nobody as far as I know has ever scientifically proved that using WAV over FLAC is worthwhile.

Just like nobody has proved anything can go faster than "c". Until then, claims to the contrary are meaningless.

Storage is dirt cheap and constantly getting cheaper + if you're using flac, chances are that storage isn't a problem for you. As for time - set your computer to convert your entire music folder to wav and go to to your bed. I just don't see the point of this particular debate since you can switch files from flac to wav and vice versa as you please.

 

[the record spot]

Storage is getting pricier as it happens, but likely a temporary blip. My Western Digital external HDD is now around the £95 mark on Amazon. I bought it for £50 about a year or so back. The 2TB model is around £110 or so. So the general trend is down but this is a significant blip for the time being.

 

[SteveR750]

Surely anyone who has heard a live version of the kind of music they like to listen to at home will realise within nanoseconds that a home hi fi system doesn't come remotely close to reproducing the real thing, so arguably it's pointles debating whether it's accurate or not, any more than trying to convince yourself that 3D TV is similar to the real world.

Far more to do with the recording equipment and environment than the playback hardware...

I was going to add that - rubbish in, rubbish out and all that, which makes the whole searching for the holy grail even more futile perhaps.

 

[Ajani]

Storage is getting pricier as it happens, but likely a temporary blip. My Western Digital external HDD is now around the £95 mark on Amazon. I bought it for £50 about a year or so back. The 2TB model is around £110 or so. So the general trend is down but this is a significant blip for the time being.

Are you sure it's not a new model or that you got a close out special when you bought yours? I just don't see anyway western digital could double the price of their hdd a year later.

 

[Alec]

As for lossless and wav, there isn't an audible difference. This has been measured. It's probably why they called it lossless.

Please substantiate this with 'scientific fact' - where has this been measured???? Yes the bits and bytes add up, but you've got scientific proof that they sound alike? I'm not denying the perfect rip, but as far as playback goes I'd like some proof.

Naim would clearly disagree with you here, and so would Wadia.

EDIT: I had previously crossed this post out, but what the hell, Igglebert I challenge you to provide the measurements in playback to reveal no difference.

No one will do this as it would require large listening tests, which no one will bother to set up or be involved in because the science (yup) says the wiggly lines look the same.

I'd like to see the results of Naim and Wadia's extensive, large scale listening tests, or the figures and graphs they have based their theory on.

 

[Alec]

As for lossless and wav, there isn't an audible difference. This has been measured. It's probably why they called it lossless.

Please substantiate this with 'scientific fact' - where has this been measured???? Yes the bits and bytes add up, but you've got scientific proof that they sound alike? I'm not denying the perfect rip, but as far as playback goes I'd like some proof.

Naim would clearly disagree with you here, and so would Wadia.

EDIT: I had previously crossed this post out, but what the hell, Igglebert I challenge you to provide the measurements in playback to reveal no difference.

At this point in the proceedings (I don't mean the above post(s), you have to get to a point where you think: life's too short for this. WAV or Lossless. I go with WAV, I've used Apple Lossless, 320kbps, FLAC...it's an even more redundant comparison activity than (IMO) cables. Argue over this by all means folks, but you know, you don't get those minutes back!

If only forums had "like" buttons.

 

[Anonymous]

But hell. Playback a WAV and record it in Audacity. Playback a FLAC and do the same. Look at the files that they create...(remember, the FLAC is converted to WAV/PCM before playback, so I can guarantee they will be the same).

That's not quite what was being got at...listen to both FLAC and WAV files on a revealing hifi and see if you can hear the difference. Now Im not convinced I would hear any difference, but hell, may be I would, who knows.

The two formats WAV and FLAC are essentially identical in the digital storage domain. They may be subtly different during playback because of the conversion process and subsequent jitter. IF there is a difference, Im guessing its due to FLAC having more jitter due to the additional conversion that takes place.

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...

 

[the record spot]

Storage is getting pricier as it happens, but likely a temporary blip. My Western Digital external HDD is now around the £95 mark on Amazon. I bought it for £50 about a year or so back. The 2TB model is around £110 or so. So the general trend is down but this is a significant blip for the time being.

Are you sure it's not a new model or that you got a close out special when you bought yours? I just don't see anyway western digital could double the price of their hdd a year later.

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.

 

[Frank Harvey]

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.

 

[steve_1979]

the idea of "High Fidelity" is to strive for the closest to optimal, distortion-free sound as is possible.

So even if you can never accurately reproduce what was heard, you "can" aim to achieve the lowest distortion / flattest frequency response.

I believe that there are then 2 paths one can take in the search for audio nirvana...1. Reproduction of the medium which results in the closest match to what it contains (or rather what was recorded onto it), and 2. Reproduction of the medium which results in the most pleasant sound on a subjective level.

Both are valid paths but only one is "Hi-Fidelity".

Of course most people will sample a bit from each path along the way, but what differentiates us is which path we are more strongly tied to.

So... When choosing equipment on path 1, looking at scientific facts is "extremely" important. So that discounts low powered amplifiers, as they cause clipping. It discounts vinyl as a medium because of the inherent distortion.

That isn't to say valve amplifiers, turntable, horn speaker systems can't be great "path 2" systems...they can sound fantastic, but ultimately they aren't as "high fidelity" as a system with (say) a good 3-way active speaker with bags of head-room playing back a well mastered CD (or better still, a well mastered CD transferred to a more robust storage system such as HDD or SSD).
Which you prefer depends on which camp you lean to, but I personally believe you will get very very close to "2" if you strive for "1". You may even get close to "1" you strive for "2", but that will usually come with years of box-swapping, disillusionment and financial pain...

Nobody should dismiss anybody elses choice based on either scientific facts, or lack of. In the end, you are right, the main thing is that you enjoy the music.

However, those scientific facts should not be dismissed in the usual "It's not about science it's about listening pleasure" way. After all, most if all component makers use the same science when designing your kit.

While not everyone wants to go through proper blind testing and comparison and following scientific principles, doing so can improve both listening pleasure and reduce the stress on your wallet.

For many the endless swapping of components is a hobby in itself. I do think some people care more about that than the actual music.

Personally I now try to test every aspect where possible, and the conclusions I have come to by scientific research and blind testing are...

CD is as good as SACD or HD recordings..(or CAN be. Many SACDs and HD downloads are simply better masterings - This can be tested by downsampling HD downloads and ABX testing) - This has saved me a fortune.

MP3 or AAC at 256 KBps and above is indistiguishable to CD for most people including me (again through ABX testing). This hasn't changed anything other than I feel happier listening to Spotify (or rather WiMP for me for the moment). I still buy CD and FLAC downloads.

Active speaker technology is superior. I have done a bit of auditioning at pro audio shops recently, and a good pair of £400 pro monitors will outperform any speaker/amp combination you can get at the price. This makes sense in a number of ways...The amplifier is made for the speaker load rather than being overengineered to cater for wildly varying loads, the active crossover has less distortion and is more efficient and of course, the box count is down.

Wires sound (almost) the same given that you start with a reasonable thickness. When I say almost, I mean "inconsequential". Chasing fixes with espensive wire is a fools errand imo.

A £5 optical lead sounds (exactly) the same as a £100 one.

A £5 hdmi lead performs equally to a £100 one given the same specification.

The mind can be tricked into hearing differences where there are none.

5/5 on an ABX is not statistically valid. (I did this myself with 2 tracks that I later found were the same). For a good ABX result you should be looking at 10 to 20 passes with no fails.

Of course all of this is boring to some people, and some people will certainly disagree with me. But if it's boring, then I just say, don't worry about it. Personally I found it liberating.

My next system (when the kids are older) will be an active 3 way. It will be High Fidelity AND pleasurable, and I will be happy to listen to internet radio and Spotify.

Lastly, I think the anymosity between the 2 camps is caused by (on one side) A lack of acceptance that someone enjoys their turntables and valve amps without wanting to criticise and point out the technical disadvantages and (on the other)... Wild claims for superiority made for kit, wires, formats etc.

More people from both sides of the argument should cease using absolutes. While it is fine to say "X has less distortion than Y" or "X sounds better than Y to me", it is incorrect to say "X sounds rubbish".

All my opinion of course...

Peace.

:clap:

Great posts fr0g. You've managed to succinctly sum up everything that I've been trying to say on this forum over the last year. Only you managed to say it politely without any of my bluntness and impudence.

Very interesting thread BTW everyone. Good stuff.

 

[bigboss]

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.

Yes, that is correct.

 

[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.