• If you ever spot Spam (either in the forums, or received via forum direct message) please use the Report button at the bottom of each post to make sure a Moderator can handle it quickly. Thanks for your help in keeping things running smoothly!

Just done a stupid thing

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
7
18,795
JamesMellor said:
I agree , but save an excel file and open it in works or word , its all there but over four pages , open it in numbers and its all there but at an 80% page size when printed, open a word file in pages fill it in save it and open it in word the forumilas dont work and everything is xxxx's.

After that try open office.

The data can be presented differently
It's not the same thing at all. That's just the way different programs display data and has nothing to do with compression. I don't mean to sound rude but it's unrelated to the point being discussed here.

If you compress an Excel file to a ZIP file then uncompress the ZIP file back again, when you open the uncompressed file in Excel it will still be exactly the same even though it's been through a compression/uncompression process.
 

JamesMellor

New member
Jul 19, 2013
40
0
0
But that is what I am saying, not that the file is different but the file is unpacked differently. Using two interfaces optical/coax I can not tell them apart. But using a third USB connection I can hear a differance on my system. I am not saying FLAC is different just apple lossless is.

I am saying that all my execl (apple) files are the same on every version of excel but are displayed different on word/works/open office/pages/numbers.

James
 

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
7
18,795
JamesMellor said:
But that is what I am saying, not that the file is different but the file is unpacked differently. Using two interfaces optical/coax I can not tell them apart. But using a third USB connection I can hear a differance on my system. I am not saying FLAC is different just apple lossless is.

I am saying that all my execl (apple) files are the same on every version of excel but are displayed different on word/works/open office/pages/numbers.

James
Two programs can display identical information differently but it's due to a totally different unrelated variable to what is being discussed here (file compression). I know what you're saying but you're getting it mixed up with something else.

One single file can display differently in two different programs - But this is because you're using two different programs. It's the programs which are the variable not the file which is being opened.

If you compress the file to a ZIP then uncompress it again it'll display in exactly the same way as before in both programs. The compession will not make any difference to how it displays.
 

JamesMellor

New member
Jul 19, 2013
40
0
0
I think we are talking at cross purposeses. I think we agree that applelossless and flac are the excat same infomation and sound exactly the same through the s/pdif coax /optical inputs and decoding.

I am claiming that USB interfaces to different DAC's sound different with different formats.

I am claiming that flac and apple lossless sound different, no thats not true, I am claiming flac sounds no different but apple lossless does.

This is my experiance
 

Leif

New member
May 11, 2014
26
1
0
JamesMellor said:
But that is what I am saying, not that the file is different but the file is unpacked differently. Using two interfaces optical/coax I can not tell them apart. But using a third USB connection I can hear a differance on my system. I am not saying FLAC is different just apple lossless is.

I am saying that all my execl (apple) files are the same on every version of excel but are displayed different on word/works/open office/pages/numbers.

James
The Apple Lossless Audio Codec file contains exactly the same information as a FLAC file of the same CD. It sounds the same.

The comments I see here and elsewhere tell me that most people have inadequate listening methodology. Level matching is a common issue.
 

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
7
18,795
JamesMellor said:
I think we are talking at cross purposeses. I think we agree that applelossless and flac are the excat same infomation and sound exactly the same through the s/pdif coax /optical inputs and decoding.

I am claiming that USB interfaces to different DAC's sound different with different formats.

I am claiming that flac and apple lossless sound different, no thats not true, I am claiming flac sounds no different but apple lossless does.

This is my experiance
FLAC and ALAC don't just sound the same, they ARE the same. So as Leif has already said; if you heard a difference there must have been some error in your methodology when comparing them. The most likely reasons would be one of the following:

1. Were the levels measured and accurately matched to within 0.1dB?

If not even a very small variation in volume can be heard as a difference.

2. Were the FLAC and ALAC encoded from exactly the same source file?

If not you could have been comparing two differently mastered versions of the same track.

3. Did you do the comparison blind?

If not you were biased.
 

nopiano

Well-known member
Feb 15, 2009
265
151
19,070
steve_1979 said:
CnoEvil said:
steve_1979 said:
ellisdj said:
...Also what are you ripping to ssd or hd?
Please don't say that you think these will sound different.
I think they might. *diablo*
Well you bloody would do wouldn't ya? *angel*
I was reading exactly this the other day, but cannot recall where. Also that solid state drives are not robust enough for music replay, supposedly due to the way data is extracted or stored. Suggested everything is rewritten or something. Descended into tech stuff and I nodded off.

Curious because several top devices reserve SSD for their top models, e.g. Zen, and cite lack of vibration as beneficial. I have no idea how true, as this whole area seems too new for established views.
 

Leif

New member
May 11, 2014
26
1
0
nopiano said: "I was reading exactly this the other day, but cannot recall where. Also that solid state drives are not robust enough for music replay, supposedly due to the way data is extracted or stored. Suggested everything is rewritten or something. Descended into tech stuff and I nodded off. Curious because several top devices reserve SSD for their top models, e.g. Zen, and cite lack of vibration as beneficial. I have no idea how true, as this whole area seems too new for established views. "

My iPhone uses a SSD. No-one seems to complain about its ability to play music. My iPod uses an SSD. It lasted 6 years without complaint and is still running. A spinny disk is much less robust, I've had loads crash, usually if not always due to overheating in a badly designed PC. Don't believe everything you read on t'interweb, especially when it comes to audio playback, there is a tendency for technical ignorance to create orthodoxy.


Sorry about the odd quotes, but this web site is fubarred, and the quote and edit buttons do not appear in my browser!
 

nopiano

Well-known member
Feb 15, 2009
265
151
19,070
Leif said:
JamesMellor said:
But that is what I am saying, not that the file is different but the file is unpacked differently. Using two interfaces optical/coax I can not tell them apart. But using a third USB connection I can hear a differance on my system. I am not saying FLAC is different just apple lossless is.

I am saying that all my execl (apple) files are the same on every version of excel but are displayed different on word/works/open office/pages/numbers.

James
The Apple Lossless Audio Codec file contains exactly the same information as a FLAC file of the same CD. It sounds the same.

The comments I see here and elsewhere tell me that most people have inadequate listening methodology. Level matching is a common issue.
That makes me wonder what purpose ALAC ever served, but I guess I can google that...
 

nopiano

Well-known member
Feb 15, 2009
265
151
19,070
Leif said:
nopiano said: "I was reading exactly this the other day, but cannot recall where. Also that solid state drives are not robust enough for music replay, supposedly due to the way data is extracted or stored. Suggested everything is rewritten or something. Descended into tech stuff and I nodded off. Curious because several top devices reserve SSD for their top models, e.g. Zen, and cite lack of vibration as beneficial. I have no idea how true, as this whole area seems too new for established views. "

My iPhone uses a SSD. No-one seems to complain about its ability to play music. My iPod uses an SSD. It lasted 6 years without complaint and is still running. A spinny disk is much less robust, I've had loads crash, usually if not always due to overheating in a badly designed PC. Don't believe everything you read on t'interweb, especially when it comes to audio playback, there is a tendency for technical ignorance to create orthodoxy.

Sorry about the odd quotes, but this web site is fubarred, and the quote and edit buttons do not appear in my browser!
Hi Leif, I 100% agree that everything one reads isn't necessarily true, and it's no help at that I can't remember where. However a very cursory google turned this up, which is another variety of the argument. It interested me because many folk think all cd disc drives must sound the same, bits are nuts, etc., yet clearly some disagree. BTW I've an old iPod in the car that has survived at least eight years I reckon, but it's fairly modest in audio terms.

http://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/audiophile-insights/digital-info/computer-audio-ssd-versus-hdd/
 

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
7
18,795
nopiano said:
That makes me wonder what purpose ALAC ever served, but I guess I can google that...
My guess is that it was done to help Apple tie customers into their 'eco system' of products. Most customers won't know that ALAC file can easily be batch converted to FLAC without any loss of data.
 

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
7
18,795
nopiano said:
I was reading exactly this the other day, but cannot recall where. Also that solid state drives are not robust enough for music replay, supposedly due to the way data is extracted or stored. Suggested everything is rewritten or something. Descended into tech stuff and I nodded off.
I have read similar things myself but it's referring to the different reliability issues of SDD vs HDD over time. It has nothing to do with the sound quality of music playback.

Think about it. Both HDD and SDD are capible of 100% perfect data retreval - they have to be or computer software would never be able to function.
 

nopiano

Well-known member
Feb 15, 2009
265
151
19,070
steve_1979 said:
nopiano said:
I was reading exactly this the other day, but cannot recall where. Also that solid state drives are not robust enough for music replay, supposedly due to the way data is extracted or stored. Suggested everything is rewritten or something. Descended into tech stuff and I nodded off.
I have read similar things myself but it's referring to the different reliability issues of SDD vs HDD over time. It has nothing to do with the sound quality of music playback.

Think about it. Both HDD and SDD are capible of 100% perfect data retreval - they have to be or computer software would never be able to function.
I appreciate that Steve, but look at the link above that I posted. #69. They report different sound quality.

Though in some ways it makes no sense, neither does different CD players sounding different to those outside the audiophile community!
 

Pedro

New member
May 31, 2016
4
0
0
Do operating systems sound different?

People into voodoo can start installing and "testing" (by golden ear method) hundreds of linux distros. Please report your findings in a few years.

:)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts