Totally confused now

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Manicm, as others have also pointed out lossless really does mean lossless - there is absolutely no doubt about it.

If you take an original, then compress it using one of the lossless formats and then reverse the process you will get back to that original.

So when I said it was total rubbish thats exactly what it was ... there is no need to hold back. The problem with many hifi dealers is that the only understanding they have of new technologies comes from the marketing blurb that traditional hifi companies produce and the info they get from sales reps.

The Naim may be a great sounding product but the same level of performance can be had for much less money with much greater flexibility.

And exactly how is accurately ripping a CD not essential to accurate audio reproduction? Garbage in, garbage out! The new Cyrus players got such rave reviews because they are much better at reading a disc on the fly. With the likes of EAC any CD-ROM can do exactly the same with fewer errors than a CD player can manage.

I try not to make statements unless I am sure of my facts, maybe you should do the same.
 

manicm

Well-known member
ianandyr:

manicm:But to me 'lossless compression' is an oxymoron and stretches semantics a bit. The term has always confused me.

It's simple enough. Here's an example.

Imagine a paragraph with the sentence 'A quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog's back' repeated, say 10 times, replacing the word lazy in each case with a different adjective to get 10 different sentences. You are going to have 500 characters or so. To compress this I can represent exactly the same information 'mathematically' using far fewer characters by replacing the repeated characters with a token and substituting that repeated text for the much shorter token 9 of the 10 times. When I uncompress the file I simply reverse the process to get back to a perfect copy of the original.

The term lossless compression is not in any way an oxymoron and can apply to text, music, video or indeed any form of data that contains redundancy.

There are lots of lossy compression techniques out there, mp3 being the best known example, which achieve much higher rates of compression than lossless compression techniques. They do this by tossing away information not thought to dramatically impact the overall listener perception of sound quality. FLAC/ALAC are however lossless. If you uncompress a file encoded in either of these formats you will find you have a bit perfect copy of the original WAV file.

'indeed any form of data that contains redundancy' - so music contains redundancy???

Sorry guys, I'm not convinced by this, and my post was made in the context of ripping a CD to FLAC or any other 'lossless' format.
 

manicm

Well-known member
Grimaldi:Manicm, as others have also pointed out lossless really does mean lossless - there is absolutely no doubt about it. If you take an original, then compress it using one of the lossless formats and then reverse the process you will get back to that original. So when I said it was total rubbish thats exactly what it was ... there is no need to hold back. The problem with many hifi dealers is that the only understanding they have of new technologies comes from the marketing blurb that traditional hifi companies produce and the info they get from sales reps. The Naim may be a great sounding product but the same level of performance can be had for much less money with much greater flexibility. And exactly how is accurately ripping a CD not essential to accurate audio reproduction? Garbage in, garbage out! The new Cyrus players got such rave reviews because they are much better at reading a disc on the fly. With the likes of EAC any CD-ROM can do exactly the same with fewer errors than a CD player can manage. I try not to make statements unless I am sure of my facts, maybe you should do the same.

'there is absolutely no doubt about it' - Sorry again I resolutely disagree with this. If I rip a CD to FLAC-> WAV, the resulting WAV sounds like the FLAC and not like the CD.

I'm not saying it sounds inferior, it just doesn't sound the same to me. Indeed the different lossless formats sound different to me. ALAC sounds different to FLAC, and both sound different to WAV.

My ears don't buy this at all.
 

manicm

Well-known member
To quote ianandyr:

'Imagine a paragraph with the sentence 'A quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog's back' repeated, say 10 times, replacing the word lazy in each case with a different adjective to get 10 different sentences. You are going to have 500 characters or so. To compress this I can represent exactly the same information 'mathematically' using far fewer characters by replacing the repeated characters with a token and substituting that repeated text for the much shorter token 9 of the 10 times. When I uncompress the file I simply reverse the process to get back to a perfect copy of the original.'

This argument does not make sense to me at all. You simply cannot compare normal data to audio data, the latter is far, far more complex. And again musically, what would constitute a 'redundant' note???

I'm sorry, when it comes to compression, 'lossless' or otherwise I will listen to my ears instead of received wisdom.
 

manicm

Well-known member
mikeinbrum:Can you explain why a wireless solution is limiting?

Not limiting per se but a wireless solution will not be totally immune to skipping etc.

This is no reflection on Sonos - I am tempted to get one myself, and I believe the new version is much more robust, wireless wise, than the first carnation.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
What I and others are saying can be proven with 100% certainty ... there is no doubt about it.

What is your setup ... perhaps something in it is accounting for the sound you are hearing compared to a CD? Have you compared the sound of a non compressed WAV file and then a lossless FLAC file played on the same hardware and been able to tell the difference (theory would dictate that two should sound identical as the FLAC will decompress to the WAV file and the two will be 100% identical with not a bit out of place)?
 

ianandyr

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2008
25
0
18,540
Visit site
manicm:You simply cannot compare normal data to audio data, the latter is far, far more complex. And again musically, what would constitute a 'redundant' note???

Aah, but you can. When it comes to the bits used to represent the 'notes' you will find redundancy. Typically for a given passage of music you will find you can get down to around half to two thirds of the storage space required for the std uncompressed 1411 kbps pcm bitstream read from a CD. I can say this with some confidence having recently converted around 600 CDs to a lossless format.

These are the facts. You can losslessly encode a WAV file into a compressed FLAC format and the process of uncompressing that FLAC file will rebuild the original WAV file exactly as it was. Bit for bit.

If you can hear the difference between two WAV files, the first being one ripped from a CD, the second being that same WAV file, encoded to FLAC and then back to WAV you are making a mistake somewhere in your ripping/encoding workflow.
 

manicm

Well-known member
Well fine, but if everyone is so sure about lossless formats why do Wadia, in their manual, prefer one to rip music in WAV instead of Apple Lossless format for their 170i Transport? Their reasons are purely for audio quality.

Unless ALAC is an inferior compression technology to FLAC?? In which case a lot theories will need revisiting. I'm still not totall convinced.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
manicm:
Well fine, but if everyone is so sure about lossless formats why do Wadia, in their manual, prefer one to rip music in WAV instead of Apple Lossless format for their 170i Transport? Their reasons are purely for audio quality.

Unless ALAC is an inferior compression technology to FLAC?? In which case a lot theories will need revisiting. I'm still not totall convinced.

The only reason I can think of is that the Wadia dock has to get access to the iPod digital data stream and that this stream has to be converted from ALAC to PCM in the iPod and this somehow overloads the iPod. True the iPod can play ALAC lossless files but would normally output the analogue audio only ... perhaps outputting a digital signal is a bit too much for it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Wireless solutions are not the slightest bit limiting, I regularly stream video and music from mine and vistors Laptops to my Apple TV and Airport Express and we've loads of customers who do the same and others using PS3s. Music streams more easily because it requires less bandwidth. If you're having trouble, it'll be your installation not the system.

Lossless is lossless, there are no benefits in using FLAC, only disadvantages, but they suit Audiophiles having trouble coming to terms with Computer Audio as has been used on the Pro Side for more than 20 years now!!

I don't think there is a conspiracy to keep computer audio out but I do think the relationship between various Manufacturers, Magazines and retailers has had that effect. It's not deliberate but it has happened.

When I submitted the original ADM9s for review to WHF, they did get five stars, but they were not tested with an Apple computer as we requested and as I was promised they would be, but with a £1500 CD player that, according to the review, had a worse DAC. Why? The whole point of ADM9s (9.1s now) is to get rid of separates because that's what everyone wants to do! This I believe is the quandary that faces magazines and shops alike.

In our opinion the shops, magazines and reviewers are hi fi enthusiasts, they love to tweak, the acumulate boxes and to sample cable changes etc. So do Audiophiles, but they too, are going the way of the dinosaurs! This is not what people are interested in anymore, or not in reasonable quantities anyway.

We found a marked reluctance in hi fi shops to take on ADM9.1s too. One actually said and I quote: "We don't want more for less, so you can
EDITED BY MODS
for a start Mate - I'm making hay 'en oi!" The hay was multi room and hugely expensive servers now surpassed by the likes of Apple TVs.
We're small and we don't care because, when demand went through the roof for AVI on the nineties, we had real worries keeping up and even greater ones financing the growth. Nowadays customers don't need much persuasion to stay out of shops, so we're selling substantial quantities online and not having money worries. We've just had our best year for ten years!

It is true that some streaming devices have analogue outputs that are not as good as the best CD players, but they do all have good digital ones and Sonos sell substantial quantities of ADM9.1s to their customers when the highest sound quality is required. The Sonos wireless system is flawless and it's analogue outputs or Amplified Modules are extremely good for the money, or for that matter, good enough for many people to be happy to replace expensive separates systems with them. Sonos are seeing growth right now, when all is doom and gloom and others are laying people off.

Another problem that everyone is shying away from here is price. In order to hang on to market share and to provide retailers who make infrequent sales with a living, margins have grown and are far greater than for normal consumer electronics. This in part explains why there is such an enormous and increasingly unacceptable price gap between the two (and also the Pro Audio market too). The other problem is that some specialist companies are terribly out of date and using old fashioned, slow, expensive and potentially less reliable manufacturing techniques, which makes it difficult for them to compete with those that are up to date.

Finally it is very important to understand that for most electronics manufacturers on the Pro or consumer side, DACs are just part of a system. The ones in an iPod will be as good as the best you can buy and the total cost of all the bits, including the power supply, for the best you can make will be about £30-£40! The Pretty box is what pushes the price up high and not the bits that makes the sound. There is no reason why the Beresford should not be as good as any if it is properly implemented.

I'm petty sure that if one of the specialists released a stand alone hi end DAC now, it'd probably get a good review from the hi fi mags, but the cost of manufacturing it would be on every Forum from here to Pluto! Look what happened to Naim when they used a www.mini-itx.com for their server. The whole world now knows how to make one for less!

The present situation is that TV, computers and Sound are combining quickly, they latest catalyst is On Demand TV and people's atittudes are changing too, most are now interested in interior design and light airy and spacious rooms. The image of hi fi is black boxes, geeks and of being marginalised and people don't like to be thought of that way, so their hi fi is being sold and recently more quickly than many in the Industry have realised yet. look at the second hand market and you'll see what I mean.

It puts the staff of WHF in a difficult position, they are decreasing hi fi and they are upping TV and PMP coverage, but they haven't yet realised that the perfect music, Video, Movie, Photo and Youtube server is what everyone wants and that Apple and PS3 are the market leaders at the moment.

I'm afraid the old fashioned hi fi separates shops don't have enough computer savvy and they aren't adapting quickly enough to the current pace of change. This is because they are enthusiasts for a dying hobby and not business people. Creative's comments were suicidal IMO.

Anyone who has been following www.computeraudiophile.com will know just how quickly Computer Audio is taking over. Things will never be the same again IMO.

Ashley
 

mikeinbrum

New member
Oct 22, 2008
28
0
0
Visit site
I'm not sure I understand. If lossless is lossless why are there disadvantages to FLAC? I thought FLAC was a lossless method of compression? Ashley, what file format do you recommend to your customers?

I've been wanting to try out a pair of ADM9.1s but living where I do in Northampton, the nearest dealer I can find is in Harborne, Birmingham. Quite some way away. If the ADM9.1s are really as good as they are described then I'd hand over my current setup in trade / part exchange for a pair. The test would be whether they sound 'better' to my ears playing a track via computer audio (using whatever file format is recommended) to the same track being played through my ARCAM/EPOS setup. I would be extremely impressed if the 9.1s could....
 

chebby

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2008
1,253
26
19,220
Visit site
Ashley James:Finally it is very important to understand that for most electronics manufacturers on the Pro or consumer side, DACs are just part of a system. The ones in an iPod will be as good as the best you can buy and the total cost of all the bits, including the power supply, for the best you can make will be about £30-£40!

This was £10 - £15 as recently as a month ago when you were costing out a DIY version of a Wolfson WM8741EV evaluation board.

Ashley James:I'm petty sure that if one of the specialists released a stand alone hi end DAC now, it'd probably get a good review from the hi fi mags, but the cost of manufacturing it would be on every Forum from here to Pluto! Look what happened to Naim when they used a www.mini-itx.com for their server. The whole world now knows how to make one for less!

Are you slamming Naim for using a cost effective OEM motherboard in a £4500 product, whilst at the same time 'boasting' that the best DACs only cost £30 - £40 to make? (Including presumably the ones in your £1300 ADM9.1 system.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
We don't care what people use, it's up to them, but by far the most popular is iTunes and usually Apple Computers, which is not surprising when you consider that Apple make the best Pro Audio Music Software you can buy. Therefore iTunes couldn't have better credentials and the computers are fast, attractive and easy to use.

Only open source media players will play non DRM'd music which is what FLAC is, so why make such a big sacrifice? Apple Lossless is simply labelled and DRM'd FLAC!

However this is drifting away from Topic. The point is that all digital sources are the same, so a CD will sound the same from any Computer as it does from a CD player provided the DACs used are of the same quality. Therefore is computer is a better choice because it's more versatile and gives access to so much more than just music. That's why people are switching. Any dealer who suggests otherwise is treading a dangerous pathway IMO.

Ash
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
chebby:Ashley James:Finally it is very important to understand that for most electronics manufacturers on the Pro or consumer side, DACs are just part of a system. The ones in an iPod will be as good as the best you can buy and the total cost of all the bits, including the power supply, for the best you can make will be about £30-£40!

This was £10 - £15 as recently as a month ago when you were costing out a DIY version of a Wolfson WM8741EV evaluation board.

Ashley James:I'm petty sure that if one of the specialists released a stand alone hi end DAC now, it'd probably get a good review from the hi fi mags, but the cost of manufacturing it would be on every Forum from here to Pluto! Look what happened to Naim when they used a www.mini-itx.com for their server. The whole world now knows how to make one for less!

Are you slamming Naim for using a cost effective OEM motherboard in a £4500 product, whilst at the same time 'boasting' that the best DACs only cost £30 - £40 to make? (Including presumably the ones in your £1300 ADM9.1 system.)

Then I left out the cost of the power supply. This time I've allowed for a transformer as well!

Wolfson charge about £100 for their board and I believe I said that too.

And I'm not slamming Naim I'm simply pointing out that the whole world and his dog knows that they used a Mini ITX board and how much it costs and is discussing it everywhere? I'm sure that will have harmed them. That's the point I'm making.

Why don't you stay on topic Chebby instead of misquoting me to start a needle match?

Ash
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ashley James:The point is that all digital sources are the same, so a CD will sound the same from any Computer as it does from a CD player provided the DACs used are of the same quality.

Ash

im sorry but that is just wrong. digital sources are not the same. they are the sum of the parts used to build them! a £10 CD/DVD drive in my PC isnt going to read a cd the same way a £2000 dedicated CDP will. my £1000 DV135 will also read/extract data differently. do some back to back tests listening to files ripped losslessly via various cd/dvd drives onto the same PC and you will hear the difference
 

mikeinbrum

New member
Oct 22, 2008
28
0
0
Visit site
Now this is interesting. I was under the impression that the source you use to rip the music is not important as the ripping software is allowed the luxury of multiple passes over the cd to ensure that the music has been transferred accurately. Only once a copy has been confirmed accurate will the file be saved to disk. now it's a different story when you're playing cd's as the player does not have the opportunity to read and re-read from the cd to ensure that there are no transcription errors.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ifitsoundsgoodlistentoit:Ashley James:The point is that all digital sources are the same, so a CD will sound the same from any Computer as it does from a CD player provided the DACs used are of the same quality.

Ash

im sorry but that is just wrong. digital sources are not the same. they are the sum of the parts used to build them! a £10 CD/DVD drive in my PC isnt going to read a cd the same way a £2000 dedicated CDP will. my £1000 DV135 will also read/extract data differently. do some back to back tests listening to files ripped losslessly via various cd/dvd drives onto the same PC and you will hear the difference

No I'm sorry but you're wrong. For a start you can buy a better CD/DVD Rom for your computer and if you use error correction there will be no difference.

The thing you must remember is that it's likely that all the music you buy will have at least in part, been made on a computer.

You also need to be aware of the fact that for the last 10 years CD mechs have been dropping in price and quality to meet market requirements. They don't last long and they are much more troublesome than HDs are now. I'm a manufacturer who decided not to make any more and this is one of the reasons. The other was a fall in demand.

Please understand that I'm simply explaining what is happening and why I think it's happening. Don't attack the messenger, just read the message and think about it.

All digital sources are the same and if you did properly conducted tests with all the levels properly matched and invisible switching you'd find you were wrong and that you couldn't hear the differences you believe you can. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're just one of a tiny minority out on a limb. The world is switching to Media Computer type devices and hi fi is a casualty at the moment.

Ash
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mikeinbrum:Now this is interesting. I was under the impression that the source you use to rip the music is not important as the ripping software is allowed the luxury of multiple passes over the cd to ensure that the music has been transferred accurately. Only once a copy has been confirmed accurate will the file be saved to disk. now it's a different story when you're playing cd's as the player does not have the opportunity to read and re-read from the cd to ensure that there are no transcription errors.

These are very old points that have been beaten to death on every Forum in the Galaxy.

IMO you're likely to get a better read into a computer, but whether you'd hear it or not is another matter. I think most people have given up talking about it and accepted that it's not worth worrying about. CDs are better in computers and that's that.

Ash
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Has anyone seen the new Sonneteer Morpheus? It simply the neatest and best solution I've seen for computer audio/streaming to date, the idea and design put this product right at the front of the pack, stating that manufactures are behind the times and don't know or understand computer audio or what there customers want is just laughable nonsense, the only product I feel that will get a rough ride is the CD player followed by small speakers, people have seen them for what they are, people prefer big speakers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ashley,

This is clearly a topic close to your heart, as anyone who has spent any time reading the forum will already know. Personally I agree with most of your sentiments about current manufacturer's as you will see from my earlier posting. However, I have to take issue with you on a number of points.

Firstly, whilst you are clearly a MAC fan you surely realise that not everyone is. I have an iPod Touch and an iPod classic because they provided the best options at the time. However, they also have limitations such as not being able to replace the batteries, not having an FM tuner, using terrible headphones etc. I also have a MAC mini which I no longer use as I find it limiting and I actually hate MAC OS X. As Steve Wozniak recently said, both he an Steve Jobs wish people would stop treating Apple as if it is a religion. Personally I have not managed to get the faith and think iTunes is the worst software I have ever used. Media Monkey IMHO is so much better and computeraudiophile also said the same. I suspect that many people don't want to take the Apple Lossless route as they don't want to get locked into one company. Apple is even worse than Microsoft in this regard. Apple only do so well because other companies are so inept at design. However, if Sony were to support FLAC in their players my next portable player will not be an Apple.

Secondly, saying that FLAC has disadvantages without stating what you mean does not help anyone. It is surely that it is an open standard and lossless that drives people to it. It is a shame that more companies don't endorse open standards and I wish more portable players would support it. Whilst you clearly endorse Apple you must surely understand why people do not. If you are going to knock FLAC and open systems then at least please say why and justify it?

Thirdly, I have to defend WhatHiFi and the other magazines as I think they have been quite open to computer audio. That may not be your experience but as a customer I have to say that I would not be so interested in computer audio if they had not introduced me to the topic. Where most magazines fall down is not doing comparitive reviews. It is often the case that a product will get a 5 star review when it has functions missing that I think should be there. And I would love to read a comparison of the Sonos versus a Cyrus transport. But a number of readers still write into the magazines complaing about the lack of coverage on turntables, so there is a limit on what they can do.

Lastly, whilst I can understand you plugging your ADM9.1 and the Sonos, you surely understand that many of us have speakers and amplifiers that we already like. I assume you at AVI have chosen not to cater for our needs and surely you don't expect everyone to dump their existing kit for the ADM9.1? Personally, I have listened to the Sonos a number of times and have been less than impressed. To me it is like the debate between LP's and CD's, valve's and transistors. To me the Sonos sounded like listening to a computer! I really want to like it but I don't. I felt exactly the same with a MAC playing via the NAIM Supernait. Yes, I get the theory but to me it lacked soul. What I'm still trying to understand is why that is?

What we all need is positive guidance and detailed explanations to help us navigate through these changes. I personally have 5 hifi's and want to find a way of introducing the convenience of computer audio and video without loosing what I love about the sound of those systems. As someone who clearly cares so much about it I love to see you providing more detail about the conclusions you have come to and why you have come to them.
 

Clare Newsome

New member
Jun 4, 2007
1,657
0
0
Visit site
Ashley James:.

It puts the staff of WHF in a difficult position, they are decreasing hi fi and they are upping TV and PMP coverage, but they haven't yet realised that the perfect music, Video, Movie, Photo and Youtube server is what everyone wants and that Apple and PS3 are the market leaders at the moment.

I'm afraid the old fashioned hi fi separates shops don't have enough computer savvy and they aren't adapting quickly enough to the current pace of change. This is because they are enthusiasts for a dying hobby and not business people. Creative's comments were suicidal IMO. Things will never be the same again IMO.

Ashley

Selective as ever, Ashley -PS3 is a two-time Award winner, Airport express has been a five-star product since 2004 and we've been featuring DACs, streaming and convergence kit for eons. We're growing our coverage as market demand for the products and technologies grows - as well as keeping our commitment to covering the joyously diverse ways people choose to enjoy music, movies and TV. Choice being the key word.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ashley James:ifitsoundsgoodlistentoit:Ashley James:The point is that all digital sources are the same, so a CD will sound the same from any Computer as it does from a CD player provided the DACs used are of the same quality.

Ash

im sorry but that is just wrong. digital sources are not the same. they are the sum of the parts used to build them! a £10 CD/DVD drive in my PC isnt going to read a cd the same way a £2000 dedicated CDP will. my £1000 DV135 will also read/extract data differently. do some back to back tests listening to files ripped losslessly via various cd/dvd drives onto the same PC and you will hear the difference

No I'm sorry but you're wrong. For a start you can buy a better CD/DVD Rom for your computer and if you use error correction there will be no difference.

The thing you must remember is that it's likely that all the music you buy will have at least in part, been made on a computer.

You also need to be aware of the fact that for the last 10 years CD mechs have been dropping in price and quality to meet market requirements. They don't last long and they are much more troublesome than HDs are now. I'm a manufacturer who decided not to make any more and this is one of the reasons. The other was a fall in demand.

Please understand that I'm simply explaining what is happening and why I think it's happening. Don't attack the messenger, just read the message and think about it.

All digital sources are the same and if you did properly conducted tests with all the levels properly matched and invisible switching you'd find you were wrong and that you couldn't hear the differences you believe you can. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're just one of a tiny minority out on a limb. The world is switching to Media Computer type devices and hi fi is a casualty at the moment.

Ash

but ashley why would i need to buy a better drive if they are all the same?

error correction? where do the errors come from? surely not from the digital device reading the digital media?

yes some of the music i own has been produced partially on a computer - what was your point?

not all cd mechs have dropped in price and quality - some manufacturers are still trying to perfect them - to reflect the demand in the market

dont know anyone who has had a mech fail on them btw

you dont know me so please dont tell me i am part of a minority

if hi-fi is a casualty the sales figures arent reflecting it. the only hi-fi casualty i can think of is Naims HDX (in terms of sales figures)which incidentaly is a Media Computer type device - go figure?
 

TRENDING THREADS