Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Audible differences between WAV and FLAC?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audible differences between WAV and FLAC? - Page 2

post #16 of 44
2/25/10 at 2:44am
I'm still on the fence about cables and think tubes sound better than transistors, but I'm going to have to invoke science on this one:

There. Is. No. Difference. There can be no difference.

Lossless compression (like FLAC) isn't 99% accurate, it's 100% accurate (except in case of complete malfunction, but that only counts in hand grenades and contraceptives).

When audio is compressed, that's just how it's stored...MP3 and other lossless throws away data because it makes a smaller file on the disc. It still gets decompressed in memory to a full-size, uncompressed file, but just one that doesn't have the data that got thrown away, and thus doesn't sound as good.

Lossless compression, on the other hand, is just like a .zip or a .tar.bz2 file...you can compress it and decompress it and the file you get out is identical, bit for bit, to the file you put in. And the decompression doesn't even happen in your amp or DAC or anything that could have weird audiophile things...it happens before the signal leaves your computer. The bits coming out of your computer are the same whether you play FLAC or WAV.
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #17 of 44
3/14/10 at 7:41am
The 4 people who voted 'yes' are the reason people make fun of audiophiles.
Reply
post #18 of 44
3/14/10 at 7:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by aristos_achaion View Post
it's 100% accurate (except in case of complete malfunction, but that only counts in hand grenades and contraceptives).
Not true, an incomplete explosion can occur in both cases.
Reply
post #19 of 44
3/14/10 at 10:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3602 View Post
Hey, I'm still at that FLAV vs MP3 poll
You mean FLAW vs MP3?
Reply
post #20 of 44
3/14/10 at 9:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by danroche View Post
The actual example I used was the following:

Source material:

This hamburger tastes really, really, really, really, fantasically good. This hamburger is so, very, very awesome.

Lossless compression:

This hamburger(HBR) tastes reallyX4, fantastically good. This HBR is so veryX2 awesome.

Lossy compression.

This hamburger tastes great.
This entire thread was worth it just for this post!


.
Reply
post #21 of 44
3/15/10 at 2:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by danroche View Post
The actual example I used was the following:

Source material:

This hamburger tastes really, really, really, really, fantasically good. This hamburger is so, very, very awesome.

Lossless compression:

This hamburger(HBR) tastes reallyX4, fantastically good. This HBR is so veryX2 awesome.

Lossy compression.

This hamburger tastes great.
That's a great way to think of it.

Going on that, I think of lossless compression as shorthand (or 1337!), and lossy compression as shorthand with dropped words. I'll use your sentence as an example because it's awesome.

WAV: "This hamburger tastes great."
FLAC: "Ths hmbrgr tstes gr8."
MP3: "hmbgr gr8"

Now, the FLAC sentences means the exact same thing, but you cut out 7 letters for free. A computer can easily decode it as, letter for letter, the WAV sentence. In the right situation, the MP3 also means the exact same thing, but there's no way a computer will be able to build the same sentence letter for letter without context (as in, without knowing what the original WAV file was) because any number of words could go before "hmbrgr" and that "gr8" there could mean just about anything. Made great? Looks great? Where with FLAC you know it tastes great.

I'm also learning Japanese at college, and the language makes for a good comparison as well. A lot more can be left up to context in Japanese compared to English. Whole sentences can be dropped, leaving nothing but the verb, and it'll still make some sense. That's not common in English. Drop just a little and a sentence still makes sense without context. Drop too much and context is necessary. And even then, it's hard to pick the perfect words to fit the gaps (like it's impossible to fill in what the MP3 cuts out).

Oh yeah, and I'm joining the chorus by saying: These poll options suck!
Reply
post #22 of 44
3/15/10 at 2:15pm
Awesome poll.

Reply
post #23 of 44
3/15/10 at 4:20pm
we need an entire rework of the bit rating system based on the hamburger anology.

I can see it now....

can you tell the difference between a plain hamburger recording and a royale with cheese?

that last recording you played sounded like burnt hamburgers...

oh the possibilities are endless
Reply
post #24 of 44
3/15/10 at 4:36pm
I think they sound the same, and after reading the other comments I understand they're basically the same thing just stored differently.
Reply
post #25 of 44
3/18/10 at 12:22pm
I am open minded that there may be individuals out there that can hear a difference - I believe what they hear is jitter related and the effect of processor action on jitter levels.

These days I don't think this is worth spending more than half hour of free time or more than a hundred dollars to solve.
Reply
post #26 of 44
3/18/10 at 1:47pm
If the info is buffered, the jitter from the decode wouldn't matter at all right?

Please stop saying open minded for things like 1+1=3.
Reply
post #27 of 44
3/18/10 at 5:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
I am open minded that there may be individuals out there that can hear a difference - I believe what they hear is jitter related and the effect of processor action on jitter levels.
I think what they hear is placebo related
Reply
post #28 of 44
3/18/10 at 6:40pm
Where's the "get a mac and forget about it" poll option? Ain't gonna vote.
Reply
post #29 of 44
3/18/10 at 7:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by spahn_ranch View Post
Where's the "get a mac and forget about it" poll option? Ain't gonna vote.
Why exactly does owning a mac have anything to do with this thread? FLAC and WAV are both perfectly relevant to a mac... unless you are talking about using exclusively ALAC. Which would then effectively make the thread title WAV vs. ALAC. Or any other lossless codec really.

"Get a mac and forget about it" is pretty much the worst answer to any problem anyway.
Reply
post #30 of 44
3/18/10 at 7:13pm
It's not so much about owning it, as actually getting it.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Audible differences between WAV and FLAC?