Altmann Tera Player - Page 89  

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisceriousZERO 

Based on collected data:
1. FLAC is like a zipped WAV file.
2. When a player plays FLAC its like unzipping the WAV and playing it back.
3. Converting FLAC to WAV does not affect the file because its just unzipping the WAV.
4. I'm not really sure if the compression/zipping of the FLAC has soemthing to do with it?

I think during the process of Unzipping the files is the problem to be honest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee730 

I think during the process of Unzipping the files is the problem to be honest.

I think it might be the use of extra power. By this I mean just the electrical function and that the less going on, the less noise and consumption of any current, no matter how small. Then again, maybe it is just the unzipping and it isn't perfect, because I HeAR A Difference and do all my stuff in WAV now. Memory is cheap and I want to hear the best! :^)

Time for School:

WAV files are uncompressed lossless. The silent parts take up just as many bits as the parts with music.

FLAC is compressed lossless. The silent parts take up almost no bits but the music has the same number of bits as WAV.

WAV and FLAC files can be converted back and forth (WAV to FLAC and FLAC to WAV) with no loss of musical information.

From Wikipedia:

FLAC is a codec (compressor-decompressor or coder-decoder) which allows digital audio to be losslessly compressed such that file size is reduced without any information being lost. Digital audio compressed by FLAC's algorithm can typically be reduced to 50–60% of its original size, and decompressed into an identical copy of the original audio data.

The best school is reality and for many, that is the truth of what they hear. I hear a difference and others do as well. That is the school of experience, period. WAV sounds best to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamato8 

I think it might be the use of extra power. By this I mean just the electrical function and that the less going on, the less noise and consumption of any current, no matter how small. Then again, maybe it is just the unzipping and it isn't perfect, because I HeAR A Difference and do all my stuff in WAV now. Memory is cheap and I want to hear the best! :^)

Bits will unzip properly. More likely processor load, noise floor due to it and the additional buffers needed....depending on acceptance. I tend to use wav at home and not via a PC or usb DAC.

 If you have a wav library and want to move it, you can get disappointed about the meta as lots of that is stored in a separate folder of whatever player your using and not permanently attached to the files other than the minimal riff info..FLAC/ALAC etc. is generally better for archiving, especially with a proper folder structure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodvibes 

Bits will unzip properly. More likely processor load, noise floor due to it and the additional buffers needed....depending on acceptance. I tend to use wav at home and not via a PC or usb DAC.

 

 If you have a wav library and want to move it, you can get disappointed about the meta as lots of that is stored in a separate folder of whatever player your using and not permanently attached to the files other than the minimal riff info..FLAC/ALAC etc. is generally better for archiving, especially with a proper folder structure.

Yep. All I want is the music. I don't really care about the rest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by burtomr 

Time for School:

 

WAV files are uncompressed lossless. The silent parts take up just as many bits as the parts with music.

 

FLAC is compressed lossless. The silent parts take up almost no bits but the music has the same number of bits as WAV.

 

WAV and FLAC files can be converted back and forth (WAV to FLAC and FLAC to WAV) with no loss of musical information.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

FLAC is a codec (compressor-decompressor or coder-decoder) which allows digital audio to be losslessly compressed such that file size is reduced without any information being lost. Digital audio compressed by FLAC's algorithm can typically be reduced to 50–60% of its original size, and decompressed into an identical copy of the original audio data.

I think there are no such things as silent parts. These silent parts forms the ambiance and atmospheric nature of the recording and the more hi def system one is using, the more these elements rise to the occasion. As Mr. Harry Pearson says the "Gestalt" of performance.

There is often confusion between properly recorded 24/96 and 24/192. Many prefer 24/96 as it is sharper sounding, but 24/192 is more atmospheric and the instruments blends in more smoothly together, and there is a noticeable sense of charge in the blackness and a more wholesomeness to the actual performance...........

As an audiophile, I am just naturally against FLAC as it's still a compressed form of music in some way. I have enough storage to store things uncompressed as it should be. Anyways, I've gotten friends to help me with blind tests, I hear exactly what I've stated before even when i dont know 100% that it's FLAC when i hit play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spkrs01 

 

I think there are no such things as silent parts. These silent parts forms the ambiance and atmospheric nature of the recording and the more hi def system one is using, the more these elements rise to the occasion. As Mr. Harry Pearson says the "Gestalt" of performance.

 

There is often confusion between properly recorded 24/96 and 24/192. Many prefer 24/96 as it is sharper sounding, but 24/192 is more atmospheric and the instruments blends in more smoothly together, and there is a noticeable sense of charge in the blackness and a more wholesomeness to the actual performance...........

Anything less than WAV for Jimi Hendrix is a sin. Vinyl is better but hey, can't spin on the move. No WAV, Jimi will haunt you!. :^_

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamato8 

Anything less than WAV for Jimi Hendrix is a sin. Vinyl is better but hey, can't spin on the move. No WAV, Jimi will haunt you!. :^_

+1 LOL

I think everyone owes it to themselves to have a listen to a Koetsu cartridge on a good arm and turntable, in a great set up. Just hoping that the Tera Player gives a little taste of the same in a portable solution

Get me a great rip of that and I bet you it would sound quite nice on the Tera Player. People say the sound of a stylus is unique and that it will affect the sound. For this reason using it to record the sound to a digital format, preferably in the 96khz or 192khz variety would be interesting and fun. You might just find yourself using recordings of it on the go for a quite similar feel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spkrs01 

 

+1 LOL

 

I think everyone owes it to themselves to have a listen to a Koetsu cartridge on a good arm and turntable, in a great set up. Just hoping that the Tera Player gives a little taste of the same in a portable solution

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenman345 

Get me a great rip of that and I bet you it would sound quite nice on the Tera Player. People say the sound of a stylus is unique and that it will affect the sound. For this reason using it to record the sound to a digital format, preferably in the 96khz or 192khz variety would be interesting and fun. You might just find yourself using recordings of it on the go for a quite similar feel.

You have a PM

I'll let you know how it sounds compared to my other vinyl rips. Looks like the file size of 24/192? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by spkrs01 

You have a PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenman345 

I'll let you know how it sounds compared to my other vinyl rips. Looks like the file size of 24/192? 

Yup, 24/192 Wav. I have a sneaky suspicion that it will blow all your other rips aside

Kinda hoping it is. my rips are usually just 24/96. And they're mainly from friends setups. I am working on my own to get some of the interesting things I have on my Tera Player