Latest Thread Images

ALAC vs. FLAC
May 17, 2015 at 4:01 PM Post #107 of 183
"Audiophiles NEVER, EVER bother with double blind tests since the results might cause their entire audio belief system to fall apart."
 
I'm sorry, but this sort of tests useless as is. Because sound live an imprint in the memory and more you listen to a music the stronger is the imprint about the details. Now you start clicking and guess what is happen, longer you do tests the less chance you have to distinguish between the two formats. Around 20th test probably i can not even tell the difference between a 1000kbps FLAC  and a 128kbps MP3 what is normally not a challenge. For example those people who test perfumes often smell coffee between tests, to "reset" their senses, or people drink red vine with food for the same reason. Audiophiles listening new capacitors in their gear for days, then change and evaluate to be sure etc.
This is how our senses work, the easy thing just to think: Oh yeah, another audiofool shown up.
 
May 17, 2015 at 4:09 PM Post #108 of 183
ramachandra said:
  "Audiophiles NEVER, EVER bother with double blind tests since the results might cause their entire audio belief system to fall apart."
 
I'm sorry, but this sort of tests useless as is. Because sound live an imprint in the memory and more you listen to a music the stronger is the imprint about the details. Now you start clicking and guess what is happen, longer you do tests the less chance you have to distinguish between the two formats. Around 20th test probably i can not even tell the difference between a 1000kbps FLAC  and a 128kbps MP3 what is normally not a challenge. For example those people who test perfumes often smell coffee between tests, to "reset" their senses, or people drink red vine with food for the same reason. Audiophiles listening new capacitors in their gear for days, then change and evaluate to be sure etc.
This is how our senses work, the easy thing just to think: Oh yeah, another audiofool shown up.
Click to expand...


This isn't true, but even assuming it was you're allowed to listen to the samples as long as you want before you make a decision in an ABX test.
 
May 17, 2015 at 6:12 PM Post #111 of 183
ramachandra said:
  "Audiophiles NEVER, EVER bother with double blind tests since the results might cause their entire audio belief system to fall apart."
 
I'm sorry, but this sort of tests useless as is. Because sound live an imprint in the memory and more you listen to a music the stronger is the imprint about the details. Now you start clicking and guess what is happen, longer you do tests the less chance you have to distinguish between the two formats. Around 20th test probably i can not even tell the difference between a 1000kbps FLAC  and a 128kbps MP3 what is normally not a challenge. For example those people who test perfumes often smell coffee between tests, to "reset" their senses, or people drink red vine with food for the same reason. Audiophiles listening new capacitors in their gear for days, then change and evaluate to be sure etc.
This is how our senses work, the easy thing just to think: Oh yeah, another audiofool shown up.
Click to expand...

 
 
head injury said:
 
This isn't true, but even assuming it was you're allowed to listen to the samples as long as you want before you make a decision in an ABX test.
Click to expand...

 
Exactly - set up a double blind test that allows one to listen to each unknown "setting" (in this case you are comparing the sound of ALAC versus FLAC so each file type would be a "setting") for as one likes. Listen for 10 minutes, an hour or a day to each setting, whatever makes you happy. Or better yet have the durations of each setting be completely random - 10 minutes of A, an hour of B, 1/2 half of B, etc.
 
See if you can hear the difference with any degree of accuracy. I would think that by your prior descriptions of just how obvious the difference is you have no problems with any of these tests.
 
I'm not trying to reopen the DBT can of worms, I'm only trying to get you understand the "sound science" point of view - if the differences are so obvious why not prove it with well run double blind test? And if you don't want to submit to a double blind test, fine then be happy and listen to only ALAC but do NOT declare your completely subjective findings on a public forum and not expect to be challenged.
 
May 17, 2015 at 7:00 PM Post #112 of 183
Ok, i spent half hour with testing. I do not use Foobar and it is sound different to my hears, i guess i can do better with Winamp.
 
foo_abx 2.0.1 report
foobar2000 v1.3.8
2015-05-17 23:22:42
File A: Adam Fielding - Pieces - 01 A Call To Action.flac
SHA1: a83f093258d9f03a0baaca69fa1c4039ce9f2b16
File B: Adam Fielding - Pieces - A Call To Action.m4a
SHA1: d16257bdc0d15d8ef96fbe77b41bcf5bc6ad9edb
Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO
23:22:42 : Test started.
23:26:48 : 01/01
23:27:35 : 01/02
23:28:44 : 02/03
23:29:21 : 03/04
23:30:02 : 04/05
23:32:08 : 04/06
23:32:55 : 05/07
23:38:25 : 06/08
23:39:29 : 06/09
23:41:23 : 07/10
23:42:57 : 08/11
23:46:07 : 09/12
23:47:04 : 10/13
23:49:51 : 10/14
23:51:00 : 11/15
23:52:34 : 12/16
23:52:34 : Test finished.
 ----------
Total: 12/16
Probability that you were guessing: 3.8%
 -- signature --
980a46dd8d147689a52b6614a709649ac77a60d2
 
May 17, 2015 at 7:12 PM Post #113 of 183
ramachandra said:
  Ok, i spent half hour with testing. I do not use Foobar and it is sound different to my hears, i guess i can do better with Winamp.
 
foo_abx 2.0.1 report
foobar2000 v1.3.8
2015-05-17 23:22:42
File A: Adam Fielding - Pieces - 01 A Call To Action.flac
SHA1: a83f093258d9f03a0baaca69fa1c4039ce9f2b16
File B: Adam Fielding - Pieces - A Call To Action.m4a
SHA1: d16257bdc0d15d8ef96fbe77b41bcf5bc6ad9edb
Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO
23:22:42 : Test started.
23:26:48 : 01/01
23:27:35 : 01/02
23:28:44 : 02/03
23:29:21 : 03/04
23:30:02 : 04/05
23:32:08 : 04/06
23:32:55 : 05/07
23:38:25 : 06/08
23:39:29 : 06/09
23:41:23 : 07/10
23:42:57 : 08/11
23:46:07 : 09/12
23:47:04 : 10/13
23:49:51 : 10/14
23:51:00 : 11/15
23:52:34 : 12/16
23:52:34 : Test finished.
 ----------
Total: 12/16
Probability that you were guessing: 3.8%
 -- signature --
980a46dd8d147689a52b6614a709649ac77a60d2
Click to expand...


Impressive and thank you! Now it up to those with knowledge of the inter-workings of computer audio to figure out why ALAC sounds different from FLAC.
 
May 17, 2015 at 8:25 PM Post #116 of 183
ramachandra, could you possibly upload the two files you used for the ABX test so we can take a look at them? The ones downloaded straight from the artist's Bandcamp null out completely, absolutely no difference.
 
May 18, 2015 at 6:00 AM Post #118 of 183
maybe don't let those files up for too long, as they technically make you an illegal music provider ^_^.
but thanks for being a good sport and following up on people's requests to understand what you're talking about.
 
May 18, 2015 at 9:48 AM Post #119 of 183
I had an idea. Basically it was mentioned above both formats are lossless audio, and convert one to another not result any decrease in quality. So i got a converter and i have converted few FLAC files to ALAC and tested, but not with ABX this time, and i got the same result. So it is probably have something to do with the decoding, like a different EQ setting for the formats. This little discovery certainly will save me few euros in the future.
smily_headphones1.gif

 
May 18, 2015 at 10:35 AM Post #120 of 183
ramachandra said:
  I had an idea. Basically it was mentioned above both formats are lossless audio, and convert one to another not result any decrease in quality. So i got a converter and i have converted few FLAC files to ALAC and tested, but not with ABX this time, and i got the same result. So it is probably have something to do with the decoding, like a different EQ setting for the formats. This little discovery certainly will save me few euros in the future.
smily_headphones1.gif
Click to expand...


that can very much happen. even though it obviously shouldn't. but will depends on the player used, and maybe some settings. I've myself never experienced it with lossless formats, but with mp3 once and several times on portable devices trying to play ogg files. when the decoding sucks, the result can be different.
but on a computer you always have some software that will be able to handle everything fine. maybe just try other players until you no longer get differences? or as you suggested, just convert to the lossless format that works for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top