Your phone/DAP has a decent processor so I doubt it suffers from processing power. If the processor wasn't good enough, the sound should either be choppy or cut off, but for it to both play smoothly and for there to be a difference is beyond me.
WAV and FLAC should sound the same, they are both lossless. Only difference is that FLAC can be uncompressed and compressed in many levels. I recommend having a friend play the two files for you at random and see if you're able to discern a difference.
...
Anyways, what program do you use for audio playback?
I've been using J.River Media Center since they day I joined this jobby, it offers a decent selection of possible DSP, etc so I never found any need to go elsewhere.
Now there are so many uprising programs with support for this and that, I'm just completely confused.
...
differences if any should be limited to the last bits or to specific settings and functions used, so again anything that works for you is probably fine.
I use foobar, because over the years I got used to it and it just works. I only wish it could do 64bit and get some clever guy to make a VST wrapper for VST3 to ease up on the CPU when I want to use some pretty heavy settings. but it's not like I need it for typical audio playback so I stick to what I know for now.
Your phone/DAP has a decent processor so I doubt it suffers from processing power. If the processor wasn't good enough, the sound should either be choppy or cut off, but for it to both play smoothly and for there to be a difference is beyond me.
WAV and FLAC should sound the same, they are both lossless. Only difference is that FLAC can be uncompressed and compressed in many levels. I recommend having a friend play the two files for you at random and see if you're able to discern a difference.
the ess9218 is an all in one solution(decoding, DAC, amp), with the right app(I imagine whatever is by default on the phone) even the flac decompression should/could be handled by the sabre chip, instead of the usual player using the CPU so that only PCM is sent to the PCM speaking DACs. this ess chipset is apparently multilingual ^_^.
but in any case, flac once decompressed offers the same data as wave(+some tags probably). so if, and it's a huge "if", there is an audible difference, of course it's caused by the player, the device, or the way the flac was encoded. flac as a format doesn't have the ability to alter the signal in any way and claims of the contrary are false.
Besides doing back to back random switching to try and differentiate between FLAC or WAVE, the other variables are based on file decoding. Back in 2010 I had my first experience with a bad decoder. So there is always that chance that maybe the FLAC file had imperfections which made it sound inferior to WAVE.
It was an Ashampoo program I was using not Foobar2000 in 2010. And I'm sure we could find whole teams here at Head-Fi who question the quality of sound files processed away from Redbook 16bit-44.1kHz. It's pretty much an understanding that there are a multitude of file qualities provided by different transcoders.
And really above is another perfect argument for the purists who do have an affinity for virgin WAVE.
So in ending yes, lossless could have the potentiality of arriving at being a direct clone of 16bit-44.1kHz WAVE, but the sound quality is only going to be as good as the transcoding lets it be. That said it's rare that the transcoding is inferior but we must not forget it's absolutely a variable when trying to test for differences.
Besides doing back to back random switching to try and differentiate between FLAC or WAVE, the other variables are based on file decoding. Back in 2010 I had my first experience with a bad decoder. So there is always that chance that maybe the FLAC file had imperfections which made it sound inferior to WAVE.
It was an Ashampoo program I was using not Foobar2000 in 2010. And I'm sure we could find whole teams here at Head-Fi who question the quality of sound files processed away from Redbook 16bit-44.1kHz. It's pretty much an understanding that there are a multitude of file qualities provided by different transcoders.
And really above is another perfect argument for the purists who do have an affinity for virgin WAVE.
So in ending yes, lossless could have the potentiality of arriving at being a direct clone of 16bit-44.1kHz WAVE, but the sound quality is only going to be as good as the transcoding lets it be. That said it's rare that the transcoding is inferior but we must not forget it's absolutely a variable when trying to test for differences.
I wonder about how processing errors are corrected? My Sony PCM-7010F DAT Recorders have very powerful error correction for 16/44.1 and 16/48. The outcome is, as I hear it, the most life-like sound I've heard so far from a digital device. Interestingly enough, these recorders are not the latest and greatest, dating back to about 1992.
I wonder about how processing errors are corrected? My Sony PCM-7010F DAT Recorders have very powerful error correction for 16/44.1 and 16/48. The outcome is, as I hear it, the most life-like sound I've heard so far from a digital device. Interestingly enough, these recorders are not the latest and greatest, dating back to about 1992.
This is a subject I know very little about. Though I do know that some decoder software will provide data showing the acuracy which took place during the decode. I don't think it's anything you can correct after the fact. The more elaborate decoding software actually goes and tests the quality and gives you a report as to the accuracy performed. Still maybe most of the time these mistakes if any are not audible. Only if you have experience with a really bad decoding you'll notice the extent of what is truly possible with bad software.
I'd recommend using dBpoweramp to convert the WAV to FLAC. (Instead of ripping the CD all over again and potentially introducing more variables into the equation.)
I didn't know where else to ask this, and I didn't want to start a new thread so, does anyone know of an Android music player app which is able to simulate tube amp sound with dsp?
I didn't know where else to ask this, and I didn't want to start a new thread so, does anyone know of an Android music player app which is able to simulate tube amp sound with dsp?
I am upset to report that on my current system, JPLAYmini in Hibernate mode sounds clearly better than foobar2000. (With previous systems, I wasn't able to hear a difference between them.) But I can't do anything on my computer this way, so it's not very practical.
I am upset to report that on my current system, JPLAYmini in Hibernate mode sounds clearly better than foobar2000. (With previous systems, I wasn't able to hear a difference between them.) But I can't do anything on my computer this way, so it's not very practical.
It's not about what you "need", but the sound. I'm actually using the most extreme JPLAY settings: KS for the output mode (instead of WASAPI or ASIO) and ULTRAstream for the engine. I've heard that KS is superior to other output modes as far as the technical things it does. I've never heard a difference between KS, WASAPI, and ASIO themselves in the same player.
But like I said, JPLAYmini in Hibernate mode (and the aforementioned settings) sounds noticeably better on my current system than foobar2000 with WASAPI or ASIO. Every time I've compared a track for the past day, my general reaction is awe for the former and disappointment for the latter.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
