[K2Grey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emon Yes, true, I just get a little ansy around audiophiles and their placebo. Makes me want to punch things sometimes.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. The placebo effect is certainly well and alive, but on head-fi it is best to not deride the audible effect of any component of a rig, unless it is something like rainbow foil or the $400 volume knob, lest you begin a big flamewar.

 

[Melik]

i don't have a clue about FLAC.
why is it good for archiving ?

 

[Nandro]

Because its smaller than a wave file and it can be tagged.

 

[Melik]

smaller than mp3 too ?

 

[Oliver :)]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melik smaller than mp3 too ?

No, usually about 60% of the original size.

 

[Nandro]

Quote:

smaller than mp3 too ?

Not that small, but it is lossless, so you retain the complete original unlike mp3 whic discards information.

 

[Publius]

This discussion has gone on for three pages and nobody has even mentioned known problem samples yet?

Unbelievable. I thought Head-Fiers knew more than this. It's even common wisdom on HydrogenAudio that 320 is ABXable from FLAC given a sample that's tough enough.

If you need the warm fuzzies from knowing for absolutely certain that the codec you are using does no harm, you must go lossless. I myself mostly listen to lossy formats without an issue though.

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by idiotekniQues "Even purists aren't going to hear the difference between high quality loss and lossless audio. The point of using flac is to backup your CDs since cds can get lost or abused fairly easily.

I wouldn't refute this for portable use. I presume you're hawking the FLAC capability of the X5 as an asset.


With the sort of headphones and the environment that it would be used with for portable use, FLAC is for most a waste of time. The increased 'etchiness' evident in many IEM's also actually makes the difference even less evident. It's not just that it's a waste of time in terms of the quality difference, but also in terms of battery life: FLAC / ALAC saps usable life on the X5 and the iPod.


I'm currently ripping FLACs and am trying to create a duplicate compressed library that can stay in sync. The FLACs will stay at home.

 

[Leto Atreides II]

FLAC is for storing CD quality files, for later conversion to another format, or listening on a reference system. I think it's a bit silly to use it on a portable player, but obviously the demand is there. I've listened to a few of my flac albums on the x5l, and then the same ones with ogg -5, and there's no difference.

That said, it's definitely a useful format, just not for portable.s

 

[Loftprojection]

bangraman, if I remember well I think you have quite a high end collection of gear.

Did you ever do a/b testing between FLAC and pure CD copy (.wav)? I know everybody says it is identical but I'd be curious to have the opinion of someone who can test it with very high end equipment. I don't want to start a debate/war but sometimes when using lower end gear people wont be able to detect much difference but it can become more apparent using higher end gear.

Thanks.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman I wouldn't refute this for portable use. I presume you're hawking the FLAC capability of the X5 as an asset. With the sort of headphones and the environment that it would be used with for portable use, FLAC is for most a waste of time. The increased 'etchiness' evident in many IEM's also actually makes the difference even less evident. It's not just that it's a waste of time in terms of the quality difference, but also in terms of battery life: FLAC / ALAC saps usable life on the X5 and the iPod. I'm currently ripping FLACs and am trying to create a duplicate compressed library that can stay in sync. The FLACs will stay at home.

 

[Riku540]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman I wouldn't refute this for portable use. I presume you're hawking the FLAC capability of the X5 as an asset. With the sort of headphones and the environment that it would be used with for portable use, FLAC is for most a waste of time. The increased 'etchiness' evident in many IEM's also actually makes the difference even less evident. It's not just that it's a waste of time in terms of the quality difference, but also in terms of battery life: FLAC / ALAC saps usable life on the X5 and the iPod. I'm currently ripping FLACs and am trying to create a duplicate compressed library that can stay in sync. The FLACs will stay at home.

I wouldn’t discriminate lossless for portable use. Many, including myself, do not have space or battery life issues. For some who literally walk around with their portables on all day this may be a problem, but for others like me by the time the battery starts to get low I’ve usually hit home or my car where I can refuel. I won’t deny that being in public and noisy environments does make it more difficult to hear the very subtle differences between a well encoded lossy versus a lossless format, but this does not mean that there are never opportunities that present themselves where things quiet down and the benefits of lossless become more apparent. The fact is, lossless will always give the opportunity for the highest level of enjoyment. With lossy, the opportunity does not exist.

 

[TooNice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius This discussion has gone on for three pages and nobody has even mentioned known problem samples yet? Unbelievable. I thought Head-Fiers knew more than this. It's even common wisdom on HydrogenAudio that 320 is ABXable from FLAC given a sample that's tough enough. If you need the warm fuzzies from knowing for absolutely certain that the codec you are using does no harm, you must go lossless. I myself mostly listen to lossy formats without an issue though.

*Shrug*

I am hardly hardcore, my PC audio is most likely no better than the average consumer grade PC. But I've tried APS, APE and API, ABXed with Foobar against FLAC with a song I am familiar with. I've tried 10x on each, taking an hour break in between, and got 27/30 aggregated on each (always mess one up toward the end of each test). I normally focus on either the high or the end. Telling there is a -difference- wasn't a problem. Although I probably would have trouble telling which one is the original.

My pick was pretty random, and I doubt it was a particularly hard to encode sample.

 

[RotAtoR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius This discussion has gone on for three pages and nobody has even mentioned known problem samples yet? Unbelievable. I thought Head-Fiers knew more than this. It's even common wisdom on HydrogenAudio that 320 is ABXable from FLAC given a sample that's tough enough. If you need the warm fuzzies from knowing for absolutely certain that the codec you are using does no harm, you must go lossless. I myself mostly listen to lossy formats without an issue though.

Exactly why I mention "killer" samples on the first page.

Good to see fellow HAers here.

 

[spaceconvoy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riku540 The fact is, lossless will always give the opportunity for the highest level of enjoyment. With lossy, the opportunity does not exist.

Listening to music, just the simple act of it, always presents an opportunity for the highest level of enjoyment. Whether or not you're listening to a $10,000 rig in a sound proof booth, or with an iPod and earbuds in a train station, there is always the chance that you will be blown away and experience that feeling of body-mind melding euphoria. (Unless of course you have hang-ups that prevent you from enjoying music on ever-so-slightly sub-perfect equipment)

 

[jagorev]

Am I the only one crazy enough to think there's a difference between CD-audio .wav files and FLAC? Especially with CDs of older recordings, some of the faint background hiss is gone with FLAC. And some of the peak frequencies seem to be strangely attenuated. I know the FLAC is supposedly 'lossless', but it does use compression techniques which at least change the character of the sound.