[RotAtoR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

No, unless your decoder/playback software is broken or you have strange hardware problems, flac files decode bit for bit the exact same as the original PCM audio. The compression can't affect the sound quality because lossless compression has absolutely nothing to do with sound quality. The exact same digital input to your soundcard/DAC should give the exact same analog output.

 

[jagorev]

*shrug* I just did a bit-comparison using foobar2000 of a CD track and its FLAC version, and I get the following output:

Quote:

INFO (foo_bitcompare) : Comparing: INFO (foo_bitcompare) : first different sample found INFO (foo_bitcompare) : differences found: 18702617 sample(s), starting at 0.8944444 second(s), peak: 0.684021 at 207.4826 second(s), 2ch

So apparently not bit-perfect, and I can hear that they sound somewhat different. I encourage you to try it yourself with foobar2k and a CD...

EDIT: It seems to be bit-perfect with some other tracks on the same album, so I guess I don't really know what the answer is.

 

[xand1x]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch With huge computer HD's, why bother with lossy anymore? .

Exactly

 

[RotAtoR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jagorev So apparently not bit-perfect

There is probably some other explanation, but if you have actually found an audio sample where the flac compressed copy doesn't decode bit perfect to original please submit it to the flac developers because it's a bug.

 

[Riku540]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spaceconvoy 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)

I am talking in terms of sound quality from an audiophile's point of view. Equal levels of enjoyment in general may me achieved with lossy or lossless, but lossless will provide the highest level of enjoyment WITH the highest level of sound quality. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this but when space is not an issue there is no point in trying to replicate the best quality when you already have the best quality. If you strip away all the constraints of having limited space and shorter battery life, who here would choose lossy over lossless? Uh huh, yeah that's right. OWNED.

 

[PixelSquish]

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.

i wasn't 'hawking' it. i myself do not use FLAC on my x5L, and stated as much, but after noticing quite a few hardcore audio users wanting that feature i merely was saying that for some it does have added value, that it is not completely worthless as was implied, for portable listening.

 

[AlanY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jagorev So apparently not bit-perfect, and I can hear that they sound somewhat different. I encourage you to try it yourself with foobar2k and a CD...

Every so often someone comes along and claims that FLAC, ALAC, Shorten, Monkey's Audio, or WMA Lossless is not identical to the source (lossless). Every time, it eventually turns out that something is misconfigured on the person's computer, or the person is doing something wrong. FLAC has been around a long time and the source code is open and has thus been inspected by many pairs of eyes. It is truly lossless.

 

[jagorev]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanY Every so often someone comes along and claims that FLAC, ALAC, Shorten, Monkey's Audio, or WMA Lossless is not identical to the source (lossless). Every time, it eventually turns out that something is misconfigured on the person's computer, or the person is doing something wrong. FLAC has been around a long time and the source code is open and has thus been inspected by many pairs of eyes. It is truly lossless.

Oh yes, I believe that it is bit-perfect on many tracks. But since I have actually found several tracks where foobar2k says it's not bit-perfect (and this is all using the same good cd-drive and software), I must just say that it's not perfect.

 

[K2Grey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

FLAC is analogous to zip file. When you compress an .exe you get .zip. When you uncompress it is is exactly the same in every respect. FLAC when decoded is exactly the same as .wav.

If the character of the sound was changed, it wouldn't be lossless.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jagorev Oh yes, I believe that it is bit-perfect on many tracks. But since I have actually found several tracks where foobar2k says it's not bit-perfect (and this is all using the same good cd-drive and software), I must just say that it's not perfect.

FLAC is bit-perfect.

You're likely not using Foobar properly to do the comparison. CD drives have an offset that needs to be taken into account. If you do the same comparison you're doing right now with WAVs (instead of FLAC), you'll see that Foobar also reports some of the WAVs as being different from the CD.

 

[jagorev]

Okay, the comment about the offset may well be correct. I admit, I was puzzled myself by the result. I'm at work right now, but I'll try and see if I can replicate the result with a .wav file residing on the same hard drive as the .flac file when I get home in four-five hours.

 

[K2Grey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooNice *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.

This is very impressive. You should probably post your results on HA, as so to encourage the developers to improve transparency or something.

 

[spaceconvoy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riku540 I am talking in terms of sound quality from an audiophile's point of view. Equal levels of enjoyment in general may me achieved with lossy or lossless, but lossless will provide the highest level of enjoyment WITH the highest level of sound quality. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this but when space is not an issue there is no point in trying to replicate the best quality when you already have the best quality. If you strip away all the constraints of having limited space and shorter battery life, who here would choose lossy over lossless? Uh huh, yeah that's right. OWNED.

And I'm talking about sound quality from a music-lover's point of view (that is the whole point, right?)

When are spatial/monetary/real world contraints ever not an issue? Only when you listen to music on your computer at home. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I move around a lot during the day, and my mp3 player has become my permanent source. So yeah, I definitely choose lossy over lossless mostly because of spatial constraints (of course I have backup DVDs of my music collection saved in flac in case I need to re-encode or something). But even if all my music did fit on my player in flac, I would still probably choose lossy, because it would allow for greater expansion of my collection in the future. That is to say, I would choose whatever the lowest bitrate file that sounds just as good as cd quality with my equipment, in order to have more room for music.

Read this thread - I find it amazing that people who spend so much money on audio equipment can still consider the Flaming Lips, Mouse on Mars, or Devendra Banhart undiscoved gems. It's pretty obvious that most people here spend more time/money trying out new equipment than new music. IMHO, spending $200 on an order from Amazon is always a much better investment for your system than a $200 cable. And of course, having the extra harddrive space because you encode to lossy only helps you appreciate more new music.

Basically, you're completely missing the whole point of audio/music/life in general. It's about enrichment, not perfection.

 

[K2Grey]

IMHO, this is really a strange argument. One person apparently either listens to most of his music at home, or can easily switch music from his computer to his mp3 player, and so can easily use lossless without loss of convenience. The other guy has a mp3 player which cannot hold all his music and thus uses lossy because of greater convenience. I don't see what's worth arguing about here. Clearly one guy can conveniently use lossless and the other can't. The first guy is 100% right and should continue to use FLAC, and the other guy is 100% right and should continue to use lossy. Or did I miss something here?

 

[Riku540]

Quote:

Originally Posted by K2Grey IMHO, this is really a strange argument. One person apparently either listens to most of his music at home, or can easily switch music from his computer to his mp3 player, and so can easily use lossless without loss of convenience. The other guy has a mp3 player which cannot hold all his music and thus uses lossy because of greater convenience. I don't see what's worth arguing about here. Clearly one guy can conveniently use lossless and the other can't. The first guy is 100% right and should continue to use FLAC, and the other guy is 100% right and should continue to use lossy. Or did I miss something here?

Thank you. Ok, let me rephrase my argument one final time in a way where everyone should be happy. I come to this forum with the assumption that the majority of the members have the money and the equipment that can utilize lossless encoding CONVENIENTLY. I understand and agree with spaceconvoy's side of the argument as in not everyone has the money or convenience or whatever it may be to go all out lossless. My main point boiled down: lossless will always be, whether audible or not, mathematically superior to lossy formats. This is FACT. Is lossless the most convenient format? This can't be argued; it’s a matter of preference and or convenience to the individual. As a general statement, if there is no loss of convenience you cannot beat lossless. The whole entire reason lossy was created was to compensate those who do not have that convenience. Lossless will always be the quality winner, whether the difference is heard or not. The fact is, it's there. If lossless is inconvenient for you, don't use it. It's that simple.