[Duggeh]

Patrick, the idle system process is using whatever ISNT being used by the audio. So therefore your theory that extra power consumption causes this effect cannot be true, because the same amount of power is bign used in both cases. If anything, the extra hard drive access noise in the system from having to access more data because of the double size of WAV files should cause more sonic harm than the difference in CPU utilisation (0% difference in your case).

Got another hypothesis?

 

[tmarshl]

I keep hearing that FLAC is supposed to be just like WAV. I am not sure why, I but I would agree with Patrick82 that there is a difference. I have noticed this in playback from my McIntosh MS300 music server (encoded in FLAC) versus normal CD audio. The CD audio is smoother and better defined.

Here is a review from Ultimate AV that seems to agree with my experience:

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/mediase...sh/index1.html

 

[TheMarchingMule]

This is stupid, and in the end it's only going to cause chaos.

 

[spongezone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif Patrick, the idle system process is using whatever ISNT being used by the audio. So therefore your theory that extra power consumption causes this effect cannot be true, because the same amount of power is bign used in both cases. If anything, the extra hard drive access noise in the system from having to access more data because of the double size of WAV files should cause more sonic harm than the difference in CPU utilisation (0% difference in your case). Got another hypothesis?

The idle system process does not actually use CPU power, it's just a placeholder. Also, everything since the early P4s has also had the ability to scale down CPU power based on load. So, there is a semi-significant power difference between 0% and 100%, just not between 0% and 3% (unless, there is some strange processor scaling difference between 0% and not 0%).

Anyway, as far as the Ultimate AV review goes, they are comparing CDs to FLACs, not FLACs to WAVs. It's likely they just ripped it badly.

 

[Jon L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmarshl /img/forum/go_quote.gif I keep hearing that FLAC is supposed to be just like WAV. I am not sure why, I but I would agree with Patrick82 that there is a difference. I have noticed this in playback from my McIntosh MS300 music server (encoded in FLAC) versus normal CD audio. The CD audio is smoother and better defined. Here is a review from Ultimate AV that seems to agree with my experience: http://www.ultimateavmag.com/mediase...sh/index1.html

"The FLAC files remained easy to listen to, inoffensive, and clearly were still good recordings assuming the original CD was well engineered (not all of the discs I loaded onto the hard drive were equally pristine to start with—a deliberate choice). But there was no question in my mind that the original CDs sounded better. The differences varied from recording to recording, but the FLAC files sounded subtly more homogenized through the midrange and less airy and on top."

Assuming this reviewer is correctly describing what he heard, this just means the Mac server's CD playing ability is better implemented than its hard-drive playing ability. IMO, this is not generally applicable.

From our own PC audio setups, most of us already know that even different playback software (Foobar, Winamp, iTunes, etc) sound different, and each software can be made to sound different depending on which output pathway is used (KS, ASIO, Directsound, Waveout). I can't even begin to fathom what Mac is using in terms of software, digital path, etc.

And this issue of hard-drive vs. CD is a very different debate from the OP's point about Flac vs Wav BOTH from the hard drive.

 

[tmarshl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L /img/forum/go_quote.gif ............... And this issue of hard-drive vs. CD is a very different debate from the OP's point about Flac vs Wav BOTH from the hard drive.

Point well taken.

 

[vcoheda]

Drop the cpu. Use a dedicated CD player. Problem solved.

 

[Brewmaster]

Is it April 1st?

 

[adanac061]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmarshl /img/forum/go_quote.gif I keep hearing that FLAC is supposed to be just like WAV. I am not sure why, I but I would agree with Patrick82 that there is a difference. I have noticed this in playback from my McIntosh MS300 music server (encoded in FLAC) versus normal CD audio. The CD audio is smoother and better defined. Here is a review from Ultimate AV that seems to agree with my experience: http://www.ultimateavmag.com/mediase...sh/index1.html

x2 All my stuff is wav (Just in case).

 

[Patrick82]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spongezone /img/forum/go_quote.gif I highly doubt there is a significant power draw difference between 0% CPU usage and 3% usage, let alone enough to effect your PSU enough to change your sound card. Anyway, try running something like Folding@home or prime95 in the background to get your CPU to 100% and see if there is a difference there. It seems more likely that it's some software configuration issue.

I have already compared 0% vs 100% CPU load in a blind test and it was easy to hear.

 

[Patrick82]

I'm using Foobar > Kernel Streaming > EMU0404
I have an old AMD 939 3000+ CPU, with Cool & Quiet enabled.

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brewmaster /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is it April 1st?

No, it's Patrick82!

Patrick, I know a lot of guys bust your chops, I don't want to seem like I'm mocking you, I really do admire your passion and even (dare I say it?) your courage!

But when you make some of your statements like:

Quote:

I have already compared 0% vs 100% CPU load in a blind test and it was easy to hear.

it's hard to keep a straight face sometimes. To this day I'm not 100% certain that you're not pulling our legs!

My opinion, flac=wav. You claim that you can hear a difference, I believe that the difference your perceive is 100% placebo. That's just my opinion.

If you are in fact able to hear even half of the things that you claim you are capable of hearing I believe you are more to be pitied than anything else!

At any rate, if wav files sound better to you, well have at it! But I wonder why you're messing arround with digital at all! You should concentrate on getting a top notch analog rig together!

 

[adanac061]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelamvr6 /img/forum/go_quote.gif it's hard to keep a straight face sometimes. To this day I'm not 100% certain that you're not pulling our legs!

Sadly, he's probably not.
If you do a google search for patrick82 or patrick +sweden in google,
you will get all kinds of hits from pc hardware sites, to stereophile forum to a polk audio forum.. where patrick has appeared with consistent behaviour.

I think he is humorous but harmless.

Ps. Anymore msn dates..?

 

[mushishi]

Only at Head-fi

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L /img/forum/go_quote.gif "The FLAC files remained easy to listen to, inoffensive, and clearly were still good recordings assuming the original CD was well engineered (not all of the discs I loaded onto the hard drive were equally pristine to start with—a deliberate choice). But there was no question in my mind that the original CDs sounded better. The differences varied from recording to recording, but the FLAC files sounded subtly more homogenized through the midrange and less airy and on top." <<snip>> And this issue of hard-drive vs. CD is a very different debate from the OP's point about Flac vs Wav BOTH from the hard drive.

Did the reviewer quoted above say that the original CD's sounded more "accurate"? No, he is quoted as saying that they sounded "better". My first "audiophile quality" speakers back in the mid-70's were JanZen hybrid electrostatics that gave vocals quite a nice "airy" quality, but that was really the result of a slightly sucked-out midrange and rising high end response. "Airy" mght be better to some, but the presence of such a quality doesn't necessarily mean "more accurate"!

Original CD's played in my Musical Fidelity CD-Pre24 into my CK2III and HD600's have an edgier, etched, slightly boosted high end sound compared to those same CD's FLAC'ed>Foobar>ASIO>0404 USB>CK2III>HD600's.

I don't base opinions on studio-recorded, highly processed material, because who knows how much artificial reverb or whatever has been applied. On well-recorded, minimally mic'ed classical recordings, my PC-based rig provides a much more natural reproduction than does the MF player. That's based on extensive live listening experience from quartets, through chamber ensembles, to full orchestras in major halls.

Could it be that some listeners' expectations of what music should "sound like" is based on their preference for the sound resulting from errors that occur much more often in direct playback of CD's, rather than truly accurate reproduction of the FLAC or wav files (which sound the same, case closed AFAIC)? Just a thought.