[n_maher]

 

[spongezone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by n_maher /img/forum/go_quote.gif

And many of us have been feeding it, too.

 

[kikkomang]

i wonder what would've happened if he posted this in hydrogen audio.

 

[Ingo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kikkomang /img/forum/go_quote.gif i wonder what would've happened if he posted this in hydrogen audio.

One post by Pat at Hydrogen Audio would actually cause their servers to implode causing a massive singularity that would draw in our entire galaxy.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Take $1. You can represent it as 4 x .25 or 10 x .10 or 100 x .01. They are worth the same. Physically they are different and anything related to that is different. How much they weigh, how you carry them, how much space them take, how you use them, etc. There are many interactions. Some of them obvious, some not, some irrelevent, some annoying.

This more better analogy here would be if you take $1 and change it to 100 pennies, and you take 4 quarters, and change that to 100 pennies. How much they weigh, how you carry them, how much space they take, how you use them, etc. is exactly the same.

 

[Apocalypsee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick82 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm converting all my FLACs to WAV as I'm writing this. I also found a WAV file inside one of the folders, I have done A/B-ing before but I didn't hear a difference so I kept using FLAC. That was 5 months ago. But after further tweaking I have heard huge differences from things I haven't heard before, especially warm-up of the computer, a cold computer is masking the differences of tweaks for the computer. After 12 hours of warm up I couldn't hear a difference between 1 vs 2 harddrives. After 24 hours the difference was subtle. After 36 hours it was more apparent, but the signature of the "cold" system was still added on top of the music, it was masking everything. A couple weeks warm-up is needed for it to sound neutral, the last time I tried it I heard nothing in front of the music.

That's called psychoacoustics, how your mood and your self think it make a difference, in fact it didn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

 

[facelvega]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick82 /img/forum/go_quote.gif But after further tweaking I have heard huge differences from things I haven't heard before, especially warm-up of the computer, a cold computer is masking the differences of tweaks for the computer. After 12 hours of warm up I couldn't hear a difference between 1 vs 2 harddrives. After 24 hours the difference was subtle. After 36 hours it was more apparent, but the signature of the "cold" system was still added on top of the music, it was masking everything. A couple weeks warm-up is needed for it to sound neutral, the last time I tried it I heard nothing in front of the music.

Up to this point I really wanted to defend Patrick82 against all the dogmatic bitperfect fanatics who don't trust when their own ears tell them there's a problem. OF COURSE digitally flac is the same as wav, but in the end all that matters is the analog signal, and I think the question of electronic noise getting into the signal is something we've all heard and which is difficult to eliminate beyond a certain point. But then I saw that post above and realized that Patrick has fallen off the deep end of searching for clean sound. It's the classic audiophile moment of the trained ear slipping into psychoacoustic voodoo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif You don't need to explain to me what digital is. You guys are correct in what you are saying. I'm just trying to state there's more to this than just being "digital". The world is more complex that just that. My examples provide something more tangible in general life where as speaking of things inside a computer is not as tactile.

But lan on the other hand is being perfectly reasonable. Insofar as it is useful, this isn't a thread about digital audio-- with flac, digital is under control within the limits of the CD paradigm-- it's about how computer equipment can influence the analog signal. Different cpu rates (and cooling fans), hard drives spinning, monitors working, and power supplies can all audibly affect the sound. On most stock laptop cards, you can hear each one quite clearly and infuriatingly. The first stage of beating these weeds down is easy, but the fine points after that can take some doing. And this is true regardless of one questionable example.

 

[Sir Nobax]

This is crazy.

 

[mushishi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif This more better analogy here would be if you take $1 and change it to 100 pennies, and you take 4 quarters, and change that to 100 pennies. How much they weigh, how you carry them, how much space they take, how you use them, etc. is exactly the same.

Don't pop the bubble of the logic that attempts to use a string of non-sequiturs and specious (if that) analogies to prove a heresy. He is far more astute than you or I; he sees 'systems'!

 

[ZenFountain]

Next thing you know this guy will be arguing that hard drive rotational speed and platter density has some kind of effect on digital audio. I read perpendicular recording is **** for hi-fi!

 

[philodox]

Either FLAC is being outputted in a different way by foobar or it is a replaygain setting or something that only affects FLAC. They should sound identical.

I'm not saying I don't believe you though, as I ran into this with my squeezebox. I found WAV or FLAC decoded on the computer and sent to the squeezebox as a WAV to sound superior to sending FLAC directly to the squeezebox. I can only imagine this is due to some issue with the squeezebox's built in FLAC decoder.

 

[Patrick82]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenFountain /img/forum/go_quote.gif Next thing you know this guy will be arguing that hard drive rotational speed and platter density has some kind of effect on digital audio. I read perpendicular recording is **** for hi-fi!

A solid state disk is far better than any spinning harddrive. Many audiophiles are already using them and said they got silkier sound. I'm upgrading to it soon.

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick82 /img/forum/go_quote.gif A solid state disk is far better than any spinning harddrive. Many audiophiles are already using them and said they got silkier sound. I'm upgrading to it soon.

There is absolutely no way there is one iota of truth in this statement.

I defy you to show me one, just one, hard drive available now that does not use a I/O buffer. Just one. Please!

Data coming off a hard drive does not come directly off the drive heads to system memory! This statement more than any other in this thread IMHO shows exactly how little you actually know about this subject!

Patrick, you are even farther off than usual on this matter, you really could not be more wrong.

Exactly what would it take to convince you that you were imagining these supposed differences?

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif Either FLAC is being outputted in a different way by foobar or it is a replaygain setting or something that only affects FLAC. They should sound identical.

Do you admit that it is at least possible that there is no difference and that Patrick is experiencing placebo effect?

 

[chadh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not saying I don't believe you though, as I ran into this with my squeezebox. I found WAV or FLAC decoded on the computer and sent to the squeezebox as a WAV to sound superior to sending FLAC directly to the squeezebox. I can only imagine this is due to some issue with the squeezebox's built in FLAC decoder.

I've heard people quote this result many times before; so often, in fact, that I find it impossible to reject the idea out of hand.

So, as an intellectual exercise, let's imagine it to be true: that having your server convert FLAC to WAV before sending the data to a squeezebox sounds different (at least in some systems) to sending a FLAC file to the squeezebox and having the squeezebox decode and play it. What does this tell us? Doesn't it tell us that some playback devices (like the squeezebox) can generate audibly different results from a FLAC file and a WAV?

There seem to be plausibe explanations for this, possibly involving how much "work" the squeezebox needs to be doing, or the resources that are being wasted in conversion rather than in playing the WAV.

But if one is prepared to imagine that the interaction of the processes inside the squeezebox can degrade the sonic performance of the system, why should we reject the idea that the intereaction of processes inside the PC could do the same?

I think we can probably agree that a FLAC and a WAV file played under identical conditions will sound identical. But the mere fact that the FLAC file requires conversion implies that the conditions under which we hear the results will never be identical.

The question would then become whether these interactions in the PC are causing sufficient effects to make an audible difference in playback. Some of the early posters found the idea unlikely: I'm not sure why. But that seems to be an issue that can only be addressed by someone with a lot of technical insight, or by direct testing. Claims like "I don't believe that 3% CPU usage could create audible differences in playback" are perfectly valid opinions, but ultimately are useless in determining the truth.

What disturbs me here is the way that so many who claim to be the logical, rational, "scientific" types are ready to reject out of hand the claims of the only person who has made any clear attempt to experiment. As ludicrous as his claims may seem, Patrick is the only one who seems to be presenting any data. I'm not sure I have much respect for "science" that's not prepared to subject itself to testing. And until any of you conduct the tests, all of your claims are articles of faith rather than "scientific."

Chad