[gadgetman]

..and after they've invested time and\or money on something (reconverting their whole collection, etc), a few things will happen..

1). They will have a higher perceived value of the re-encoded collection due to their investments (time and effort) in (re)making them. This will build up their personal expectations and they will likely respond more favorably to the new format when doing listening comparison.

2). They will want to justify their action by re-spreading this 'information' to others, not based on the merit of the info (which there isn't any).

Thus a myth is born...

 

[ford2]

The kids outside are playing TAG, and ducking to avoid the FLAC, and then a WAV to say goodby.

 

[Chri5peed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perhaps back 10 years ago, decompressing a FLAC file may have resulted in sound differences because the system couldn't cache the entire track in RAM. These days one can cue up an album and the entire thing can be decompressed and stored in RAM as WAV files ready to go. 1 CPU does the decompression, 1 CPU does the playback. Seriously, with the computers today, there should be no sonic differences at all.

Its from page.1, but worthy.

Some people need to know how lossless compression works. Key word is decompression, lossy files cannot do this as they've thrown data away.

 

[deepsix]

I think the interesting thing that has come out in this thread is FLAC defenders going from the line that `FLAC is EXACTLY the same as WAV once decompressed!` to `FLAC only disposes of the NON AUDIBLE data in WAV files, everything you can hear is still there in FLAC!`

That is the key I think. Ipod-using-Man-on-the-street-MP3-defenders will tell you that in MP3s ONLY inaudible data is thrown away so MP3 and CDs are EXACTLY the SAME!

The problem with these arguments is that the highly complex human mind CAN detect technically inaudible data when it is missing. Its the heart and soul of the music, and provides a background for the audible sounds, it brings out the audible sounds, like the background in a painting makes the subjects more real. Thats why lossy formats often sound hollow and it may be why FLAC sounds inferior to WAV to many listeners I believe.

I do have very sensitive hearing though and I have successfully picked MD from CD 10 blind tests out of 10 at a demonstration conducted by Sony at a major Australian university designed to prove MD was sonically indistinguishable from CD so I may be more sensitive than some FLAC listeners here but personally I`ll stick to .wav and plain ol` CDs just to make sure I`m not missing ANYTHING.

 

[fallsroad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsix /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the interesting thing that has come out in this thread is FLAC defenders going from the line that `FLAC is EXACTLY the same as WAV once decompressed!` to `FLAC only disposes of the NON AUDIBLE data in WAV files, everything you can hear is still there in FLAC!` That is the key I think. Ipod-using-Man-on-the-street-MP3-defenders will tell you that in MP3s ONLY inaudible data is thrown away so MP3 and CDs are EXACTLY the SAME! The problem with these arguments is that the highly complex human mind CAN detect technically inaudible data when it is missing. Its the heart and soul of the music, and provides a background for the audible sounds, it brings out the audible sounds, like the background in a painting makes the subjects more real. Thats why lossy formats often sound hollow and it may be why FLAC sounds inferior to WAV to many listeners I believe. I do have very sensitive hearing though and I have successfully picked MD from CD 10 blind tests out of 10 at a demonstration conducted by Sony at a major Australian university designed to prove MD was sonically indistinguishable from CD so I may be more sensitive than some FLAC listeners here but personally I`ll stick to .wav and plain ol` CDs just to make sure I`m not missing ANYTHING.

You do realize that the "non-audible" data compressed by FLAC literally is non-audible in the sense that it is not audio data at all?

That is the primary difference between what FLAC and other lossless compressors do and what MP3s do. In the latter, actual audio data is altered in order to make file sizes smaller, according to an algorithm that allegedly is inaudible, but to those with excellent, trained ears and high resolution systems certainly is audible (and at higher compression rates should be audible to anyone).

In the case of FLAC, no audio data is altered or removed.

None.

If you are hearing differences between WAV and FLAC, then there are errors in the FLAC encoding or decoding process. There are no psycho-acoustic tricks involved in lossless audio, unlike minidisc or mp3.

 

[badmonkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsix /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the interesting thing that has come out in this thread is FLAC defenders going from the line that `FLAC is EXACTLY the same as WAV once decompressed!` to `FLAC only disposes of the NON AUDIBLE data in WAV files, everything you can hear is still there in FLAC!`

Are you dumb? LEARN something before wasting your time posting gibberish.

 

[deepsix]

Okay, I may be mistaken but can you please define what exactly this `non audio data` that is apparantly present in .wav files IS, if it is not audio data?

 

[Olev]

One example of non-audio data in WAV files are tags - just like MP3 some programs allow to enter artist, song etc info to a tag in WAV. This has NOTHING to do with audio data.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Okay, I may be mistaken but can you please define what exactly this `non audio data` that is apparantly present in .wav files IS, if it is not audio data?

A FLAC does not throw away any data. None. Every single bit that is in a WAV is also represented by the FLAC.

 

[fallsroad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Okay, I may be mistaken but can you please define what exactly this `non audio data` that is apparantly present in .wav files IS, if it is not audio data?

Free Lossless Audio Codec - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are links from that article about how lossless compression in general is achieved.

It's about compression of data in a lossless format that can be completely reconstructed, bit for bit.

Lossy compression, like MP3, involves altering the audio data itself by removing information that, according to the algorithm, will not affect the playback of the music in psychoacoustic terms, though in comparisons it can be audible. The lower the bit rate, the more audible it becomes, becuase less of the original audio information is retained.

It is an altogether different concept than using compression techniques to make a file smaller. MP3s discard audio data, then also apply file compression, which is why the files, dependent upon the encoding bit rate, can be so very small compared to the original.

 

[deepsix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif A FLAC does not throw away any data. None. Every single bit that is in a WAV is also represented by the FLAC.

I guess you missed this when it was posted earlier in the thread, from the FLAC website:

Quote:

Why doesn't FLAC store all WAVE metadata? (By default, flac does not store WAVE metadata, but it can with the --keep-foreign-metadata option described below.) FLAC is a general-purpose audio format, not just a compressed WAVE file format. There's a subtle difference. WAVE is a complicated standard; many kinds of data besides audio data can be put in it. FLAC's purpose is not to reproduce a WAVE file, including all the non-audio data that is in it, it is to losslessly compress the audio.

 

[deepsix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olev /img/forum/go_quote.gif One example of non-audio data in WAV files are tags - just like MP3 some programs allow to enter artist, song etc info to a tag in WAV. This has NOTHING to do with audio data.

I believe it was also posted earlier in the thread that WAV files do not allow tags and that is something that FLAC can add to a music file.

So anyone else got ANY examples of this so called data that WAV files comprise of that doesnt effect SQ?

 

[avid666]

Unless you think track listings and album art affect the quality of the sound in a WAVE file, the FLAC file has the same audio quality as the WAVE file. What is stored in the meta-data of your WAVE file are general information about the song which doesn't affect the quality of the audio.

 

[avid666]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsix /img/forum/go_quote.gif I believe it was also posted earlier in the thread that WAV files do not allow tags and that is something that FLAC can add to a music file. So anyone else got ANY examples of this so called data that WAV files comprise of that doesnt effect SQ?

Correction, there is no standard format. Some tools can add meta-data to a WAVE file. Obviously FLAC can't do anything with that data, because then it would have to understand the many different ways tools have bodged it in.

 

[deepsix]

oh