[mark_h]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sxr71 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's like saying that if you zipped a file and unzipped it that after you did that using Winzip that Winzip somehow screwed up the file and you can no longer open it in the application that opens it. That's what lossless is. The resulting file is IDENTICAL.

More like using compression in .tif and .jpeg image files.

I am currently re-ripping all my files from cd in AIFF to replace the ALAC I have, and thus far can hear no difference at all! I am doing it because I am obsessive to some degree.

 

[krmathis]

If you hear a difference, good for you.
The rest of us can just stick to lossless compressed audio. Like I do...

 

[japc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LightZY /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, IMHO i don't think any 2 files/formats will be 100.0% exactly the same if not why even produce .flac or .wav in the first place.

Well, because you spare a lot, and I mean a lot, of space with flac (vs. wav).

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LightZY /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, IMHO i don't think any 2 files/formats will be 100.0% exactly the same if not why even produce .flac or .wav in the first place.

Depends what you mean by 100.0%. Meaning 100% identical on all aspect, of course not. But 100% identical in audio data, for sure they are.

 

[Filburt]

There is zero quantitative difference between the output from lossless codecs and wav; that is why they are called lossless. There is no psychoacoustic model employed; it isn't lossy. There is no margin of error employed in place of parity. You can compare the output of a decoded FLAC to the source WAV, as well as check the output spectrally; there is no difference whatsoever. The sum and substance of both formats is purely quantitative, so if they are identical, there is nothing to distinguish them outside of an external source of error. So, if you are hearing an actual difference, the problem lies elsewhere (e.g. something is wrong with your system and it is creating the error). On top of being not correlated with the format itself, such an error is of exceedingly low probability relative to it simply being what I guess is now often termed "placebo."

I guess if you guys really just need to figure this out and can't possibly trust what is already essentially a dispostive answer, run a proper experiment. I don't mean ABX; I mean the type where you have A and B and you have to choose which one "sounds better" (e.g. there is no X).

 

[a19als]

finally, which is the best?

 

[ford2]

It appears that the flac boys are the one's pounding the drums.
Just maybe a bit of concern that there COULD be a difference.

 

[fallsroad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark_h /img/forum/go_quote.gif More like using compression in .tif and .jpeg image files.

Not quite.

Jpg is a lossy format. There is data loss during the compression. That loss is variable based on the compression rate, but it is lost nonetheless.

 

[craiglester]

Ugh, these threads are so pointless. They contain the *exact* same audio data, and unless your system is misconfigured, will sound the same. Like Identical, no difference, audible or otherwise.
Honestly. Wav as an audio container is horrible.
No Tags? No thanks.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robojack /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I recall correctly, FLAC doesn't always mean it will sound identical to the original source, since it still has compression.

It's a different kind of compression to something like .ogg or .mp3 though. Think of .flac like a .zip file. When it is decompressed during playback it is an exact duplicate of the uncompressed file. There is no way they would sound different unless it is a software player issue.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by a19als /img/forum/go_quote.gif finally, which is the best?

Of those (FLAC vs. WAV) its a clear lead to FLAC.
Identical audio data in ~60% of the storage space, and with lots of additional features (meta data, album art,...)

 

[japc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It appears that the flac boys are the one's pounding the drums. Just maybe a bit of concern that there COULD be a difference.

There's no such thing as FLAC boys. It's just too logic that I can't understand that people should think otherwise. Please do an experiment:

open a txt file
write 100 times the word "test"
copy the file to file2
zip the copy
unzip the copy
compare the copy with the original

is there any diference? Should there be any? Why?

 

[gadgetman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by japc /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's no such thing as FLAC boys. It's just too logic that I can't understand that people should think otherwise. Please do an experiment: open a txt file write 100 times the word "test" copy the file to file2 zip the copy unzip the copy compare the copy with the original is there any diference? Should there be any? Why?

In the several tests that I've ran, the resulting (COPIED) test files seem to have a blurrier text presentation than the original. On one occasion, I even seem to recall the original text to have much darker coloring and that the background to be much much brighter than the copy.

....

 

[El_Doug]

I am AMAZED that people would even claim there is a difference. Flabbergasted, is the better term

Those who claim these files sound different, are the same type of "audiophiles" who think that an upgraded ethernet cable will improve the SQ of a network-attached storage system.

After decoding, the file is BIT BY BIT IDENTICAL. IDENTICAL!!! THE SAME DAMNED THING!!!!!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by gadgetman /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the several tests that I've ran, the resulting (COPIED) test files seem to have a blurrier text presentation than the original. On one occasion, I even seem to recall the original text to have much darker coloring and that the background to be much much brighter than the copy. ....

rofl u just made my day

ty for pointing out the absurdities of their arguments

 

[japc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gadgetman /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the several tests that I've ran, the resulting (COPIED) test files seem to have a blurrier text presentation than the original. On one occasion, I even seem to recall the original text to have much darker coloring and that the background to be much much brighter than the copy. ....

Lol, that was fun. Ziproxed ?