[Edoardo]

Quote:

So you feel quality is going down on current releases in general? What a sad day in music history, and I thought it was just we're lacking real talent unlike the stars of yesteryear.

 

Well, I don't want to be the cliché guy here, so I'll try to be more clear...
 
I've heard/read a lot of people stating things such as "no one is able to master like long ago anymore", as if the bands of the 70s went to record in Atlantis.
Those are the kind of people that for more or less the same reasons go around flea markets in Central Europe looking for nazi tubes... 
Well I am not that type at all.
 
True is that 20 or 30 years ago the pop majors were much more motivated in recording they rocking kids the best they could, whereas nowadays it's all about loudness racing and sampled drums.
Even without sampled drums, both remasters as How the West Was Won or new releases as Californication seem a mockery to the aficionados, given the technology available.
 
Contrariwise, classical music labels have made big steps foward, but they actually cannot afford recording expenses anymore, and rely on patronage...
 
And when new formats are available, the most listens to sounds that don't need nor deserve present-day technology.

 

[Tone Def]

Quote:

Well, I don't want to be the cliché guy here, so I'll try to be more clear...
 
I've heard/read a lot of people stating things such as "no one is able to master like long ago anymore", as if the bands of the 70s went to record in Atlantis.
Those are the kind of people that for more or less the same reasons go around flea markets in Central Europe looking for nazi tubes... 
Well I am not that type at all.
 
True is that 20 or 30 years ago the pop majors were much more motivated in recording they rocking kids the best they could, whereas nowadays it's all about loudness racing and sampled drums.
Even without sampled drums, both remasters as How the West Was Won or new releases as Californication seem a mockery to the aficionados, given the technology available.
 
Contrariwise, classical music labels have made big steps foward, but they actually cannot afford recording expenses anymore, and rely on patronage...
 
And when new formats are available, the most listens to sounds that don't need nor deserve present-day technology.

How do you know this? You do your credibility no favours when you state that you don't use objective ABX testing. I'll concede that most records these days come off the press 'hot' but that's why we use replaygain. 
 
Cheers
 

 

[Edoardo]

Quote:

How do you know this? You do your credibility no favours when you state that you don't use objective ABX testing. I'll concede that most records these days come off the press 'hot' but that's why we use replaygain. 
 
Cheers
 

well, the "this" I wrote there come from my personal mix of knowledge, musical skills and acquaintaces, which are not questionable and have nothing to do with my testing methods.
 
Anyway, what can beat switching the computer monitor off

 

[Tone Def]

Quote:

well, the "this" I wrote there come from my personal mix of knowledge, musical skills and acquaintaces, which are not questionable and have nothing to do with my testing methods.
 
Anyway, what can beat switching the computer monitor off

Then don't pass it off as fact or make sweeping generalizations and if you do, expect your testing methodology to be called into question.

 

[Edoardo]

We're here to share both opinions given IMHO and knowledge on facts.
Facts do pass off as they are, and remain such, regardless of the coolness of one's Software Media Player

 

[Tone Def]

Quote:

We're here to share both opinions given IMHO and knowledge on facts.
Facts do pass off as they are, and remain such, regardless of the coolness of one's Software Media Player

 
It has nothing to do with "the coolness of one's Software Media Player" and everything to do with generalizations such as these.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Edoardo /img/forum/go_quote.gif
So... Nowadays we find quality recordings almost only in unplugged/classical music, and for the niche who attends that kind of concerts... It's a sad thing... But it's no coincidence to me!

 
All I'm asking for is objective proof.
 
Cheers
 

 
 

 

[antberg]

i like to put in that way:get a expensive speakers at loud volume and compare to yourself,the louder the sound the more imperfection come to my ears (i dont have expensive speakers,i dont have speakers at all,but i used some from a friend) when playing mp3.
FLAC is amazing because i can copy an exact image from my albums and store it digitally,in case of a apocalyptic zombie infection,a uprising machine revolution or a alien invasion,for example,so just take your external hard-drive,a katana,some food and a first aid kit and find refuge in the amazon forest and wait for thing coming back to normality.

 

[ROBSCIX]

Yes.  To me it is just about having a perfect copy of my original CD's.
I pay money and spend time tweaking, tuning and modifying my gear to sound the best it possibly can.
I don't want to deliberately degrade my tracks and then worry about what might be missing or changed.
 
That is just my opinion and to each their own though.
 
 

 

[apollinaris]

Might be somewhat silly question among such fundamental discussions of pros and cons of FLAC. However, can anybody explain to me, whether flac files are decoded on the fly during playback (e.g. in Winamp) so that the sound which ultimately reaches the speakers from audio output is source CD sound (i.e. uncompressed)?
 
The reason of the question is that when I check the bit rate of both FLAC and WAV files of the same track while playing them (again, either in Winamp dialog box or in Squeezebox Duet's info page on remote controller), the bit rates are different, i.e. lower with FLAC (in a range of 800-1200kbit) and higher with WAV (more than 2000kbit). Does it mean that FLAC is only 'lossless' when it comes to the possibility to decode the file manually and get the source CD audio? So if I want to stream truly original sound to my speakers, I should first decode FLAC into WAV manualy and then only play the file with whatever means I have.
 
Thanks for your clarifications!

 

[stv014]

Quote:

Might be somewhat silly question among such fundamental discussions of pros and cons of FLAC. However, can anybody explain to me, whether flac files are decoded on the fly during playback (e.g. in Winamp) so that the sound which ultimately reaches the speakers from audio output is source CD sound (i.e. uncompressed)?

 
Yes, it is played as uncompressed audio that is identical to the original data from the CD. If the compressed FLAC data was sent directly to the DAC, it would sound like loud white noise.

 

[apollinaris]

Quote:

 
Yes, it is played as uncompressed audio that is identical to the original data from the CD. If the compressed FLAC data was sent directly to the DAC, it would sound like loud white noise.

Thanks! Feels as much more confident now Still, about 'mechanics', could you please comment on different bit rates of flac and wav files when sent to DAC? I understand one is compressed initially and the other - not. But if flac is decoded on the fly, why the does the player show 'compressed' bit rate of flac while playback instead of decoded uncompressed? 

 

[Vonsamhain]

Quote:

Have you really noticed a difference with FLAC listening to indie rock? I listen to a lot of different styles and the ones that really struck me were Classical and Jazz, not so much my indie collection. To a slight degree doom metal was affected positively, but thats the rare album.

Congrats on the epiphany though.

 
This is interesting. I notice a huge difference in any genre from flac (1000+kps) vs mp3 (320kps). I think it would be gear dependent, but indie rock should be quite improved. It might be more complex then genre.

 

[stv014]

Quote:

But if flac is decoded on the fly, why the does the player show 'compressed' bit rate of flac while playback instead of decoded uncompressed? 

 
That is how the developers of the player decided to show the bit rate, but the data actually sent to the DAC has to be uncompressed nevertheless.

 

[OJNeg]

Quote:

 
That is how the developers of the player decided to show the bit rate, but the data actually sent to the DAC has to be uncompressed nevertheless.

 
Correct, a FLAC file's bit rate is quite irrelevant. In simple terms, a track that is louder on average will have a "higher" bit rate, simply because there are more bits present. WAV on the other hand, is a raw format, and uses all the bits that are there, whether there is data or not. It's still lossless any way you look at it