MQA Deep Dive - I published tracks on Tidal to test MQA

[Audiophiliac]

Where does somebody said you were wrong? That may be how you “perceive” it, but your claims of hearing differences between the WAV and FLAC versions of the same audio file, and “noise” beeng injected (?) by the CPU when decompressing a FLAC file are so… wild… that providing a minimum of context, explanations, and evidences is a very reasonable ask.
You choose to not share anything supporting your claims… I’m cool with that… But why did you even comment on this thread to start with?

I guess I just had to peek at what was next
Let's just say that the original uncompressed file is indisputably correct, and any compression is empirical evidence supporting changes. If you were so wealthy that money were no object for your uncompromised playback, why would you care about compression? Including with currently 10Gb internet speed, and 3x as much for a streaming service no problem? Check your external USB 900Mb/s ssd sizes and prices, finally. If you decompress from your big mechanical hd onto a SATA ssd first, you will still only copy to usb at around 300-500 sizes, may as well make that temp folder on the USB drive, while converting your collections. Converting with Foobar2000 keeps tags and album art with your new files, I don't know how, but not our problem. Audirvana converting the FLAC to a temporary hd file, and then playing that, would be the original file read on your own system. It's all your bunch of whatever plays everything after that.
Music file sizes are growing way more slowly than hd sizes so don't worry, in future, you will all sound like you're just wasting everyone's time about being correct.

 

[XTF1]

I guess I just had to peek at what was next
Let's just say that the original uncompressed file is indisputably correct, and any compression is empirical evidence supporting changes. If you were so wealthy that money were no object for your uncompromised playback, why would you care about compression? Including with currently 10Gb internet speed, and 3x as much for a streaming service no problem? Check your external USB 900Mb/s ssd sizes and prices, finally. If you decompress from your big mechanical hd onto a SATA ssd first, you will still only copy to usb at around 300-500 sizes, may as well make that temp folder on the USB drive, while converting your collections. Converting with Foobar2000 keeps tags and album art with your new files, I don't know how, but not our problem. Audirvana converting the FLAC to a temporary hd file, and then playing that, would be the original file read on your own system. It's all your bunch of whatever plays everything after that.
Music file sizes are growing way more slowly than hd sizes so don't worry, in future, you will all sound like you're just wasting everyone's time about being correct.

Fair enough. But this whole discussion was triggered by your claim of an audible difference between an uncompressed WAV file and its compressed version (FLAC lossless !!! Not mp3, or other lossy format). It was not about storage space…

I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong in storing your music in WAV format if storage space and file tagging are not an issue for you… But what’s the point if FLAC decompressing is pretty much free for even the most modest CPU? (1ms on your rig you said…). It still uses more storage space than needed with…… sorry, explain me what benefit?

 

[Audiophiliac]

Fair enough. But this whole discussion was triggered by your claim of an audible difference between an uncompressed WAV file and its compressed version (FLAC lossless !!! Not mp3, or other lossy format). It was not about storage space…

I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong in storing your music in WAV format if storage space and file tagging are not an issue for you… But what’s the point if FLAC decompressing is pretty much free for even the most modest CPU? (1ms on your rig you said…). It still uses more storage space than needed with…… sorry, explain me what benefit?

I'm old school, and ask what's the point of risking altering the original simplicity? Yes, people buy the Raspberry Pi's for their low powered processors, and say that that helps...
Switching to wav, I hear less, and it's very quiet and relaxing. It's very true that good music could put you to sleep that way. Switching to FLAC streaming sounds like "All Day Long I Dream About F--king", which is Korn, on their album "Everything is Peachy" because of it. Those fans listening at home should remember that people could be going for the whole thing right now, actually, so that they get why the band is just Korn. After that, Limp Biskit can tell you to stand up for yourself, since that's all anyone ever does anyways...

 

[XTF1]

I'm old school, and ask what's the point of risking altering the original simplicity? Yes, people buy the Raspberry Pi's for their low powered processors, and say that that helps...
Switching to wav, I hear less, and it's very quiet and relaxing. It's very true that good music could put you to sleep that way. Switching to FLAC streaming sounds like "All Day Long I Dream About F--king", which is Korn, on their album "Everything is Peachy" because of it. Those fans listening at home should remember that people could be going for the whole thing right now, actually, so that they get why the band is just Korn. After that, Limp Biskit can tell you to stand up for yourself, since that's all anyone ever does anyways...

So…. FLAC is: Artist “Korn”, Album “Everything is Peachy”, Track “All Day Long I Dream About F--king“ (per your reference).

I am now certain you can hear differences: AFAIK, the album is “Life is Peachy” and the track is “A.D.I.D.A.S” …..different album, different track = audible difference for sure !!!

 

[Audiophiliac]

So…. FLAC is: Artist “Korn”, Album “Everything is Peachy”, Track “All Day Long I Dream About F--king“ (per your reference).

I am now certain you can hear differences: AFAIK, the album is “Life is Peachy” and the track is “A.D.I.D.A.S” …..different album, different track = audible difference for sure !!!

Don't confuse the track title with the lyrics.
I should have clarified, the original uncompressed local files were sacred choral tracks, but lots of bad people don't care about those, so they will want those fans to be actually watching porn, instead of listening to those, so that everyone gets why it's not them with everyone else on the street, no problem.
Limp Biskit will help you stand up for yourselves about how that's all anyone ever does anyways, so that nobody has to care about it anymore.
Anyways, yeah, if you FLAC your sacred choral music, it sound like Korn to me...

 

[XTF1]

Don't confuse the track title with the lyrics.
I should have clarified, the original uncompressed local files were sacred choral tracks, but lots of bad people don't care about those, so they will want those fans to be actually watching porn, instead of listening to those, so that everyone gets why it's not them with everyone else on the street, no problem.
Limp Biskit will help you stand up for yourselves about how that's all anyone ever does anyways, so that nobody has to care about it anymore.
Anyways, yeah, if you FLAC your sacred choral music, it sound like Korn to me...

You still have a lot to clarify…….
I’ll stop here as it ain’t go anywhere. Cheers!

 

[Audiophiliac]

You still have a lot to clarify…….
I’ll stop here as it ain’t go anywhere. Cheers!

Just read a book. You could try FLACing a file, and then storing it on a drive that uses compression. Hmm, no, storing a compressed file using more compression is already why FLAC only FLAC's files for you, anything further than lossless compression is a ripoff...
Alas, many users get upset with me, because they insist 128kbps still sound perfect in the first place. Some even say extra samples recorded are actually not what was happening, and link a long document to read that should prove it.

 

[BS5711]

The only problem any of us losers have with your comments is that your belief you can hear a difference between WAV and FLAC is contrary to what is technically different between them, is based on your theory about something you assume is happening with no evidence and the theory is supported only by your perception of what you hear not any technical test data which would actually be quite easy to provide with the right equipment.

On top of that you listening for differences in the sound when you expect to hear differences can lead you to hearing differences that don’t exist in reality because that is just how our brains work.

Those are simple facts with the obvious conclusion when all considered together being you only perceive a difference not that you genuinely hear a difference.

That is a perfectly logical extension of a series of facts yet you insist that conclusion is incorrect because your golden ears tell you so and assert us losers have tin ears because we can’t hear what you can.

Have you had someone play back different files for you without you knowing what is playing to assess if you really can hear a difference ? Have you considered other reasons for the differences you believe you hear ? Is the output volume identical between the file types ?

How old are you ? Have you done a hearing test ? Is your hearing somehow better than normal human limitations ? How do you explain that you hear things that technically should be outside the limits of the human auditory system.

Sounds like a typical “audiophile” argument to me from someone who perceives a difference for psychological reasons, isn’t interested in understanding and learning and prefers just to believe.

 

[Audiophiliac]

The only problem any of us losers have with your comments is that your belief you can hear a difference between WAV and FLAC is contrary to what is technically different between them, is based on your theory about something you assume is happening with no evidence and the theory is supported only by your perception of what you hear not any technical test data which would actually be quite easy to provide with the right equipment.

Yeah, I'm lying if I don't go out and buy gear with a meter to measure it for everyone else.

On top of that you listening for differences in the sound when you expect to hear differences can lead you to hearing differences that don’t exist in reality because that is just how our brains work.

Those are simple facts with the obvious conclusion when all considered together being you only perceive a difference not that you genuinely hear a difference.

Why are you telling me what I can't hear?

That is a perfectly logical extension of a series of facts yet you insist that conclusion is incorrect because your golden ears tell you so and assert us losers have tin ears because we can’t hear what you can.

It's not my problem what differences you can't hear.

Have you had someone play back different files for you without you knowing what is playing to assess if you really can hear a difference ? Have you considered other reasons for the differences you believe you hear ? Is the output volume identical between the file types ?

How old are you ? Have you done a hearing test ? Is your hearing somehow better than normal human limitations ? How do you explain that you hear things that technically should be outside the limits of the human auditory system.

I didn't notice a difference between wav and FLAC until I was 50.

Sounds like a typical “audiophile” argument to me from someone who perceives a difference for psychological reasons, isn’t interested in understanding and learning and prefers just to believe.

If you can let someone else's ears hear the same thing, why couldn't you let someone hear a difference?

 

[BS5711]

That is the standard audiophile response, "you can't argue with what my ears tell me", except you can and you don't understand that or don't want to acknowledge it.

With all respect, perhaps do some reading about hearing perception, expectation biases and external stimuli changing what we perceive as sound.

As a starting point go to You Tube and search McGurk Effect, it is a very simple little example where you hear something completely different just because your eyes provide stimuli that overpowers you hearing what sound is actually entering your ears. You can open and shut your eyes, at your own timing to know it isn't a trick, and the sound you hear changes completely depending on whether you can see the visual stimuli or not.

Just believing something will sound different will make it sound different, I have done it myself, that is just the way we are wired as humans.

Alternatively, just continue believing we are all tin eared losers as you initially stated and we are all completely wrong and you and your golden ears cannot possibly be mistaken, that would also be the standard audiophile response that would allow you to blissfully cruise along on your audio journey.

 

[Audiophiliac]

Uncompressed is the original reference playback. All of your arguments about perception, biases, and empirical evidence should be used about FLAC sounding no different.
With an mp3, you can't hear a difference. Unfortunately, that's because it's a total ripoff. Now, I find them small and shady about telling you the whole story. Lol, yeah, Slim Shady is an mp3! Exactly what I'm talking about. Actually, we've finally left mp3, and now only have to leave the lesser FLAC noise problem. Actually FLAC noise won't make you kill Slim Shady. You need to remove the decompression noise step, before you can relax, and then hear what he's talking about for that. "I'm the world's biggest pr-ck, and you'll just have to SMD!" Eminem is going to have to encourage you to trade your headphones for crack, since your local dealer is better than any rapper, instead of spending more money on gear before your headphones.
Ok, I'll take a moment to tell head-fi most of all, thank you for being the least likely of all to be criminal rap crackheads.
Unless you try letting all the empirical evidence about compression sound just as good. After that, you could spend your next $300 on coke...
Eric Clapton is a puff daddy, you can already find the original 96khz version instead of MQA of "Cocaine" on Tidal news. You won't have to take her out!

 

[castleofargh]

You made the statement about flac vs wav for no reason in a thread about MQA. You keep alluding to a "them" who make only absolute claims you invent on the spot. You keep making amalgams between lossy and lossless that don't exist, despite a few people explaining how logically wrong that is. And now it's no even about dumb red herring and bad straw man arguments, you have completely given up of making coherent posts.
IDK if it's stress or something deeper, but this started as a silly statement and is turning into a worrisome mental state.

 

[BS5711]

I give up, you can't even hold a rationale conversation.

 

[Audiophiliac]

Uncompressed is the original untampered with. Compression adds a new step to playback. Yes, MQA "folding data into into 44.1khz data" was always a lie, and actually did get proven by hardware meters which people bought to prove it. I had been assuming that I had been victorious as an anti-MQA listener, and only had to move on to being anti-FLAC after that.
Are you still positive that MQA is the same? Especially if you buy gear with an extra chip for everything to pass through that the original doesn't need? Will this thread get locked if I am anti-MQA?
Why do you even subscribe to a streaming service? YouTube already won't tell you the 90% you're missing as mp3 versions.

 

[BS5711]

If you are going to bother posting can you please use paragraphs and punctuation and proofread what you have written before hitting the post reply button.

You make very little sense which is not helped by the lack of punctuation and paragraph structure to split up your wayward thought process that seems to spill onto the screen.

Seriously, you would be doing everyone a favour, yourself included.