[ac500]

> I can hear the compression
 
No you can't, sorry (assuming you're referring to a lossless FLAC derived from a WAV sound file).
 
You cannot hear FLAC compression because when your computer plays a FLAC file, it basically converts it into a WAV file which it plays. The result is absolutely bit-for-bit identical to the original WAV file you'd get.
 
Let me put it this way. If you sent me a FLAC file version of a file you have in WAV format, I could then do a conversion and email you back the reconstructed WAV file even though you never gave it to me. Magic? Nope, science.
 
... but maybe to some people it would seem like magic.
 
I hope you realize that, as a computer engineer, hearing people say things like this (FLAC sounding different from its source WAV) is not even slightly less ridiculous than listening to someone saying that the world is flat and that all technology is the work of the spirits of magical elf princesses.

 

[Gwarmi]

 
More fuel for the raging debate concerning FLAC versus WAV, according to this guy 

 
Source: http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/WAV-FLAC.htm
 
"What happens if you play WAV?
[size=small] A codec will interpret the content, translating it to raw PCM.
As the content is almost identical to raw PCM, this codec has almost nothing to do so have very little impact on CPU use.
However, as the file is uncompressed, you do have a lot of I/O[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] What happens if you play FLAC?
Exactly the same, a codec will interpret the content, translating it to raw PCM.
However, as the audio is compressed, it must be unpacked. This requires more CPU.
The file is about half size compared with WAV, so I/O is substantially reduced.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Do we have to conclude that CPU activity is more damaging than I/O?
There are a lot of claims that I/O is detrimental to, one should use a memory player, loading[/size]
[size=small] the entire song in memory before playback starts (and preferably spin down the HD).[/size]
[size=small] What would happen if we translate the WAV and the FLAC to PCM first, load the result in[/size]
[size=small] memory and start playback. Will they sound different?[/size]

 

[Gwarmi]

 
 And yet again, this one is from the head of a company called Blue Records
 
"When I asked to Blue Coast Records why they don't have their music on FLAC format,
because of the download speed, and since then I could convert it to an expanded format, I got this answer:
"Hi, yes, for the Mac, AIFF is preferred.  For other computers, AIFF and some browsers, it is not as good as WAV.   The music standards are not very well adhered to by the manufacturers.

About FLAC...  We did a lot of early testing for FLAC because it is also less expensive for us to send when a file is smaller, but, when listening back to uncompressed FLAC against the full WAV file when both are sent through email... there is a difference and the WAV has consistently sounded better.  We realize that much has been published that FLAC is bit to bit accurate, but with a listening test, this is not the case.  I have suggested to many of our customers to do the experiment themselves and all have reported the same results as we have found.

The difference is very small but audible on a good stereo system, so we felt it was better to allow the customer to make that decision.  One compelling reason for us to do FLAC was from a Russian fan who said that broadband for downloading was prohibitively expensive compared to his home country of South Africa.  The sonic difference is very small so, we have decided to build a FLAC store for our large files, but, we will continue to promote the full size WAV without compression for those that might hear the difference.

I hope that answers your question.  Let me know if you do the comparison test."

 

[ac500]

*Sigh*
 
There are so many technical misconceptions in that Blue Coast Records email above alone, it's not even funny. Same goes for the other article you posted a link to, but it's not quite as bad. To be fair the Blue Coast guy seems to have good intentions in trying to use his experience to offer the best quality product, but he is clearly ignorant due to accepting the faulty results from people's confirmation bias that WAV sounds better than an identical FLAC file.
 
Anyone who thinks there is any real difference between lossless FLAC vs WAV when played on correctly functioning media player software, is simply ignorant (or stubborn = willfully ignorant, or if all else fails, dumb). I'm sorry, but hearing people speak of it as though it were a "debate" is like saying the existence of gravity is a heated "debate".
 
There is only one other possibility: You may have a faulty media player that messes up FLAC files but doesn't mess up WAV files. This has nothing to do with FLAC though, and everything to do with faulty media player software.
 
Assuming media playback software is correctly implemented, it is theoretically and practically impossible for FLAC data to sound different from WAV data. Any other observation is just confirmation bias.
 
Reading that article where the guy talks about people comparing BIT IDENTICAL WAV FILES (one of which is extracted from a FLAC) and claiming a difference between the two is so astoundingly stupid or ignorant it just makes me sad for the educational state of people today (the author isn't stupid - rather, the people he refers to who believe there's a difference between bit-identical files). Do people think that computer files have some magic associated with them that makes two copies of bit-identical data somehow magically appear different in some way?

 

[c61746961]

I share your grief.

 

[Blue Boat]

Quote:

The test, or being able to tell the difference?
I simply had my brother drag the MP3 and FLAC files into VLC with the same exact titles.  I was able to tell the difference by paying attention to the cymbols, and the entire song just feels more "open".
 
 

I wonder how it'll affect earphones that have a smaller response range, like my HF5s which go from 20Hz to 15kHz. From what I know, the major difference between FLAC and lossy is that FLAC retains the whole dynamic range (?) while lossy files are essentially just lossless files with the peaks in their dynamic range (20+ kHz) chopped off. Anyhow, I'll give them a listen and decide if the difference is worth $600. 

 

[ac500]

You can certainly tell the difference from lossy vs. lossless (MP3 vs FLAC), not lossless vs lossless though obviously. Also as I understand it, MP3 compression is much more complicated than just chopping off part of the frequency spectrum - there are a number of perception-based tricks used to basically blur over things you hopefully won't notice. But I'm not sure what you meant by that since you mentioned frequencies - I thought dynamic range refers to variation of sound volume?

 

[B-Dawk20]

With my M50s I have a hard time discerning 128 from 320 sometimes. With my AD700s, it is a lot easier because the sound staging is almost always ****ed up. Lossy and Lossless though, it is pretty easy with both.
 
This is all genre dependent though and song dependent. Pop in some low production hip hop....well, it gets hard.

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

With my M50s I have a hard time discerning 128 from 320 sometimes. With my AD700s, it is a lot easier because the sound staging is almost always ****ed up. Lossy and Lossless though, it is pretty easy with both.
 
This is all genre dependent though and song dependent. Pop in some low production hip hop....well, it gets hard.

 
 
I own m50s and it's even harder to tell the difference between 128 and 320 then it is on my shure srh840. Either way the difference is negligible. If it means saving hard drive space I will rip in 256 as I fail to hear any difference past 192.

 

[B-Dawk20]

Quote:

 
 
I own m50s and it's even harder to tell the difference between 128 and 320 then it is on my shure srh840. Either way the difference is negligible. If it means saving hard drive space I will rip in 256 as I fail to hear any difference past 192.

I stick to V0 for the most part. Saves a lot of space and gets me probably the maximum potential I can hear out of a lossy file.

 

[J0nny]

Quote:

This is all genre dependent though and song dependent. Pop in some low production hip hop....well, it gets hard.

I can hear the crackle and hiss of Illmatic more clearly than ever!
 

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

I reread my post and I definitely came as offensive and arrogant, and I apologize for that. I did read your posts, and I still believe that the argument that prohibitively expensive "audiophile" products must be better than simpler, smaller and correctly implemented products (most high-performance pro audio products) by virtue of size / cost alone holds no ground. Note that I'm not arguing in favor of the E10, as I haven't found extensive measurements about it yet, nor have used it myself. Source matters, no doubt, but veering people towards arguably overpriced and potentially overkill stuff is something I personally hold a grudge against, more so if it's accompanied by poor argumentation.

NP
Looking at my reply a day later, I realize it looks rather bitchy and irritable and I apologize for that.
Really all I was getting at was "source matters".
Quoting $$$ probably made it look like I was saying "Spend As Much As You Can, Boys!"
That was not my real intention.
Frankly, I was quite surprised at how good sounding the D12 is for the money. I was also surprised at all the features: a very small, portable headphone amp and DAC with four inputs: USB, RCA digital, toslink and analog.
In addition: I paid approx. $2,000 for my Shanling CD player which quite honestly sounds about as good as a few other approx. $800- 1,200 CD players I compared it to: Cambridge, Rotel, can't remember what else.
The reason why I shelled out the extra bucks for the Shanling was the vacuum tube and solid state outputs plus the vacuum headphone jack plus HDCD decoding. I like the vacuum outputs, if it wasn't for that I would have bought a Rotel CD player for less than $1,000 and I'm not convinced that more money gets you more real performance.
So I think I do agree with your point about spending kilobucks for little or no improvements...........
 
The Benchmark equipment, what do you think of it?
Looks like no BS product, but a bit expensive?
I have never heard any, but specs look good.
 

 
 

 

[Digital-Pride]

Continuing on the source vs. amp vs. headphone vs. cost discussion, I don't think one has to spend into the thousand dollar range. especially with the advances made in the audio equipment industry, to get excellent to reference level sound.  Even usb only dacs such HRT's Music Streamer II, offer excellent sound at a very reasonable price.  The Cambridge Dacmagic would be a great starting point for building a higher-end rig without the arm and a leg cost.

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

Continuing on the source vs. amp vs. headphone vs. cost discussion, I don't think one has to spend into the thousand dollar range. especially with the advances made in the audio equipment industry, to get excellent to reference level sound.  Even usb only dacs such HRT's Music Streamer II, offer excellent sound at a very reasonable price.  The Cambridge Dacmagic would be a great starting point for building a higher-end rig without the arm and a leg cost.

Any thoughts on the Arcam rDAC?
I like it's feature set.
I've always liked the sound of any Arcam equipment I've heard.
 

 

[B-Dawk20]

Quote:

Continuing on the source vs. amp vs. headphone vs. cost discussion, I don't think one has to spend into the thousand dollar range. especially with the advances made in the audio equipment industry, to get excellent to reference level sound.  Even usb only dacs such HRT's Music Streamer II, offer excellent sound at a very reasonable price.  The Cambridge Dacmagic would be a great starting point for building a higher-end rig without the arm and a leg cost.

Ooooh, the cambridge looks really nice too.  Any suggestions on combinations that are renowned to work wonderfully with it?