[Audiophiliac]

You're probably all busy thinking it sounds like FLAC versions are still all there, which they not only are, but have processing noise added, compared to the original, but just in case you have tried listening to your music the way money is no object, and have a low powered usb ssd feeding your uncompressed files to the output, so that you can try to at least truly equal what CD's already sounded like, except for the lack of an official I2S cable to feed your player with: Has anyone else been very picky, and now finds it obvious that uncompressed files from a low powered ssd actually give a more confident file read than the ethereally dubious read that cd's always gave? My playback of local copies is sick compared to how good my cd playback was, even though I'm stuck with usb to my dac, until my DI arrives in 2 days, which will also include an I2S output for my dac, to let me EQUAL what I was getting from a cd player better, except for the 'which HDMI cable I use still makes a difference' argument.
If you're listening to FLAC's, you probably think you're really good for not being much of a slacker when you listen, because of all that irritating noise. After switching to uncompressed files as my reference playback, my owned music makes me feel like I could fall asleep all the time, compared to streaming FLAC from Tidal, which is also through the same player, Audirvana.
My dreams for the future include streaming services and streaming players supporting the ability to download the flac in advance, decompress it onto a local hard drive as a temporary file, and then play back that file, for the perfection of streaming quality. Internet speeds can already keep the latency of jumping to a new higher res track that's not next on the list very low, it won't be a problem, especially if there's an option included to toggle the decompression in advance.
I know for a fact that lots of people have even better dac's than this uber thing, and I'm surprised people aren't all debunking FLAC playback all the time. Remember, uncompressed is the reference that FLAC has to try to keep unchanged, so if money is no object, why are you letting FLAC try to have a chance in the first place?
My usb ssd is 2tb, and was only like $150. The problem is, as invisible as streaming is now that Audirvana supports it, (being a real player, not just some streamer's makeshift junk), it's obviously not reference playback, like the files I've purchased and have local copies of. Those are silent about shimmering with noise injection, compared to streaming FLAC. I can fall asleep no problem, with uncompressed.

 

[sander99]

This subject was already brought up and discussed in a locked thread
(https://www.head-fi.org/threads/mqa.967619/ , started by the same op, Audiophiliac).

 

[Audiophiliac]

This subject was already brought up and discussed in a locked thread
(https://www.head-fi.org/threads/mqa.967619/ , started by the same op, Audiophiliac).

Besides that being an MQA thread, which thankfully people agreed with my complaints about that scam, and MQA went bankrupt because of it, although I was most frequently argued against on this forum, I also have streaming services all providing FLAC at best, and nobody is complaining that they're stuck with that, especially while my idea for decompression to a local file to play, instead, will work better than anyone has ever dared to dream of as reality. Actually, it finally matches the perfection that was ever dared to dream about by anyone, except for the part where it's digital. So, due to a lack of action on this subject for the Audiophile community, I will OP the "Reference playback" thread, and let other people debate or add to what constitutes reference playback, as they've learned so far.
My original point was that uncompressed from a local low powered ssd (not ideologically meaning a NvME superspeed drive, but rather, a low powered USB drive for noise reasons) is a reference read that seems like it could actually beat a cd player's read, even though I'm currently on USB for I2S's sake, even though the non-dedication to audio method of transmission to my dac will be inferior to what cd's could already beat internally.
Why did my MQA thread get locked? The arguments I was making caused them to go bankrupt. It's not my problem if people don't feel the need to post agreement about the subject, if they think just saying 'I agree' is boring for people to read. Hmm, it's true, though. Since everyone on head-fi was disagreeing, and talking like MQA was actually better than the original, I have no idea that there are any MQA protestors on head-fi, other than just assuming that the people talking like they know good output better than me would automatically agree. I know that there is much more expensive gear than mine, and some of the people in my DAC's higher model thread are talking beyond anything I have ever read people talking like about getting good audio output, but that should only prove my conclusions are harder to refute.

 

[bigshot]

I read the first handful of sentences three times and I get lost in them every time. I'd chalk it up to being a non-native English speaker, but he's from Canada. It must be some sort of internal conversation going on. There is some of the most scrambled syntax on Earth in this forum.

 

[Quazar]

Oh my God...

 

[Audiophiliac]

I just tried reading my posts, too. The sentences are long, and cover a lot of ground, but they make perfect sense.
I can try it slowly, so that each post is simple, and the back and forth takes forever:
First: Have you ever actually tried your favorite tracks as local wav files, instead of FLAC?
Yeah, the standard bait people with simplicity technique to having a discussion. You're right, that will work better for people.

 

[bigshot]

Yes, I’ve compared AIFF, ALAC and AAC 256 VBR in a controlled listening test. They all sound the same- perfect. My media server is loaded with 4 TB of AAC256 VBR, because that is perfect sound to human ears, and the file sizes are small so they can be quickly loaded onto my phone or streamed over WiFi or Bluetooth. No transcoding ever needed. Win-win.

 

[bigshot]

I’ll tell you how I tested lossy…

I took a dozen songs and ripped them from CD to AIFF.

I took the AIFF files and encoded them to Fraunhofer MP3, LAME MP3, and AAC at 96, 128, 192, 256 and 320 CBR.

I then set up ABX listening tests comparing lossy to lossless with the help of a friend and started with low data rates and worked my way up. Doing it this way, I could easily locate parts of the song that were hardest to encode. I focused on identifying artifacts in those areas and when I could call the problems consistently, I removed that file from the test.

I found one song that was particularly difficult. I whittled it down using that until I couldn’t identify artifacts any more. This left me with a handful of lossy files that were hard to discern a difference with… Fraunhofer 320 (some very tiny artifacts on my killer track), AAC 192 (some tiny artifacts on my killer track), LAME 320 (totally transparent), AAC 256 (totally transparent) and AAC 320 (totally transparent).

That is how I found the threshold of transparency for myself.

 

[Audiophiliac]

Sorry for being rude, bigshot. It's just that you've already proven to me that you don't think it's possible for digital to get worse.
Exactly, you can't even tell when only 96kbps are playing. Further, lossy encoders do NOT induce artifacts, they just shave off the data that they think you will miss the least to get it to then compress to that rate.
Were the 96kbps files more perfect than the original CD's? Did you find that they agreed with you about only having to care about that part of the data?

 

[bigshot]

Pertinent info on lossy artifacting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact

96 lossy is not transparent. It’s riddled with artifacts. Lossy achieves transparency at higher data rates, depending on the codec. (See above where I talk about my thresholds from my listening test.) Beyond that, it’s audibly identical to CD sound.

 

[gregorio]

You're probably all busy thinking it sounds like FLAC versions are still all there, which they not only are, [1] but have processing noise added, [2] compared to the original, [3] but just in case you have tried listening to your music the way money is no object, and [4] have a low powered usb ssd feeding your uncompressed files to the output, so that you can try to at least truly equal what CD's already sounded like, [5] except for the lack of an official I2S cable to feed your player with: [6] Has anyone else been very picky, and now finds it obvious that uncompressed files from a low powered ssd actually give a more confident file read than the ethereally dubious read that cd's always gave?

1. What “processing noise added”, do have you any objective/reliable evidence of this or did you just make it up?
2. Yes, compared with sighted listening tests, controlled listening tests and objective measurements.
3. Yes, I have listened to music extensively in various world class studios with equipment/acoustic designs costing many millions or tens of millions. Does your system/acoustic design cost tens of millions or is your regular music listening limited to relatively cheap systems?
4. Yes, and not just low powered USB SSDs but all sorts of other protocols and drives.
5. There’s no such thing as an official I2S cable! I2S was designed as a digital audio communication protocol between components within the same unit/device, NOT as a protocol between devices.
6. I’m extremely picky, in fact I’m employed to be very picky and what I and others employed to be so picky find obvious is that the “file read” is equally as “confident”, as proven by the objective measurements of what is read.

Sorry but ALL the points in your first paragraph appear to be wrong/false or just made-up nonsense, do you have any reliable/objective evidence for ANY of it?

G

 

[Audiophiliac]

1. What “processing noise added”, do have you any objective/reliable evidence of this or did you just make it up?

Compressed tracks require a processor to decompress them, before output. A fast desktop will have a processor that makes it sound like the original has a noisy hyperspaz presentation, compared to uncompressed, which will beat even low powered playback, like a pi or a dedicated streamer.

2. Yes, compared with sighted listening tests, controlled listening tests and objective measurements.
3. Yes, I have listened to music extensively in various world class studios with equipment/acoustic designs costing many millions or tens of millions. Does your system/acoustic design cost tens of millions or is your regular music listening limited to relatively cheap systems?

Are you referring to a world class recording studio, or playback studio? No, my system is very cheap compared to what it could be, especially going speakers, obviously, since cans only reach like $6k or so so far. But what would I learn from having the best gear, besides that I can already tell the difference on my current stuff?

4. Yes, and not just low powered USB SSDs but all sorts of other protocols and drives.

What are your discoveries regarding different protocols? Why do they make a difference? You haven't contributed any findings about the other drives you've tried, either.

5. There’s no such thing as an official I2S cable! I2S was designed as a digital audio communication protocol between components within the same unit/device, NOT as a protocol between devices.

Yes, we know. Nonetheless, some engineers are providing their own solutions, for which they seem to only ever receive laurels for allowing.

6. I’m extremely picky, in fact I’m employed to be very picky and what I and others employed to be so picky find obvious is that the “file read” is equally as “confident”, as proven by the objective measurements of what is read.

Really, you don't find that you are more confident that your file is getting read properly from an ssd?
Oh, I forgot to mention, the ssd sounds quieter to me than a mechanical drive. I told myself that a usb thumb drive will probably beat the internal ssd at less noise, since the internal ssd will be turbocharged for fast speed, vs USB. However, I can't hear as much difference between the two ssd types, both seem quiet.

Sorry but ALL the points in your first paragraph appear to be wrong/false or just made-up nonsense, do you have any reliable/objective evidence for ANY of it?

G

How can you say I'm wrong? Do you think I enjoy thinking that it sucks hearing a song streamed again, after playing local files this way? How can I not be objective in the first place? Ok, let me clarify: I wish streaming FLAC over the internet was just as good as uncompressed local files. My way, I have to buy the tracks, and then they take 40% more space than the FLAC's do. It totally sucks that I have to uncompress files onto a local usb ssd, just to get an unaltered output from my transport! How's that for objective? I wish it wasn't better having to do it my way.

Why do you seem to want to compete with me about not having to care about my topic? You don't sound like you're being objective about only having to stream FLAC, if even that. Do you agree with bigshot that 96kbps mp3 is identical to the original?

 

[bigshot]

Do you agree with bigshot that 96kbps mp3 is identical to the original?

I never said that. I said AAC 256 VBR sounds the same to human ears as lossless.

If you need to resort to such an obvious straw man argument, you must know that your argument is indefensible.

 

[Audiophiliac]

I never said that. I said AAC 256 VBR sounds the same to human ears as lossless.

If you need to resort to such an obvious straw man argument, you must know that your argument is indefensible.

Ok, so you just can't tell the difference, then.
Lucky for you, I wish I didn't think 192khz uncompressed files still lose to turntables.

 

[bigshot]

What is a “192kHz uncompressed file”? A 192 lossy file is compressed, not uncompressed. And I never said anything about turntables. You appear to be talking without listening, you’re arguing without any factual basis to back up what you say, and you insist on putting words in my mouth that I never said. That is disingenuous. You know you’re wrong but you feel a need to win at any cost.