[Audiophiliac]

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.

A 192khz refers to a recording's sample rate, and is a nice higher res file. You are mistaking me for meaning only 192kbps, which would indeed have to be compressed.
I know you never said anything about turntables, why would you think you would have had to? 192khz sample rate uncompressed files, which are like 9216kbps, still lose to turntables. I say that, you haven't. Why do you think I'm trying to make you lose? Hey, if you ever think that uncompressed tracks play back more of the track than lossy compression, will you not be able to get the girls anymore?

 

[bfreedma]

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.

Every track requires the CPU to do something, compressed or not. The thought that a modern computer sees any kind of impactful load from decompressing audio is outdated by approximately 2 decades.

I'm not familiar with the technical term "hyperspaz", but assure you that decompressing any normal file won't create any audible "hyperspaz" during decompression.

 

[bigshot]

Hey, if you ever think that uncompressed tracks play back more of the track than lossy compression, will you not be able to get the girls anymore?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I think there’s something wrong with you.

 

[Audiophiliac]

Every track requires the CPU to do something, compressed or not. The thought that a modern computer sees any kind of impactful load from decompressing audio is outdated by approximately 2 decades.

I'm not familiar with the technical term "hyperspaz", but assure you that decompressing any normal file won't create any audible "hyperspaz" during decompression.

Actually, the argument is that the later cpu's get, the noisier they get, because the extra processing power creates noise. That's why people are saying Raspberry pi's and dedicated streamers send better outputs to your dac, lower processing requirements.
Most people have only ever listened to their digital music through FLAC, unless it was back when you had a cd player. That's not an apples to apples comparison. Try uncompressing your favorite personal FLAC's onto a hard drive, and then critically listening for a difference from what you're used to, on your best device.
If it doesn't sound simpler than your FLAC's did, you're lucky you can't hear a difference, and I wish I could say the same, for a 40% saving of cheap anyways space.

 

[Audiophiliac]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I think there’s something wrong with you

I guess, since all you've done since I began this thread is try to insult me because you think I'm trying to "win", I should report you to a moderator. Otherwise, you will, because of my answering back.

 

[bigshot]

I haven’t insulted you. I’ve tried to answer you, but your posts ane made of rambling run on sentences and you don’t state things clearly. You did however insult me and that post was deleted.

 

[VNandor]

Everyone should make sure they never ever play back a 192kHz wave file, even a fool would know that it puts 4x times as much strain on the cpu. Don't even get me started on playing back 24bit files instead of 16bits, every additional bit makes the computer work twice as hard. It's pure basic maths. But you need to have an extremely revealing and well put together system to notice how super bad the extra strain from the unnecessary processing sounds!

 

[Audiophiliac]

Everyone should make sure they never ever play back a 192kHz wave file, even a fool would know that it puts 4x times as much strain on the cpu. Don't even get me started on playing back 24bit files instead of 16bits, every additional bit makes the computer work twice as hard. It's pure basic maths. But you need to have an extremely revealing and well put together system to notice how super bad the extra strain from the unnecessary processing sounds!

No, 192khz waves are finally starting to seem like they tell me as much as vinyl did. DMA is the ancient thing that allows direct from disk to memory transfer. There is no processing to be done for a wav file anyhow, so it would always beat FLAC at noiselessness. 24bit would only require a 24 bit cpu, not extra horsepower.
If you cam notice a difference before your hit the $2k dac mark, you will be able to tell the difference before I can, although I may have noticed on my old $300 dac, but just not have been as sure it made as much of a difference as it seems to now. If I make it to $20k in gear, I will probably be way more adamant about the difference.
I don't wish that uncompressed was better, I lose 40% more disk space per track sooner. It sucks having good ears, is the problem. That's the expensive part, too, after that.

 

[BS5711]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I think there’s something wrong with you.

I think that was self evident from the first post !

 

[BS5711]

It sucks having good ears …..

You do understand that your hearing is subject normal human limitations, it is your imagination that is less limited.

I think you are confusing not understanding how our auditory system works and how easily it is fooled with somehow having exceptional hearing beyond the boundaries of normal human limitations.

 

[bigshot]

192 probably sounds like vinyl to you because your system isn’t designed to handle that kind of sampling rate and distortion is being introduced in the audible range. More is not better in this case. Studio equipment is designed to work with these ultra high rates, home equipment isn’t. Playing these kinds of files can never help. It can only hurt. There’s more info in the article in my signature titled CD Sound Is All You Need.

 

[Audiophiliac]

I think that was self evident from the first post !

I've understood the dilemma, and will now post very short and simple thoughts one at a time, so that it doesn't have to be Theory of Relativity. If Einstein hadn't kept on explaining his theories while nobody in the world knew what he was talking about, still nobody would know what he was talking about.

 

[Audiophiliac]

192 probably sounds like vinyl to you because your system isn’t designed to handle that kind of sampling rate and distortion is being introduced in the audible range. More is not better in this case. Studio equipment is designed to work with these ultra high rates, home equipment isn’t. Playing these kinds of files can never help. It can only hurt. There’s more info in the article in my signature titled CD Sound Is All You Need.

Doesn't Vinyl reveal the full range of distortion that exists in between the timing of cd samples continually, just like there is in reality?
Why don't the cd samples ever capture the distortion of the original?
Have you seen a 4k video screen? Are all of the extra pixels also actually just distortions, beyond the original perfect DVD specification? What if someone told you that their DVD picture was perfect, and even re-encoding movies down to 650MB was indistinguishable from the theatre copy? Or then, that adding pixels up to 4k would only add static to the image?

 

[BS5711]

I've understood the dilemma, and will now post very short and simple thoughts one at a time, so that it doesn't have to be Theory of Relativity. If Einstein hadn't kept on explaining his theories while nobody in the world knew what he was talking about, still nobody would know what he was talking about.

The problem is with your content and delivery not the intelligence level of the recipients.

I think the Einstein comparison is a massive stretch

 

[Audiophiliac]

The problem is with your content and delivery not the intelligence level of the recipients.

I think the Einstein comparison is a massive stretch

Oh, bigshot says something that the rest of the audio community disagrees with, so my content can't keep him content.
Do you also agree that your gear playing tracks that only play each sample for 192kth/second before the next one taken will introduce noise to the playback, for some reason only that one engineer who's in his signature claims will happen?