[Brooko]

Moving some discussion from the VE Monk thread so it doesn't get taken off-topic.
 
Claims made that WAV sounds better than FLAC / ALAC

 

[bilboda]

I get the impression that wav is being preferred by folk's who are using players, daps, phones and whatnot. Maybe the processor is either underpowered or working harder and adding noise.
Whaddya think?

 

[Brooko]

I would suggest those making the claim that they sound superior try this.
 
Foobar 2000
Take any file you know well
Use same master file and transcode same file to WAV, FLAC and ALAC
Use replay gain to volume match
Use blind ABX  - at least 15 iterations
Post log
 
Given you are so confident it is better - it should be easy to do the test and post results that prove your point
 
I set up an old thread here with instructions on how to set an ABX up - all the software is free
http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding
 
I have no issues with people saying they prefer WAV.  I do have issues with people claiming the format sounds better - it can't - it decodes to same PCM as FLAC and ALAC.  That is why it is called lossless. Altman wouldn't be able to tell the two apart in controlled conditions no matter what he claims. 

 

[Brooko]

  I get the impression that wav is being preferred by folk's who are using players, daps, phones and whatnot. Maybe the processor is either underpowered or working harder and adding noise.
Whaddya think?

 
Most modern players today have more than enough processing power to put no extra load whatsoever on the decompression.  A player today that has this issue is essentially a sub-par player IMO.

 

[bilboda]

From an old thread http://www.head-fi.org/t/628762/flac-vs-cd-quality-difference
We have this, 4 years ago. I think all the software he was using will pay back from memory cache at this time. I personally have no opinion, just curious...
"
try the different players in a blind ABX - what you are describing is literally impossible.  if the decompression were failing, you wouldn't hear improvements in the treble, you'd hear major clipping and noise. 
 

 
But you see chewy that is where things get tricky. While I agree no data is lost if the compression if done properly. The problems appear when the file is being unzipped on the fly with most programs and even on DAPs in general. I've found using cPlay in bit for bit with my DACport LX there is a noticeable difference between other programs that I use (J River, Media Monkey Gold, Foobar). What cPlay does is it properly unzips the file then stores it in memory cache before music playback and not doing it all on the fly. So its playing back a WAV file as it was intended. I notice improvements in the sound staging, and especially in the treble region. Its enough for me to be tempted to unzip my FLAC files on my Studio V and even DX100. But won't do so until memory capacity increases more and prices go down more .

And then this
 

  try the different players in a blind ABX - what you are describing is literally impossible.  if the decompression were failing, you wouldn't hear improvements in the treble, you'd hear major clipping and noise. 
 

 
That's my point. I've noticed situations such as this even on my Studio V with certain FLAC files (clipping) where it is a none issue in WAV form. I have done blind testing before and I still prefer cPlay. I just notice more detail in the songs with it (some are more apparent then others). Not sure why but I'm gonna stick with it. It's a bit of a hassle to have to manually pick each song but for musical enjoyment I feel it's well worth it. The only logical reason I could come up with for these differences is due to the programs decompressing the songs and doing something wrong in the process of doing it.

 

[bilboda]

And from Audioquest http://www.audioquest.com/audio_file_formats/
Apple Lossless Compression. This is an Apple file format option in iTunes that employs “lossless” compression, which reduces the stored data to as little as half of the original music file’s size but restores bit-for-bit identical to the original music file on playback. The process is not unlike a zip file in which a large amount of data is “zipped” down to a smaller file size for storage and “unzipped” to its full size when opened. In spite of this being an Apple technology, iTunes running on Windows XP/Vista/7 is fully compatible with Apple Lossless with full rip and playback capabilities and Apple Lossless offers full metadata support on both platforms. Since the original music file is restored bit-for-bit Apple Lossless files offer much better  sound  than  lossy  MP3s  and  is  compatible  with  high-resolution music  files.  Interestingly,  uncompressed  music  files  such  as  WAV  or AIFF can sound better than lossless compression formats like Apple Lossless or FLAC. Perhaps this is because they don’t require the ad- ditional  step  of  being  “unzipped”  and  restored  to  their  original  PCM data package during real-time during playback. Listen and you’ll hear the difference.
 
So some seem to think there is a difference. I think the playback software can negate the difference though.

 

[Brooko]

What you've quoted is anecdotal - neither source has ever conducted a blind listening test to show they can tell the difference.  Until they do - you can cite them as an indicator, but I can also easily dismiss them as having no scientific proof.
 
The test is simple and also reasonably conclusive.  You can either tell the difference or not.  Why is it when confronted with providing proof to back up their claims, the ones making the claims either hide behind the usual "well I heard it and I trust my ears", or you never hear from them again?  If it was me - and someone was doubting my claims, I'd spend the time to make sure that I backed them up with evidence.
 
Do the test.  Show the logs.  Then we can discuss whether or not there is evidence of a difference.

 

[Brooko]

  So some seem to think there is a difference. I think the playback software can negate the difference though.

 
There is quite simply no difference.  Both files if played back bit perfectly will deliver the exact same PCM file.
 
The only way there could be a difference would be if you were using a substandard player which was somehow screwing up one of the formats.  And the result wouldn't be better bass, more detail, or air, or resolution or any other of the myriad claims.  The difference would be stutters and skips, or distortion.

 

[bilboda]

Okay, I have a wav and a flac rip from the same cd. I'll find them and play wasapi thru Jriver. In addition, I'll also load to memory to see if there is a difference.
The log you are referring to, this is my notes om my impressions?

 

[bilboda]

Never mind, I ripped to flac and wav, set up ABX, picked a section, went from A to B over and over and they sound identical, playing x + y seems pointless, so... for me, no difference, on my pc/dac/amp and headphones, Windows 7,Uptone Regen, Aune X1S, AKG kxxx. But I can only speak for me. I will say that at one point, the opening bass line seemed bloomier, not as sharp, but that was me and my concentration. After repeated listening, they sound the same.  Same decay. Hi quality Mapleshade recording, Bad Influence, Alberta.
 
Enjoy
 

 

[Brooko]

  Okay, I have a wav and a flac rip from the same cd. I'll find them and play wasapi thru Jriver. In addition, I'll also load to memory to see if there is a difference.
The log you are referring to, this is my notes om my impressions?

 
Log is if you use Foobar - you can print a log so we can see actual results.  But don't worry about it - your post explains it all.

 

[haiku]

Dig this
 
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue56/abx.htm
 
For me, following the objective audio approach only leeds to loosing all interest in my music collection. The sound quality of MP3 and AAC is just too bad for long time listening. Now that I know the quality difference between wav and flac and alac files, I would never want to go back. The quality of high res wav files is just awesome. But Brooko, that´s just me. I don´t want to convince anyone. I only post to share my experiences. I think that´s what a forum is about, enriching each other with different opinions and perspectives. I respect the objective approach, it just doesn´t work for me.

 

[Brooko]

Sorry mate - you and I are never going to agree on this.  Blind testing is the gold standard for practically any science - all it is doing is eliminating placebo and bias.
 
I just read what the other person wrote.  Guess what - the blog no longer exists, and and the links on the page all lead nowhere.  The test she talks about has no link so I have no idea what she's talking about.
 
I took the time to read  and try to follow the links you left.  I'd be obliged if you'd do the same:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
 
Just watch the first 5 minutes for why we use blind testing. You'll actually find the rest of the video (if you take time) quite interesting as well.

 

[haiku]

  Sorry mate - you and I are never going to agree on this.  Blind testing is the gold standard for practically any science - all it is doing is eliminating placebo and bias.
 
I just read what the other person wrote.  Guess what - the blog no longer exists, and and the links on the page all lead nowhere.  The test she talks about has no link so I have no idea what she's talking about.
 
I took the time to read  and try to follow the links you left.  I'd be obliged if you'd do the same:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
 
Just watch the first 5 minutes for why we use blind testing. You'll actually find the rest of the video (if you take time) quite interesting as well.

I know all the arguments. We don´t have to agree. I´m fine with that. I enjoy your reviews a lot btw. 

 

[gregorio]

  Dig this
 
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue56/abx.htm

 
Although the web was originally invented for scientists to exchange information, it's now open to everyone. So not just scientists but nutters, paedophiles, terrorists and extremists of every kind, as well of course as the the masses of just ordinary people. When researching something on the web, the intelligent, rational person has to separate the science from the ramblings of complete nutters and extremists who claim to know the facts. That's not always easy to do because to start with many people are either: 1. Not intelligent, 2. Not rational, 3. Uneducated and don't even know what science is or, 4. Shockingly gullible. To make matters even more difficult, some nutters/extremists have learned to sound quite reasonable/plausible even though their "facts" are actually nuts! And of course, people are free to quote nutters from the web exactly the same as the actual scientists or experts. No matter how crazy an idea, you can probably find people who actually believe it and therefore supporting quotes/articles somewhere on the web: Flat Earth, magic, leprechauns, mythology, moon made of cheese and countless others besides.
 

  I think that´s what a forum is about, enriching each other with different opinions and perspectives.

 
If I were to tell you that 1+1=3, would I be enriching you with my different opinion/perspective or would I just be uneducated, delusional and/or wrong?
 

  I respect the objective approach, it just doesn´t work for me.

 
You're using the results of objective science to use the web and post your messages and presumably you rely occasionally on modern medicines (which require by law "the objective approach"), rather than only use herbs and leeches? If so, then the "objective approach" actually does work for you all the time. So either you are so shockingly uneducated that you don't even realise you life is dominated by the objective scientific approach or you are just inventing an obvious lie to defend your delusional position, or maybe, there's some other explanation I'm not seeing?
 
G