1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Uncompressed Lossless (WAV) vs Compressed (FLAC / ALAC) - O/T discussion moved from main forum thread

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by haiku, Apr 30, 2016.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10 11
  1. spruce music
    Okay, try this, chop off the first and last second of the extracted difference file and see what happens.  See if what's left is true silence. 
  2. RRod
  3. VNandor

    I did but it didn't help at all. The noise is sitting around -120dB for the whole duration.
    Anyways if we assume that FLAC compression works consistently we can safely conclude that the mentioned difference in the article could not come from the difference of digital data because if there's any it's way below audibility and most likely below the playback system's noise floor as well.
  4. spruce music

    I don't know what to tell you. I can do this repeatedly and get a complete zero residual every time. So something is wrong with your procedure or settings in the software.

    The difference is not below audibility it is completely non existent.
  5. nick_charles Contributor
    The inversion seems okay in Audacity - the inverted and non-inverted files have the same FR spectra the problem seems to be with the act of adding the inverted and non-inverted files and then exporting the result which has the residual grunty - but since we have the 1000x FLAC/WAV result it is a bit moot but still annoying to not know where the problem is...
  6. spruce music
    the only time I have seen that is when dither is applied to the Audacity export.
    VNandor likes this.
  7. RRod
    Is there any weird floating-pointy stuff that could happen due to the inversion? Also, I did my conversion with the echt "flac" program from Xiph. Could other encoding options have weird implentational issues?
  8. spruce music
    You can always do a checksum comparison.  SHA5 is still fine for that sort of thing.
  9. Onitsuka

    I honestly am upset with the fact that there're some people actually believe WAV sounds better than lossless. O_O

    It's 100% the same as when you use WinRAR to compress a text file. The RAR file is just the same as the FLAC/ALAC, its just a container that carries the compressed content. When you open the real content, it will be decompressed to original source without any modifications.

    So if you claim WAV sounds better than FLAC/ALAC, it is as ridiculous as claiming a text file is clearer than the its embeded clone inside a RAR archive.
  10. castleofargh Contributor

    the usual argument is that flac will use more CPU. so the CPU will create more noise that may pass on to the DAC(you'll notice that the same guys totally forget about CPU usage and potential added noise when they play 24/192 files or try to decode DSD on the fly with foobar[​IMG] ). the magnitude of such a thing makes it irrelevant for people who care about what they can hear on almost any modern device with less than 50 viruses, but I understand how it may trigger some OCD in the mind of people trying to get the very best fidelity whatever the magnitude. at some point there is nothing wrong with playing WAV files if they feel like it.
    this one article is indeed a novelty. they bring up a problem nobody had noticed, and test it with a method that is... let's say creative. what is strange is how when confronted with a difference, they go for the very first thing that seems to work based on assumptions, but do very little in an attempt to know if their procedure may be the cause of it all. so right or wrong, it's hard to take them with the seriousness they may think they deserve.
    still!!!  they did some testing(unless it was an elaborate April fools prank and will learn about it next year), that part at least is way better than all the guys making the same kind of claims from the top of their head. if only for that, I believe they deserve better than crucifixion.
  11. Slaphead

    I'm only subbed to this thread out of morbid curiosity. I'll admit that as I've been reading I've wanted to respond, but decided against it many times as my response would have likely broken some forum rules. :wink:
  12. VNandor
    I think it's not all that surprising. Haven't you seen some of the other sub-forums here? People can genuinely hear/perceive a difference if they are doing a sighted comparison and I see why it's logical to attribute the differences to the sound instead of perception.
  13. Dataland
    well, I know this thread is a little old but I wanna ask for help here, WAV. Yep, good ‘ol format that my Windows system sounds are encoded in (though that’s 8-bit and usually mono). WAV preserves 100% of audio information in 16-bit 44.1KHz stereo format when ripping audio from a CD. I really wanna find a program can help me compress WAV files size. I have googled a lot, but it just recommend some Windows program such as http://www.wavpack.com/, http://www.videoconverterfactory.com/tips/compress-wav-file.html I am using Mac OS, so anyone knows some program can support Mac, thanks a lot.
  14. Slaphead
    I use Pro Audio Converter - https://www.markvapps.com/proaudioconverter - you can download a demo from there

    It costs about $10 from the App Store, and so far it's handled everything I've thrown at it.
  15. gregorio
    Try iTunes, it's free and a very good encoder. I'd advise AAC 256 VBR but if you're happy with about half the file size of CD and completely lossless, then use ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10 11

Share This Page