[thelostMIDrange]

that's what I thought, it's not chopped up, it's packed and unpacked. So here's a gooey analogy sure to annoy prickle types. say you take a packed picnic basket and are sitting underneath your oak tree with your sweetheart and she unpacks it and feeds the grapes to you in a seamless manner while laying on the river bank it's going to taste different compared to if you are unpacking it and feeding yourself...if there's a difference between flac and WAV it must be something like this, but much less pleasurable which is why we should be out there with our sweeties under the oak tree rather than debating if a WAV is different. You guys do so for good reason, to stand up for science and fact which is admirable. Just keep a corner of the mind open to the possibility that unpacking the basket is a meaningful act (the possibility, not saying for certain).

 

[Music Alchemist]

  that's what I thought, it's not chopped up, it's packed and unpacked. So here's a gooey analogy sure to annoy prickle types. say you take a packed picnic basket and are sitting underneath your oak tree with your sweetheart and she unpacks it and feeds the grapes to you in a seamless manner while laying on the river bank it's going to taste different compared to if you are unpacking it and feeding yourself...if there's a difference between flac and WAV it must be something like this, but much less pleasurable which is why we should be out there with our sweeties under the oak tree rather than debating if a WAV is different. You guys do so for good reason, to stand up for science and fact which is admirable. Just keep a corner of the mind open to the possibility that unpacking the basket is a meaningful act (the possibility, not saying for certain).

 
Unless you are willing to document (via an ABX test) whether you can hear a difference, you are wasting everyone's time. It was already explained clearly that it is totally uncompressed before playback, so the bitstream is identical.

 

[bigshot]

Generally I feel ignorance is bliss is a wrong way to live but the consequences of being wrong about WAV are so miniscule, I think you can understand why I would form a preference and just go with it.

 
The difference between WAV and FLAC is one thing, but you seem to not have much of a grasp of how digital audio works in general. If you are a musician, that is OK as long as you leave it to your producers and engineers to take care of for you, but you won't want to start saying this stuff in the studio. You'll end up giving your engineers the wrong direction.

 

[thelostMIDrange]

I admit, with no shame I am unaware of the tech. blissfully so. And I can record fine as long as it's tape. It's a no brainer. Once you get into protools et al, it takes thought to try and get it sorted out but it will never sound good imexperience. flat, lifeless over manipulated perfection is what it is.

 

[bigshot]

You need a good engineer who knows how to use protools properly. You can't get the best out of technology if you are blissfully ignorant of how it works.

 

[thelostMIDrange]

I've heard plenty of PRO engineered protools. they all sound like dog poop man, you may convince me WAV and FLAC are = but never convince me otherwise that analog tape and digital capture of analog signal is anywhere near the same no matter what skill level an engineer has. nope never

 

[bigshot]

As you say, ignorance is bliss. But I find it's better to know what you are talking about. However, I think if you continue that hard line, you're going to have some trouble finding professional engineers to work with. Just about all of the studios I work with have moved the 2 inch tape decks out of the machine room and just maintain one in the dub room for copying old masters.
 
You're talking to someone who knows both sides... I actually supervised recording sessions and sound mixes in the old 24 track/automation days and I've worked on current state of the art digital recording and mixing stages as well. No contest. Digital works better than tape ever did. It sounds better. It's more flexible. It is easier to work with. It's faster, cheaper and sounds a whole lot better.
 
As someone who works in the business, I can tell you for sure that you don't get good results if you decide in advance that you refuse to learn from people who happen to know more than you do. I learn from the experts around me. Just try to tell an engineer how to do his job when you have no clue what that job entails! Refusing to learn isn't ignorance. Willful ignorance crosses the line into that other word...

 

[thelostMIDrange]

I think it boils down to what you value in sound. It may be I value different things. I don't think ignorance is the point. But I can cite you a hundred examples of so called latest and greateste tech advancements that I feel are devolutions. The TV's for example. I'll take an inferior tube TV any day over a LCD or other overly bright, technically more correct set. Same with lights, incandescent or candle all the way! Your tv, lights, and recording technique will produce more detail and be technically superior I admit, but it does so at a cost. If you are not able to detect that cost, or more likely your nature and sensibilites are such that they just are not of value to you, then it is what it is. The fact is people are different, some are extroverts, some are introverts, some are techy some are artists, some are religious some are arrogant, some are prickly types, some are gooey etc. This plays a role in how we hear sound and what we value. It's not a case of one being better than the other in an ultimate sense, however I do feel analog is better and you digital. But I recognize why you feel such, the clarity, the detail, the technical betterment etc? is this not so? If so, can you recognize or wonder what it is the people like me value in analog? or are you so certain we've progressed beyond it that you needn't bother try ? You can educate me technically and I can offer similar guidance artistically. Or is art less than science?

 

[bigshot]

Sorry, I'm done. What's the point of coming into a forum about science and technology and pretending to be uninterested in science and technology. Nothing more to say. BUH BYE!

 

[thelostMIDrange]

Is this a forum about science and technology? I see it as a music and artistic forum related to the nature and value of sound as an expression of the human soul.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Is this a forum about science and technology? I see it as a music and artistic forum related to the nature and value of sound as an expression of the human soul.

 
This thread is in the Sound Science section, so yes. Any claims made are generally expected to be supported with documentation.
 
I think we're all music lovers at heart, but that doesn't make the technical side of things irrelevant.

 

[thelostMIDrange]

I like the way you operate alchemist. you have conducted yourself like a right gentlemen and it's been a pleasure chatting. now where's that evidence for alchemy!

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I like the way you operate alchemist. you have conducted yourself like a right gentlemen and it's been a pleasure chatting. now where's that evidence for alchemy!

 

Spoiler: Your requested proof.

 

 

 

[thelostMIDrange]

oh, i'm well aware of what it is, and I didn't need convincing but you'll have a hard sell with justifying the workings of alchemy with someone like bigshot and apparently 99% of other sound science posters. now if alchemy is real, surely there is a tiny possibilty that a WAV can sound different than a flac in real world common man listening situations.....I didn't know how much 'flac' i'd be getting by posting non evidence based ideas in this sacred forum. But like I said, I am sympathetic to your guy's aims I just think you are too religious and dogmatic about it (ironically)....not you so much alchemist as you have proven to be flexible and reasonable and have not fully lost touch with the life force

 

[Music Alchemist]

  oh, i'm well aware of what it is, and I didn't need convincing but you'll have a hard sell with justifying the workings of alchemy with someone like bigshot and apparently 99% of other sound science posters. now if alchemy is real, surely there is a tiny possibilty that a WAV can sound different than a flac in real world common man listening situations.....I didn't know how much 'flac' i'd be getting by posting non evidence based ideas in this sacred forum. But like I said, I am sympathetic to your guy's aims I just think you are too religious and dogmatic about it (ironically)....not you so much alchemist as you have proven to be flexible and reasonable and have not fully lost touch with the life force

 
It was kind of a joke. Thought that was obvious from the anime GIFs. XD
 
The whole alchemy theme with my user name is more a metaphor than anything.
 
If your source is defective, it may make stuff sound different, but with properly-designed equipment, there isn't even the slightest bit of difference during playback.
 
Demanding proof before accepting something (especially something that contradicts all existing knowledge on a topic) isn't being dogmatic; it's being reasonable.
 
Just curious: are you not willing to do the simple ABX test I linked to? All you need to do is use a song that you easily perceived a difference with. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes.