..........
Last edited:
.WAV vs. FLAC
- Thread starter TheAwesomesauceShow
- Start date
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
Be proud of your accomplishments, knowledge and wisdom. Humans are frail, regardless of what your ego believes. As you get more mature, you will learn that.
Blind tests are the best way to remove your own ego from the equation and find out just what your flappers are hearing.
Blind tests are the best way to remove your own ego from the equation and find out just what your flappers are hearing.
Last edited:
lol nahh!
just been blessed, or cursed, with a good set of flappers i guess.
ive always heard stuff, even as a kid, most other people never heard.
drives my gf crazy sometimes , tweaking my stereo, speakers , etc
just been blessed, or cursed, with a good set of flappers i guess.
ive always heard stuff, even as a kid, most other people never heard.
drives my gf crazy sometimes , tweaking my stereo, speakers , etc
hopefully mature as ill ever get.
just turned 54.
wish i could roll the clock back 20 years sometimes.
just turned 54.
wish i could roll the clock back 20 years sometimes.
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
Keep working on it. There's no fool like an old fool!
lol ! you said that right old-timer...
like i said, i tried the totally uncompressed flac setting in poweramp, 0% compression, and it is a wash at that point.
with it at the recommended # 5 setting, like 30% compression, the diff is there for me, no matter what song, or how i listen to it.
the file size ends up exactly the same size when i do that, so its really a moot point...
like i said, i tried the totally uncompressed flac setting in poweramp, 0% compression, and it is a wash at that point.
with it at the recommended # 5 setting, like 30% compression, the diff is there for me, no matter what song, or how i listen to it.
the file size ends up exactly the same size when i do that, so its really a moot point...
71 dB
Headphoneus Supremus
What is lossless compression about?
Lossless compression such as flac throws redundancy away. Redundancy is the same information repeated many times or expressed in a needlessly long way. So, for example instead of writing:
"dog dog dog cat cat"
I could write
"3 dog 2 cat"
which is shorter, but contains the same information. Languages have some degree of lossless compression in them and that's why a cat owner tells you she/he has "4 cats" instead of saying "cat cat cat cat", which is what your brain is decoding when you listen to her/him. Another form of lossless compression in languages is that instead of having all words equally long, more frequently used words tend to be shorter than scarcely used words. That's why words such as "or" and "you" are shorter than "redundancy." If you use tool A often, but tool B only occacionally, it is wise to keep tool A in a place where you can reach it easily and tool B in a worse place. That's "lossless compression" of nuisance. You don't use the tools less, only the trouble of using them is reduced. People do this kind of "lossless compression" in their lives even without realizing it, because we want it easy.
Compessing music into smaller file size is more complex, but this is the idea, finding more compact ways to say or do the exact same thing. So when "3 dog 2 cat" the decoded, it becames "dog dog dog cat cat" which is identical to the original encoded piece of information.
Take a wav-file and make a flac-file of it. Then import the wav and flac files to a wave editor and invert the imported flac file. Then mix these tracks together which gives you the difference of the two. You should get nil, complete silence, because there is not difference between the two. If there is a difference then something has gone wrong (bug in the flac encoder/decoder or something like that) and you are not dealing with real flac.
Lossless compression such as flac throws redundancy away. Redundancy is the same information repeated many times or expressed in a needlessly long way. So, for example instead of writing:
"dog dog dog cat cat"
I could write
"3 dog 2 cat"
which is shorter, but contains the same information. Languages have some degree of lossless compression in them and that's why a cat owner tells you she/he has "4 cats" instead of saying "cat cat cat cat", which is what your brain is decoding when you listen to her/him. Another form of lossless compression in languages is that instead of having all words equally long, more frequently used words tend to be shorter than scarcely used words. That's why words such as "or" and "you" are shorter than "redundancy." If you use tool A often, but tool B only occacionally, it is wise to keep tool A in a place where you can reach it easily and tool B in a worse place. That's "lossless compression" of nuisance. You don't use the tools less, only the trouble of using them is reduced. People do this kind of "lossless compression" in their lives even without realizing it, because we want it easy.
Compessing music into smaller file size is more complex, but this is the idea, finding more compact ways to say or do the exact same thing. So when "3 dog 2 cat" the decoded, it becames "dog dog dog cat cat" which is identical to the original encoded piece of information.
Take a wav-file and make a flac-file of it. Then import the wav and flac files to a wave editor and invert the imported flac file. Then mix these tracks together which gives you the difference of the two. You should get nil, complete silence, because there is not difference between the two. If there is a difference then something has gone wrong (bug in the flac encoder/decoder or something like that) and you are not dealing with real flac.
gregorio
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Posts
- 6,746
- Likes
- 4,035
That is not possible, there is no difference, for you or for anyone, the extracted files are absolutely identical. There are only two possible options, either: 1. You have a serious fault with your system, so serious that it cannot manage the computationally easy task of compressing or de-compressing a flac file or 2. The difference you are hearing only exists in your mind/perception!
G
Last edited:
tansand
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2016
- Posts
- 432
- Likes
- 70
WAV are computationally easier. Can you attest it doesn't matter? Feel free to add some exclamation points, if not.
71 dB
Headphoneus Supremus
In digital audio it doesn't matter how easy or difficult the zeros and ones have been. DACs don't discriminate between "easy" and "difficult" zeros and ones. DACs don't know how easy or hard it has been and don't even care how hot your CPU runs.
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
And I've had computers that flawlessly capture and play compressed audio since 1995. If your computer is having problems playing FLAC files, there is probably something seriously wrong with your machine. If that's the case, it probably isn't playing back WAV correctly either. On just about any current computer, WAV and FLAC should sound identical, because once FLAC is uncompressed and played, it is a bit perfect copy of the WAV.
tansand
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2016
- Posts
- 432
- Likes
- 70
As far as we know. It would suck after building a collection of FLACs to find out there was some insoluble error that WAVs don't suffer from because there's no compression. That could happen any day now.
My music comes off cds where it's not compressed, so that's the way I keep it. This word 'flawless' seems like wishful thinking to me, audio has been called 'flawless' for ages, when it obviously hasn't bee. The same is likely true now.
Oh, it's flawless, don't worry. Marketing BS.
My music comes off cds where it's not compressed, so that's the way I keep it. This word 'flawless' seems like wishful thinking to me, audio has been called 'flawless' for ages, when it obviously hasn't bee. The same is likely true now.
Oh, it's flawless, don't worry. Marketing BS.
Last edited:
tansand
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2016
- Posts
- 432
- Likes
- 70
I wasn't attributing consiousness to the DAC, but have fun with your claims there, which is all they are. It's entirely possible there is some random ****up. I seem to remember a theory that variations in the power rails caused by the decompression needing power at a varying rate affected the functioning of the conversion, and the analog side. Could be all kinds of possibilities nobody knows or wants to mention.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
