[scompton]

Quote:

Science does not explain everything, but it does explain a lot—especially with wires, amplifiers, and CD players.  Perhaps also with MP3 players.  I cannot give you the links to the evidence, because I think the moderators and administrators will ban any discussions of double-blind listening tests here.  If a moderator or administrator says OK to the discussion of double-blind listening tests in all forums except the Cables forum, then I shall provide the evidence.
 

 
It's only forbidden in the cable forum, although I imagine if a flame war starts about dbt, I'm sure the thread would be locked.

 

[Anomaly2]

Quote:

It's only forbidden in the cable forum, although I imagine if a flame war starts about dbt, I'm sure the thread would be locked.

dfkt’s thread was moved to the Sound Science forum and was locked only much later.  Unless a moderator or administrator posts in this thread giving me the OK, I am definitely not going to give the links.  But since there is a record of every one of my posts in these forums, interested readers can consider that a hint.

 

[estreeter]

I got 5 out of 5 for FLAC vs WAV and 1 out of 5 for WAV vs 128K MP3s - the problem with the second 'trial' was that I was over it, pure and simple, and just started clicking things at random to see how my score turned out. My DAC didnt help - it smoothes poor quality audio to the extent that its listenable - good with Youtube vids, not so good when you are trying to tell sheep from goats.

 

[Anomaly2]

Quote:

I got 5 out of 5 for FLAC vs WAV and 1 out of 5 for WAV vs 128K MP3s - the problem with the second 'trial' was that I was over it, pure and simple, and just started clicking things at random to see how my score turned out.

FLAC should sound the same as uncompressed WAV.

 

[estreeter]

Agreed, and 128K MP3 should sound markedly worse than WAV, at least to my way of thinking. One of the criticisms of the base model Music Streamer II is that it rounds off the transients - personally, I like the end result, but for someone looking for transparency ....
 
As far as the WAV/FLAC comparisons, I found the choice from A and B which I liked almost immediately - when I looked at the log, that choice corresponded to WAV. The kick drum on the track I tested gave it away each time - under normal conditions I doubt that I would even know or care which was compressed and which was not.

 

[jaakked]

 
Quote:

Quote:

I could spend my weekends enduring the monotony of ABX testing, or I could simply listen to the music (and movies/games) I enjoy.

It does not have to take a lot of time.  For night-and-day differences, it should require only a few seconds for each trial.  For example, with LAME 3.98.4 at –V9, I would not be surprised if you got five out of five in less than two minutes.

If it is so simple you or whoever cares should go ahead and listen.Oh I'm sorry,your only interested in technical info(blah,blah,blah....)
 

 

[Anomaly2]

    
 
     Quote:

If it is so simple you or whoever cares should go ahead and listen.
 
Where did I say it was simple?
 
Oh I'm sorry,your only interested in technical info(blah,blah,blah....)
 
The original poster said that he was interested in technical information.

    
 
     Quote:

Agreed, and 128K MP3 should sound markedly worse than WAV, at least to my way of thinking.
 
It depends on the encoder.
 
As far as the WAV/FLAC comparisons, I found the choice from A and B which I liked almost immediately - when I looked at the log, that choice corresponded to WAV. The kick drum on the track I tested gave it away each time - under normal conditions I doubt that I would even know or care which was compressed and which was not.
 
FLAC gives a perfect copy of the WAV.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec:
 
“FLAC employs a lossless data compression  algorithm. A digital audio recording compressed by FLAC can be decompressed into an identical copy of the original audio data.”

 

[Danneq]

Nice to see that you've found your way here, Enigmatic. 

 

[grokit]

     Quote:

Agreed, and 128K MP3 should sound markedly worse than WAV, at least to my way of thinking.
 
It depends on the encoder.
 
As far as the WAV/FLAC comparisons, I found the choice from A and B which I liked almost immediately - when I looked at the log, that choice corresponded to WAV. The kick drum on the track I tested gave it away each time - under normal conditions I doubt that I would even know or care which was compressed and which was not.
 
FLAC gives a perfect copy of the WAV.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec:
 
“FLAC employs a lossless data compression  algorithm. A digital audio recording compressed by FLAC can be decompressed into an identical copy of the original audio data.”

The compression is why they sound different. If a computer/DAP has to decompress the music file, that takes more processing and the music suffers. This is presumably because there are less processing resources available for the jitter management clock. WAV and AIFF files don't have to be decompressed, so they sound better. Obviously the trade-off is storage space.

 

[Anomaly2]

Quote:

The compression is why they sound different. If a computer/DAP has to decompress the music file, that takes more processing and the music suffers. This is presumably because there are less processing resources available for the jitter management clock. WAV and AIFF files don't have to be decompressed, so they sound better.

There is an easy way to test this theory.

 

[Achmedisdead]

 
Quote:

     Quote:

Agreed, and 128K MP3 should sound markedly worse than WAV, at least to my way of thinking.
 
It depends on the encoder.
 
As far as the WAV/FLAC comparisons, I found the choice from A and B which I liked almost immediately - when I looked at the log, that choice corresponded to WAV. The kick drum on the track I tested gave it away each time - under normal conditions I doubt that I would even know or care which was compressed and which was not.
 
FLAC gives a perfect copy of the WAV.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec:
 
“FLAC employs a lossless data compression  algorithm. A digital audio recording compressed by FLAC can be decompressed into an identical copy of the original audio data.”

The compression is why they sound different. If a computer/DAP has to decompress the music file, that takes more processing and the music suffers. This is presumably because there are less processing resources available for the jitter management clock. WAV and AIFF files don't have to be decompressed, so they sound better. Obviously the trade-off is storage space.

 
If you can hear a difference betwen a WAV and a FLAC, on your computer or your DAP, then your hardware must really suck....lol.

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

Quote:

     Quote:

Agreed, and 128K MP3 should sound markedly worse than WAV, at least to my way of thinking.
 
It depends on the encoder.
 
As far as the WAV/FLAC comparisons, I found the choice from A and B which I liked almost immediately - when I looked at the log, that choice corresponded to WAV. The kick drum on the track I tested gave it away each time - under normal conditions I doubt that I would even know or care which was compressed and which was not.
 
FLAC gives a perfect copy of the WAV.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec:
 
“FLAC employs a lossless data compression  algorithm. A digital audio recording compressed by FLAC can be decompressed into an identical copy of the original audio data.”

The compression is why they sound different. If a computer/DAP has to decompress the music file, that takes more processing and the music suffers. This is presumably because there are less processing resources available for the jitter management clock. WAV and AIFF files don't have to be decompressed, so they sound better. Obviously the trade-off is storage space.

 
If you can hear a difference betwen a WAV and a FLAC, on your computer or your DAP, then your hardware must really suck....lol.

Actually the opposite is true; if you can't hear the difference, then your gear is not revealing enough 

 

[Achmedisdead]

 
Quote:

The compression is why they sound different. If a computer/DAP has to decompress the music file, that takes more processing and the music suffers. This is presumably because there are less processing resources available for the jitter management clock. WAV and AIFF files don't have to be decompressed, so they sound better. Obviously the trade-off is storage space.

 
If you can hear a difference betwen a WAV and a FLAC, on your computer or your DAP, then your hardware must really suck....lol.

Actually the opposite is true; if you can't hear the difference, then your gear is not revealing enough 

Can you ABX them then?

(yep, I went there!)

 

[estreeter]

This thread increasingly belongs in Sound Science. How many of the last 20 or so posts had anything specific to say about DAPs ? It has turned into a computer audio/abx/codec discussion.

 

[Anomaly2]

Quote:

This thread increasingly belongs in Sound Science. How many of the last 20 or so posts had anything specific to say about DAPs ? It has turned into a computer audio/abx/codec discussion.

Well, the technique used to evaluate the quality of codecs has been used to evaluate the sound quality of MP3 players.  A good understanding of why this technique is used for evaluating the quality of codecs answers the original poster’s question.  If we regard MP3 players as special-purpose computers, then they are very-closely related to computer audio. 
 
The original poster did want us to be technical. We have indeed been technical.  I wanted to be even more technical.  But if I did, this thread might be moved to the Sound Science forum.  I do not want this thread to be moved there.  So I have tried to avoid being too technical.