What's the best quality audio file?
Apr 30, 2011 at 5:08 AM Post #47 of 89
Apr 30, 2011 at 8:11 AM Post #49 of 89


Quote:
In the way that music plays.
 
FLAC's sound is very solid and near. Like you are in a house of 5*3 feet, 5 horizentally and 3 vertically.
 
APE's sound is not as solid but it is deeper.
 
It's like the difference between Koss Prota Pro and  AKG K450.


 



Both are lossless formats.  If played back on the same equipment, they should sound exactly the same.  The only reason why one may sound different from the other is if you're using a crappy decoder that distorts the sound when decoding it.
 
From what I understand, though, APE files are very hard on the decoder since it uses a symmetrical encoding system - that is, it takes the same amount of processing power to decode as it does to transcode.
 
If I may ask, what equipment did you use to come to this result?
 
Apr 30, 2011 at 8:26 AM Post #50 of 89


Quote:
Both are lossless formats.  If played back on the same equipment, they should sound exactly the same.  The only reason why one may sound different from the other is if you're using a crappy decoder that distorts the sound when decoding it.
 
From what I understand, though, APE files are very hard on the decoder since it uses a symmetrical encoding system - that is, it takes the same amount of processing power to decode as it does to transcode.
 
If I may ask, what equipment did you use to come to this result?


+1 !!
 
 
Apr 30, 2011 at 9:31 AM Post #51 of 89
You are probably right.
 
I use the software "foobar" convert files into the WAV form and record it in CD-R and play it with my CD player. The crappy decoder is my Panasonic CT 810.
atsmile.gif

 
The strange thing is that my "retangle-square" experience happens all the time.
 
Apr 30, 2011 at 9:39 AM Post #52 of 89
By the way, I thought "lossless" is like an adjective thing (to explain its nature in a understanding way) more than a technical term.
 
Are you sure that both formats are able to restore sound absolutely?
 
Apr 30, 2011 at 9:47 AM Post #53 of 89
Nope, "lossless" is in fact a technical term.  It basically just means that no information is thrown out during compression.  With any lossless file, you can make a bit-perfect copy of the original file.  Of course, sometimes computers mess up and miss a bit here and there, a phenomenon known as bit rot, but chances are it wouldn't be noticeable for the most part.
 
If you want to know more, you can check it out here:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_compression_(data)#Lossless_audio_compression
 
Apr 30, 2011 at 10:05 AM Post #54 of 89
Wow, lots of bit rot happens here.
blink.gif
 
eek.gif

 
I guess I need to talk to my computer because he really loves "bit roting" solidness in APE and deepness in FLAC.
tongue_smile.gif

 
Anyways, how do you play lossless files?
 
Apr 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM Post #55 of 89
"bit rot" usually doesn't happen so quickly, it tends to take a long time.  It usually occurs when a bit is randomly misplaced, and gets around the CRC checker, or if the physical media it's placed on starts to degrade.
 
So have you actually tried converting some of your APE files to FLAC and vice versa?  If all goes well, they should sound identical either way, with no loss of data.  I'm all but certain right now that it's simply a "placebo" effect you're experiencing - that is, you think it sounds different, therefore to you, it does sound different.  Not that it makes your opinion any less valid for yourself, but unless others have also reported this, I'm assuming this is the case.
 
A good way to play any media file is VLC, but it's not much good as a music library.  I honestly don't use lossless much, only for archival purposes - I listen to most of my music on-the-go so I convert to MP3 or AAC for that.
 
Apr 30, 2011 at 10:16 AM Post #56 of 89


Quote:
 
Anyways, how do you play lossless files?

 
I convert all my cds with EAC into flac. There are a lot of howtos out there and then either foobar or ulilith..works good for me :)
 
 
Apr 30, 2011 at 7:54 PM Post #57 of 89
Yeah! A psychological thing, that's reasonable.
 
We Chinese are very good at "placebo", you know, we use to believe Mao Tse-tung is the god.
devil_face.gif

 
Same thing happened there in Germany,huh, monoethylene
biggrin.gif

 
Apr 30, 2011 at 10:33 PM Post #58 of 89


Quote:
Yeah! A psychological thing, that's reasonable.
 
We Chinese are very good at "placebo", you know, we use to believe Mao Tse-tung is the god.
devil_face.gif

 
Same thing happened there in Germany,huh, monoethylene
biggrin.gif



I must say, after being in China for awhile, the placebo effect is put to great use here. :p  Since it seems that everyone believes fully that things like sea cucumbers and fungus worms are supremely good for their health and well-being, which I honestly kind of doubt.
 
Apr 30, 2011 at 10:35 PM Post #59 of 89
I can tell you that history of Chinese medicine is much greater in age than Western medicine.   Medicine is an art right now...
 
Quote:
I must say, after being in China for awhile, the placebo effect is put to great use here. :p  Since it seems that everyone believes fully that things like sea cucumbers and fungus worms are supremely good for their health and well-being, which I honestly kind of doubt.



 
 
Apr 30, 2011 at 10:53 PM Post #60 of 89


Quote:
I can tell you that history of Chinese medicine is much greater in age than Western medicine.   Medicine is an art right now...
 


 


 
In the same sense, homeopathy is technically older than "modern" western medicine.  Doesn't mean it works. (in fact it can be dangerous since it claims to cure pretty much anything but does literally nothing)
 
However, I'd say it would be an art to properly use placebos in order to cure various mental afflictions that plague people.  Though it can be dangerous to use placebos to "cure" something like malaria or the bubonic plague.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top