[Music Alchemist]

  I'll haven't done a blind test, but I just prefer to keep everything in lossless; you have exact copies of your CDs, so if you lose them, you don't lose any of the data that was on them. Plus, unless you don't have enough storage, why not go for lossless?*
 
*Though I do agree, I doubt I could hear much difference, especially on my set up

 
I go one step further and use uncompressed WAV and AIFF!
 
But unless a system has problems playing certain files, all lossless formats would sound the same.
 
And for anyone who perceives a difference between lossless formats, I have a thread for them to test their perception.

 

[Dobrescu George]

   
I go one step further and use uncompressed WAV and AIFF!
 
But unless a system has problems playing certain files, all lossless formats would sound the same.
 
And for anyone who perceives a difference between lossless formats, I have a thread for them to test their perception.

NOO!!!
 
Not that thread!
 
but seriously!, there actually is supposed to be not a single difference between lossless formats, but actually due to processing done in the computer, some data might corrupt, and it may become damaged if the system does not like a particular file...
 
but normally all lossless is lossless, this is as it is going to stay!

 

[Music Alchemist]

but seriously!, there actually is supposed to be not a single difference between lossless formats, but actually due to processing done in the computer, some data might corrupt, and it may become damaged if the system does not like a particular file...

 
If the data is corrupted, the file will not play at all.

 

[Dobrescu George]

   
If the data is corrupted, the file will not play at all.

the DAC should ecide to ask again for the bits, or guess the data that is corrupted... i have given a read over to the tech under a silicone DAC, because i was interested in designing something... i have given up after a while because i really better buy chord hugo..
 
long story short some lossless files loose some bits of data, sometimes only one bit, error which is up to the dac to guess, and if it guesses right, it sounds right, if not, it sounds bad... 
 
other times, theere are too many corrupted bits, and it is not possible to recover anything, it asks for them again, there is jitter in the worst case scenario, other times differences between lossless files are because the engine decoding them is software dependent, and everything under uncompressed has to suffer some algorythms to de-compress, and there could be errors... it should not happen, happen less than once in a year, but it can be a source of difference!

 

[Music Alchemist]

  the DAC should ecide to ask again for the bits, or guess the data that is corrupted... i have given a read over to the tech under a silicone DAC, because i was interested in designing something... i have given up after a while because i really better buy chord hugo..
 
long story short some lossless files loose some bits of data, sometimes only one bit, error which is up to the dac to guess, and if it guesses right, it sounds right, if not, it sounds bad... 
 
other times, theere are too many corrupted bits, and it is not possible to recover anything, it asks for them again, there is jitter in the worst case scenario, other times differences between lossless files are because the engine decoding them is software dependent, and everything under uncompressed has to suffer some algorythms to de-compress, and there could be errors... it should not happen, happen less than once in a year, but it can be a source of difference!

 
Post that in my Sound Science thread, not here. Also link to documentation, if possible.
 
Edit: I'll just quote you.

 

[Dobrescu George]

sorry, i answered there!
 
YKYAAW you actually know every audio-phile related shop on your country. and you know about most instruments shops in your country. and all of them in the capital!

 

[399942]

I go one step further and use uncompressed WAV and AIFF!

But unless a system has problems playing certain files, all lossless formats would sound the same.

And for anyone who perceives a difference between lossless formats, I have a thread for them to test their perception.

There's really no difference between WAV and FLAC except for that FLAC supports tagging. Technically WAV is uncompressed and FLAC is, they're both lossless formats so the data between two copies of a music file (one in FLAC, one in WAV) would be the exact same. So how is it one step further?

 

[DonutDeflector]

According to someone I know who is pretty knowledgeable, no one has ever been able to prove that they can distinguish between lossless and 256 kbps AAC.

Maybe if you had ridiculously high end audio gear?

I'm talking lots of zeros.

 

[399942]

(I'm unsure about this next part) FLAC only saves you a little more space. I remember reading somewhere that if you had an uncompressed WAV file, and a lossless FLAC file that both had 30 seconds of silence, the WAV would take up more space, because it wouldn't be compressing the silence or something like that. Any thoughts on this? Am I correct?

 

[DonutDeflector]

(I'm unsure about this next part) FLAC only saves you a little more space. I remember reading somewhere that if you had an uncompressed WAV file, and a lossless FLAC file that both had 30 seconds of silence, the WAV would take up more space, because it wouldn't be compressing the silence or something like that. Any thoughts on this? Am I correct?

I would think so becuse the WAV file would be playing scilence at whatever bit rate it goes at?

 

[399942]

I would think so becuse the WAV file would be playing science at whatever bit rate it goes at?

Yeah that sounds right. I can't remember what article it was, but if I had to guess it was a CNET article by Steve Gutenberg. Maybe.

 

[Music Alchemist]

There's really no difference between WAV and FLAC except for that FLAC supports tagging. Technically WAV is uncompressed and FLAC is, they're both lossless formats so the data between two copies of a music file (one in FLAC, one in WAV) would be the exact same. So how is it one step further?

 
Dude, I already said in that very quote and in the past that all lossless formats sound the same unless there are technical difficulties.
 
WAV and AIFF are uncompressed lossless while FLAC and ALAC are compressed lossless.
 
It's "further" because it's more hardcore.

Takes up more space, has less compatibility, etc.
 
WAV files can be tagged with dBpoweramp and a few other programs, but not all programs and devices will read the tags.
 
In my opinion, the name "Wave" is by far the coolest name for an audio file format because it refers to sound waves.

 

[399942]

I go one step further and use uncompressed WAV and AIFF!
And for anyone who perceives a difference between lossless formats, I have a thread for them to test their perception.

Did you really have to bring that thread up lol

 

[399942]

Dude, I already said (and said before) that all lossless formats sound the same unless there are technical difficulties.

WAV and AIFF are uncompressed lossless while FLAC and ALAC are compressed lossless.

It's "further" because it's more hardcore. Takes up more space (we were talking about hard drive space), has less compatibility, etc.

WAV files can be tagged with dBpoweramp and a few other programs, but not all programs and devices will read the tags.

In my opinion, the name "Wave" is by far the coolest name for an audio file format because it refers to sound waves.

Yeah but since WAV takes up more space, your two TB of music (I think you said 1.96 but I rounded) isn't truly two TB... Because you're just using more space for the same exact data you could be using less space for, you darned cheater.

 

[DonutDeflector]

Yeah but since WAV takes up more space, your two TB of music (I think you said 1.96 but I rounded) isn't truly two TB... Because you're just using more space for the same exact data you could be using less space for, you darned cheater.

Deal with it.