advertisement


WAV better than FLAC due to increased processing load on the CPU of the latter?

AndyU said:
item, either you can publicly demonstrate your ability to hear the difference between WAV and FLAC or you can't.

If you can, your opinion and credibility would be massively enhanced; I and I am sure many others would apologise for our scepticism, and I am sure you would benefit commercially.

So what's stopping you?
Click to expand...

Or even come up with any plausible physics that does not involve massive amounts of arm waving and quickly revert to techno-babble.

Chris
 
Chris,

I had presumed that anyone who digitised their collection would then give their record player the elbow, to be perfectly honest. Why would you hang on to it?
Click to expand...
I'm a sentimental fool who loves precision-made mechanical devices that beat the pants off these new-fangled digital things.

Joe
 
Baz,

How about the entire ring cycle?
Click to expand...
No one can sit through an entire ring cycle. That's why Wagner has been précised by the Warner brothers.


Joe
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris,

Ah....one of those.......
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm fine with both and have heard CD players that pee all over some tables, but I like turntables because you can see what they're doing when they're doing it.

Besides, if I were to ditch my table, I couldn't listen to any old or new records I may buy. Why intentionally limit yourself?

Joe
 
Joe P said:
Chris,


Actually, I'm fine with both and have heard CD players that pee all over some tables, but I like turntables because you can see what they're doing when they're doing it.

Besides, if I were to ditch my table, I couldn't listen to any old or new records I may buy. Why intentionally limit yourself?

Joe
Click to expand...

Perhaps... if you listened to more interesting music, you wouldn't need the distraction?

Just sayin' dude...

;-)

Actually I sort of agree, I doubt I'll ever sell the Spacedeck...
 
Joe P said:
Chris,


Actually, I'm fine with both and have heard CD players that pee all over some tables, but I like turntables because you can see what they're doing when they're doing it.

Besides, if I were to ditch my table, I couldn't listen to any old or new records I may buy. Why intentionally limit yourself?

Joe
Click to expand...

Good point, Joe.

Chris
 
Brian said:
Wrong. No and no is the correct answer.

I've said it before, it hasn't always been possible to measure everything that can be measured nowadays. I reckon some individuals have always thought everything can be measured but were proven wrong when something else came along that hadn't been measured before. You're in that camp today. Don't ask me what it is that isn't currently being measured that makes a difference because I don't know. Nobody knows. Yet.

By the way, I can't hear any difference between FLAC and WAV.
Click to expand...

sonddek said:
But how do you know that we haven't now eliminated all of the things that once couldn't be measured? How do you know the future is going to be like the past?
Click to expand...
Hang on, so what you're saying is you think everything that might make a difference can be measured and that when people in the past thought everything could be measured when it later transpired not to be the case, they weren't wrong, even though they obviously were?

By the way, I don't buy into foo. There are no fancy cables or anything else fancy in my system, so I'm not defending anyone here, but I am not for a moment arrogant enough to think we (mankind) know it all, which is basically what you're saying.

I can't tell the difference between FLAC and WAV or AIFF but I'll do a comparison this evening.
 
Oooo...good point.

So back in 1951, Joe Labcoat was either wrong or lying which means Joe Labcoat in 2011 is likely wrong or lying as well. Can't argue with you there.
 
AndyU said:
item, either you can publicly demonstrate your ability to hear the difference between WAV and FLAC or you can't.

If you can, your opinion and credibility would be massively enhanced; I and I am sure many others would apologise for our scepticism, and I am sure you would benefit commercially.

So what's stopping you?
Click to expand...

We did deal with this earlier: personally, my ears can just about pick up the difference - of course easier when I know what I'm listening to. Passing a blind ABX test is much tougher than simply being able to distinguish them. I doubt I would pass. Going blind, all bets are off. As I've said.

However, in testing others, I've become more convinced that there is something tangible, though subtle, going, corresponding to the differences in processing. I've been surprised by too many auditions to rule this out as a possibility: it's valid to claim: ‘I can't hear it'. Less valid to claim: 'no-one can hear it.

As we've said before, there's no commercial axe to grind here: how would we sell more or less of anything if one or more in the company could or could not differentiate WAV and FLAC blind?

What we do know is that many, many things similar to this do create audible artefacts, and their effect is cumulative. We certainly don't need to reach down to the level of physics to find plausible theories (as we have discussed ad nauseam).

If you don't find those possibilities worth investigating, you probably won't pass the interview for a job in Naim and Linn's R&D department, whose engineers did investigate this question and arrive at interestingly contradictory results.

So all the rabble-babble about fairies and pseudo-science turns out to be wrong: the issue is given sober scientific credence by people busy making stuff.

Fascinating dichotomy here: if you really know your subject - ie, are worth listening to - the likelihood of you coming up with a worthy innovation is directly proportional to whether anyone should pay any attention to you. You're very likely to end up making a thing. As you rapidly gain knowledge and experience designing and manufacturing it, you become increasingly worthy of respect and useful to the forum community. Then, suddenly, the moment the item is available to purchase, you become the devil incarnate, and anything you now say is foo, pernicious marketing or outright lies.

I give much more respect to people with relevant experience, making something, than to the armchair theorists who are invariably dismissive of everything while contributing nothing.
 
Brian said:
Hang on, so what you're saying is you think everything that might make a difference can be measured and that when people in the past thought everything could be measured when it later transpired not to be the case, they weren't wrong, even though they obviously were?
Click to expand...

That's not what I said.

...I am not for a moment arrogant enough to think we (mankind) know it all, which is basically what you're saying.
Click to expand...

Again, not what I said. I simply don't accept the inference that because previous science was wrong, therefore current science is wrong. That's an inductive argument, and it's logically unsound. Past science may have been wrong, but current science could still be right. I don't dismiss the possible truthfulness of current theory just because some older theories have been falsified. That's not arrogance, it's hope.

I can't tell the difference between FLAC and WAV or AIFF but I'll do a comparison this evening.
Click to expand...

Why bother, since, by your argument, whatever you conclude will be an error?
 
item said:
We did deal with this earlier: personally, my ears can just about pick up the difference - of course easier when I know what I'm listening to. Passing a blind ABX test is much tougher than simply being able to distinguish them. I doubt I would pass. Going blind, all bets are off. As I've said.

However, in testing others, I've become more convinced that there is something tangible, though subtle, going, corresponding to the differences in processing. I've been surprised by too many auditions to rule this out as a possibility: it's valid to claim: ‘I can't hear it'. Less valid to claim: 'no-one can hear it.

As we've said before, there's no commercial axe to grind here: how would we sell more or less of anything if one or more in the company could or could not differentiate WAV and FLAC blind?

What we do know is that many, many things similar to this do create audible artefacts, and their effect is cumulative. We certainly don't need to reach down to the level of physics to find plausible theories (as we have discussed ad nauseam).

If you don't find those possibilities worth investigating, you probably won't pass the interview for a job in Naim and Linn's R&D department, whose engineers did investigate this question and arrive at interestingly contradictory results.

So all the rabble-babble about fairies and pseudo-science turns out to be wrong: the issue is given sober scientific credence by people busy making stuff.

Fascinating dichotomy here: if you really know your subject - ie, are worth listening to - the likelihood of you coming up with a worthy innovation is directly proportional to whether anyone should pay any attention to you. You're very likely to end up making a thing. As you rapidly gain knowledge and experience designing and manufacturing it, you become increasingly worthy of respect and useful to the forum community. Then, suddenly, the moment the item is available to purchase, you become the devil incarnate, and anything you now say is foo, pernicious marketing or outright lies.

I give much more respect to people with relevant experience, making something, than to the armchair theorists who are invariably dismissive of everything while contributing nothing.
Click to expand...

So you're not sure you, or anyone, can hear the difference between WAV and FLAC, but you're certain it's there?
 
item said:
.. personally, my ears can just about pick up the difference - of course easier when I know what I'm listening to. Passing a blind ABX test is much tougher than simply being able to distinguish them. I doubt I would pass. Going blind, all bets are off. As I've said.
Click to expand...

Have I got this right? If someone tells you which is which, you can tell which is which. But if no-one tells you which is which, you can't tell which is which.

I must be missing something.

(Incidentally, an ABX test isn't necessary - an A-X test will suffice)
 
Basil said:
Mr. P,

I prefer 'OCD music listener' to 'audiophool nerd' if you don't mind...

I mean, can you listen to the whole of 'Parsifal' without having to leave your seat?

No, I thought not...

How about the entire ring cycle?

Ha ha...
Click to expand...

I have listened to the whole of the ring cycle in a single day but not without moving from my seat, for various reasons......
 
sonddek said:
That's not what I said.
Click to expand...
Be clearer then, because that's how it reads.


Again, not what I said. I simply don't accept the inference that because previous science was wrong, therefore current science is wrong. That's an inductive argument, and it's logically unsound. Past science may have been wrong, but current science could still be right. I don't dismiss the possible truthfulness of current theory just because some older theories have been falsified. That's not arrogance, it's hope.
Click to expand...
And I didn't say current science was wrong, I'm not stating anything as though I can't be wrong, that's what others are doing, mate. What I said is that experience has taught us (or some of us) that we might not, just might not, know everything.

Why bother, since, by your argument, whatever you conclude will be an error?
Click to expand...
What on earth are you on about?
 
Another dilemma, IF you have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy..... you get my gist. Does the first FLAC sound better than the last??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top