advertisement


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

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.
Click to expand...

So why do so many audiophiles and the forums they populate have such a fixation on these ridiculously trivial differences, which by your own admission are difficult to spot under what you would consider as ideal conditions?

These things do not matter.
They are spun in order to make them matter and in order that people can sell worthless audio 'upgrades'.

Now, surprising as it might seem giving my long stated opinions, I don't have a real problem with that in itself.
The problem is that this trivia draws focus and attention away from the real engineering solutions that really do define performance.
 
Robert said:
So why do so many audiophiles and the forums they populate have such a fixation on these ridiculously trivial differences, which by your own admission are difficult to spot under what you would consider as ideal conditions?

These things do not matter.
They are spun in order to make them matter and in order that people can sell worthless audio 'upgrades'.

Now, surprising as it might seem giving my long stated opinions, I don't have a real problem with that in itself.
The problem is that this trivia draws focus and attention away from the real engineering solutions that really do define performance.
Click to expand...
Now that's worth repeating and is what I mean when I say "just enjoy the music".

Too many people spend too much time analysing what they're listening to, which in my book means they're listening to the system, not the music whatever the motivation.
 
I think I am replying to a few posts :)

Science isn't a list of facts, science is a process by which we understand how things work. The 'list of facts' is simply 'what we know until proven otherwise'. Science works, the computer you are using now is proof of that. Believing in things just in case they might become true is not science, it hinders scientific progress, it does not work.

Richard Feynmen (physicist) once said, no matter how beautiful your theory, no matter how clever you are or what your name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.

So, people have reproduced Item's experiment and can't reproduce his results. Come up with a better experiment, more beautiful theories are pointless :D.
 
Brian said:
Now that's worth repeating and is what I mean when I say "just enjoy the music".

Too many people spend too much time analysing what they're listening to, which in my book means they're listening to the system, not the music whatever the motivation.
Click to expand...

+1

Chris
 
DLF said:
I think I am replying to a few posts :)

Science isn't a list of facts, science is a process by which we understand how things work. The 'list of facts' is simply 'what we know until proven otherwise'. Science works, the computer you are using now is proof of that. Believing in things just in case they might become true is not science, it hinders scientific progress, it does not work.

Richard Feynmen (physicist) once said, no matter how beautiful your theory, no matter how clever you are or what your name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.

So, people have reproduced Item's experiment and can't reproduce his results. Come up with a better experiment, more beautiful theories are pointless :D.
Click to expand...

Ah, but that doesn't leave any room to sow FUD. That will never do.

Chris
 
sonddek said:
So you're not sure you, or anyone, can hear the difference between WAV and FLAC, but you're certain it's there?
Click to expand...

On what basis does he base his certainty of the existance of the difference, though? It simply cannot be shown that any difference exists. A string of bits is a string of bits. It's either a 1 or a zero. It's NEVER a 0.7869 or a 0.0003.

The error correction algorithms ensure that a 1 is NEVER interpreted as a 0.

So, we have the situation where no diiference can be perceived and none can be shown to exist. But item maintains that, nevertheless, a difference exists. And he can sell you some fairy dust sprinkled bit of kit to eliminate this elusive difference.

Chris
 
Mescalito said:
It's either a 1 or a zero. It's NEVER a 0.7869 or a 0.0003.

The error correction algorithms ensure that a 1 is NEVER interpreted as a 0.

Chris
Click to expand...

Your arguments are like in 1983 - cd (pcm) is perfect sound forever.

If 0 is alway 0 and 1 is always 1, why different digital cables sounds different, why coax spdif sounds (nearly) always better than optical spdif ?
 
tomek said:
Your arguments are like in 1983 - cd (pcm) is perfect sound forever.

If 0 is alway 0 and 1 is always 1, why different digital cables sounds different, why coax spdif sounds (nearly) always better than optical spdif ?
Click to expand...

Perfect sound for ever was a phrase coined by the marketing depts.

You have no bias controlled evidence that cables sound different or that coax is generically better than optical.
There are many design decisions that can be made that would effect how one interface works over another. All those design decisions if implemented show a lack of skill of the designers behalf.

You sir are just perpetuating the old myths.
 
tomek said:
Your arguments are like in 1983 - cd (pcm) is perfect sound forever.

If 0 is alway 0 and 1 is always 1, why different digital cables sounds different, why coax spdif sounds (nearly) always better than optical spdif ?[/QUOTE]

Says who and on what basis?

Chris
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top