Skip to main content

Topic: Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called (Read 9686 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Jebus
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #25
FLAC doesn't really use any significant amount of RAM, but it will cause your HDD to read LESS, since it's smaller.


But "less" still means it could be different. So FLAC could arguably sound better than Wave

FLAC doesn't really use any significant amount of RAM, but it will cause your HDD to read LESS, since it's smaller.


But "less" still means it could be different. So FLAC could arguably sound better than Wave

I guess HDD activity makes more sense than CPU activity, because we're talking about moving magnets. Id take this machine appart right now and check, but the boss might think i'm stealing RAM.

Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #26
I had a similar dialog. The guy claimed he could hear the difference between the original audio and the losslessly compressed one. Pressed further, he has explained he could hear the difference between the original audio played on high-quality stereo and the losslessly compressed copy encoded and played on iPod.

It has never come into his mind that the difference are due to iPod, not to lossless compression. Still he was 100% confident it was due to lossless compression and I wasn't able to convince him otherwise.

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #27
Yea, Porky...sounds like an equally frustratingly equivalent experience.

I just made my first post on the musepack forum...and probably my last!  It's no wonder that place is dead. 

I'm having a fair amount of forum strife lately...may be time to take a vacation.
  • Last Edit: 25 May, 2006, 01:44:57 AM by vinnie97

  • Never_Again
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #28
Jebus wrote:
>But "less" still means it could be different. So FLAC could arguably sound better than Wave

There is little point in playing the devil's advocate with such speculations; this way you could "prove" anything. Stick to common sense, and let the devil prove that FLAC sounds better than the source WAV.

  • molnart
  • [*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #29
A little more provocation: i don't think claiming that FLAC sounds better than WAV is negative in any way. The guy on that forum had convincing (altough worng) arguments. So what can be the result? People will prefer FLAC over WAV? Is that wrong? I don't think so.

I think Stalin said something like "The Goal sactifies the instruments"...

  • pepoluan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #30
I never knew that Josh idolizes Stalin...

Just Kidding!
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info

  • Axon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #31
Beliefs like that don't have super bad consequences, except that they waste everybody's real time, CPU time and disk space, and can hide real issues.

There's a closely related belief, that I've actually had people tell me to my face, that decoding MP3s to WAVs makes them sound better. Now, strictly speaking, nobody's getting hurt quality-wise because of this. But it means people are wasting disk space on WAVs they don't need, and wasting the time needed to do the conversion, instead of performing more meaningful improvements. And this can blind them from improvements that would make more of a difference - ie, thinking that decoding to WAV is comparable to increasing your bitrate, or making trivial but costly improvements to sources/amplifiers at the expense of speakers and headphones.