Skip to main content

Topic: Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called (Read 9818 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
I'd just like to see some commentary on the claim in this thread about someone who is claiming they can hear the difference between WAV and FLAC: http://iaudiophile.net/forums/showthread.php?p=84975 (skip to page 3).

This individual seems to mistakenly think that FLAC utilizes some algorithm that interferes with the high frequencies (making them "better" to his ears).  I obviously think he's imagining these differences or being deceived by a decoder as referenced in the thread (he ignores that suggestion, though).

Perhaps the FLAC developer can set him straight because he seems to think he's rather knowledgeable on the topic.

EDIT:  Doh, I exceeded the limit of chars for a topic (no warning ;( )
  • Last Edit: 22 May, 2006, 10:37:49 PM by vinnie97

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #1
Hes just an idiot.  And those forums look pretty horrible, so maybe posting there isn't the best idea.

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #2
lol, I only post there since I'm a fan of Cowon and their players.  It's a good place to discuss their hardware...you're just seeing a few bad apples in that thread...not everyone exhibits the same level of ignorance you see in said thread.

I just couldn't bear to see someone hide under the banner of knowledge because they're taking some course at school while they spout misinformation and utilized this opportunity to vent basically.
  • Last Edit: 22 May, 2006, 10:49:54 PM by vinnie97

  • boojum
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #3
Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.   
Nov schmoz kapop.

  • TrNSZ
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #4
[deleted]
  • Last Edit: 27 August, 2015, 03:33:15 PM by TrNSZ

  • Mono
  • [*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #5
Anyway, if someone is convinced they are immortal, or the world is flat, or even that 1+1 is 3, then I doubt correcting them will have any effect.

That is all too true. No amount of learning can cure stupidity. It never ceases to amaze me how such people live in a deterministic world, then ignore logic and reason when it suits them.
"Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored."
—Aldous Huxley

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #6
Of course, you're all right...that's why I frequent this forum as well.  It serves as an antidote for forums like the one I referenced. 

I would normally look the other way and not think twice but the claim plus the so-called superior knowledge he declares really don't add up and witnessing such a ridiculous claim, I couldn't just sit in silence.

  • Otto42
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #7
Arguing with people on the internet is like being in the Special Olympics.
Even if you win, you're still retarded.

  • AtaqueEG
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #8
Arguing with people on the internet is like being in the Special Olympics.
Even if you win, you're still retarded.


That was funny and cruel at the same time.

But I guess you are right
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

  • Synthetic Soul
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #9
Topic title amended.

Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.   
Arguing with people on the internet is like being in the Special Olympics.
Even if you win, you're still retarded.
  It's not often I get to belly laugh first thing in the morning.  Thanks guys.
I'm on a horse.

  • pepoluan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #10
You know, not to defend the retard there, if you actually listen to FLAC against WAV on a PC, you might hear different... if you use AMD's Cool&Quiet technology. As WAVs are just dumped into Windows Mixer, it should (theoretically) use less CPU power and thus makes the fan go slower. FLACs need to be decoded and thus use more CPU power and makes the fan go faster, thus noisier.

But I don't have Cool&Quiet, so this is a hypothesis. Anyways, FLACs and WAVs will produce exact bit-by-bit match, and if you can totally isolate the effect of varying fan speed, there's no difference.
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #11
Thanks for the title fix, Synthetic Soul.

Otto, I have heard that cruel comparison made with the Special Olympics 100 times by now.  I guess I just never learn...or disagree since the internet is very much about open communication and discussion. (yes, I'm guilty of flat out arguing as well because of my dogmatic tendencies...this is not one of those situations. )

  • shadowking
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #12
There are only bit comparisons in lossless. There are no listening tests and how misled people are still doing them is just sad.

Sad that they get lossless data compression (winzip) and not audio compression.
wavpack -b4x4s1c

  • sTisTi
  • [*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #13
You know, not to defend the retard there, if you actually listen to FLAC against WAV on a PC, you might hear different... if you use AMD's Cool&Quiet technology. As WAVs are just dumped into Windows Mixer, it should (theoretically) use less CPU power and thus makes the fan go slower. FLACs need to be decoded and thus use more CPU power and makes the fan go faster, thus noisier.

But I don't have Cool&Quiet, so this is a hypothesis.

...and what a wonderfully unrealistic one . CPU usage will probably be 1% when playing FLAC in realtime, and the CPU will certainly not "power up" to a higher clock rate for such an easy task, thus the fan speed will stay the same.
Proverb for Paranoids: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
-T. Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)

  • pepoluan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #14
Ah, so much for my hypothesis

Psst... don't let any audiophile read this. They'll have a field day with this
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info

  • Never_Again
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #15
It never ceases to amaze me how such people live in a deterministic world, then ignore logic and reason when it suits them.
The phenomenon is known to science as magical thinking.

  • Demetris
  • [*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #16
...and what a wonderfully unrealistic one . CPU usage will probably be 1% when playing FLAC in realtime, and the CPU will certainly not "power up" to a higher clock rate for such an easy task, thus the fan speed will stay the same.

Exactly.  I use Cool 'n' Quiet on an AMD64 3000+ and the multiplier values I'm seeing are 5x, 9x and 10x. The only audio-related job that can push the multiplier above 5x and make the fan rev faster and be audible is, of course, encoding.

  • molnart
  • [*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #17
I can fairly imagine that a portable music player is decoding flac in a different way, thus it sounds differently than the wav
Similarly some eq enhancement could be done in computer decoding too causing the flac sound differently. (Or it is a buggy FLAC decoder) This is just an unlikely theory but can be POSSIBLE.

So if a FLAC sounds differently than the .wav it is certainly due to a decoding issue. Actually a double blind test here has some sense, but you need to compare the ORIGINAL FLAC file with the DECODED FLAC.

PSYCHOLOGICALLY FLAC files have much higher quality than the WAVE files, because i feel much better when i'm using an 'advanced' technology like flac instead of some stupid old-school wavs  (in fact they are PSYCHOLOGICALLY 'better to my ears')
EDIT: i should have said: 'better to my mind'

(it is similar to the last.fm and foosic like services: knowing that other people can see what i'm listening to, i'm starting to like different kind of music than before  )
  • Last Edit: 23 May, 2006, 11:23:12 AM by molnart

  • TrNSZ
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #18
[deleted]
  • Last Edit: 27 August, 2015, 03:33:57 PM by TrNSZ

  • molnart
  • [*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #19
You are right. I meant something like this:
take a FLAC, decode it to wav with a reference decoder, play the FLAC with your original (buggy) player, the wav with a reference player. Hear a difference? Your player is buggy or introduces some unwanted equalizing on flac files

But obviously this is not a double-blind test anymore...

So i was suggesting NOT to compare the original wav file (from CDDA) with a wav file decoded from compressed source, as listening tests are done, but to compare a FLAC file (decoded internally, on-the-fly) with the previously decoded FLAC by a reference decoder

I agree that some people will hear some difference as a placebo effect, because they already know which file is which. Even if they're sure there can't be any
  • Last Edit: 23 May, 2006, 04:52:05 PM by molnart

  • audiomars
  • [*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #20
----snip----
take a FLAC, decode it to wav with a reference decoder, play the FLAC with your original (buggy) player, the wav with a reference player. Hear a difference? Your player is buggy or introduces some unwanted equalizing on flac files
----snip----


Hmmm, in this case, they may sound different, but the difference is because of the players used. The WAV and FLAC files should sound the same if you are using the same player without changing any settings in between.
Reason is immortal, all else mortal
- Pythagoras

  • Jebus
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #21

You know, not to defend the retard there, if you actually listen to FLAC against WAV on a PC, you might hear different... if you use AMD's Cool&Quiet technology. As WAVs are just dumped into Windows Mixer, it should (theoretically) use less CPU power and thus makes the fan go slower. FLACs need to be decoded and thus use more CPU power and makes the fan go faster, thus noisier.

But I don't have Cool&Quiet, so this is a hypothesis.

...and what a wonderfully unrealistic one . CPU usage will probably be 1% when playing FLAC in realtime, and the CPU will certainly not "power up" to a higher clock rate for such an easy task, thus the fan speed will stay the same.


I'm at work right now, and i wear a headset attached to a PC. When the automatic disk defragger comes on at night (when i'm working nights), I can hear it through the headset. RF interference or whatever, generated by CPU or disk activity. So I'd expect that any codec that requires extra CPU activity could very well generate tones in a poorly shielded audio cable, or possibly in a cheap soundcard.

  • molnart
  • [*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #22
I'm at work right now, and i wear a headset attached to a PC. When the automatic disk defragger comes on at night (when i'm working nights), I can hear it through the headset. RF interference or whatever, generated by CPU or disk activity. So I'd expect that any codec that requires extra CPU activity could very well generate tones in a poorly shielded audio cable, or possibly in a cheap soundcard.


In case of defrag, you are hearing the HDD activity and not the CPU. I had to remove the audio cable that connected my cd-rom and onboard soundcard because the spinning drive was creating heavy backround noise.
FLAC decoding may have heavier memory requirements (  ), so if hdd swapping is needed, interference could occur

  • Firon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #23
FLAC doesn't really use any significant amount of RAM, but it will cause your HDD to read LESS, since it's smaller.

  • tev777
  • [*][*][*]
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called
Reply #24
Arguing with people on the internet is like being in the Special Olympics.
Even if you win, you're still retarded.


That's ferakin' priceless!
--
Eric