Does WAVE sound better than FLAC? I noticed with a few albums I had downloaded that 44khz uncompressed WAVE sounds slightly better than FLAC-8. Is there a reason for this, or is it the placebo effect?
Theoretically, would it be worth the extra cost in disk space to rip everything in WAVE, or would it make more sense to stick with FLAC?
If the FLAC is encoded from the same WAVE then it will sound the same.
FLAC is Lossless Compression, e.g. if you encode a WAVE to FLAC and Decode FLAC back to a WAVE. Both WAVE files at the start and end of this process will be identical.
You were suffering from the placebo affect. FLAC is lossless, this means that audio data is not lost. A FLAC file will have the exact same sound quality as a WAV file if the encoding process goes smoothly (just like the WAV file should have the exact same sound quality as the FLAC file and source CD if the ripping/encoding process went smoothly).
I would not use WAV at all as the files are too big and they don't normally contain track tag information. The WAV format itself can hold track tag information but hardware support is slim to none and software support is also rather slim. The FLAC format produces smaller files and it was designed from the ground up to hold track tag information. There is absolutely no reason not to use a lossless format such as FLAC, WavPack, Monkey's Audio, Apple Lossless, WMA Lossless, etc. these days over WAV. You will find some posts and "reports" on the internet saying that FLAC (and all other lossless formats) produce files that are of less quality than raw WAV files.
Don't believe those posts or "reports" as they are often written by dumb audiophiles who just don't like the idea of their music being losslessly compressed. They are also the type of people who will use a green marker to make a ring around their CDs, store them in freezers, and spend $15,000 on a tube amp after reading a statement of "its teh bestststst!"
green markers do make a difference. So do black blank cds
green markers do make a difference. So do black blank cds
You forgot about those £100 interconnects too!
apart from placebo effect, your player could be equalizing FLAC and WAV slightly different...(I have noticed in the past that Winamp used to equalize OGG and MP3 differently... the OGG sound was "better"...)
In this case the files will seem to be different, but they are still the same thing in terms of quality and integrity.
I've never heard a difference on the systems through which I've listened, but the claim has been made by _many_ audiophiles that wav sounds better to them than flac. And like me, many other have said they also hear no difference.
Call it what you will - placebo effect, lack of objective testing, whatever - but I've known some of these guys that could blindly tell you the brand of output tube being used in a amp. I know that's difficult to believe for many, particularly the under 30 crowd iPod generation here at HA.
The most common theory of why there might be a difference is that the processing required for decoding has an audible effect due to increased RFI or EMI from the CPU in the playback system, with some environments, such as general purpose computers with internal soundcards, being more susceptible to the negative effects.
Take it for what you will. Like I say, I haven't yet heard a difference.
Call it what you will - placebo effect, lack of objective testing, whatever - but I've known some of these guys that could blindly tell you the brand of output tube being used in a amp. I know that's difficult to believe for many, particularly the under 30 crowd iPod generation here at HA.
As you know, hydrogenaudio is not about beliefs. It is about facts and repeatable experiments.
Tube amps do colour the sound. It can happen that different brands do it in different ways and a person used to play with them may be trained enough to discern the difference. That, if it happens, should be a verifiable test, or be made up altogether. Just the former case is interesting here.
Also, i don't know what you try to say with "under 30 crowd iPod generation". First of all, the auditory system does not improve with the age, precisely the opposite is true.
And... iPod generation? And what are you then? the MS-DOS generation?
That sounds absurd. People here *care* about audio. That's the reason why we don't trust blindly, but instead get out the facts.
And you can be sure that there is more interference for the HDD reading than for the CPU working.
About the OP's question. I have nothing to add aside of what others have already contributed.
And you can be sure that there is more interference for the HDD reading than for the CPU working.
It goes without saying that the HDD does more reading when playing back a wave file than a flac file; let alone an mp3 file. You don't hear people saying that their mp3s sound better than the original waves because of EMI.
Lossless formats such as FLAC compress wav files to about 65% of the original size. When you can buy a 1.5 TB hard drive for under $200 USD, the file size issue is not so important.
It is if you don't have $200 to spare. We don't all live in the land of milk and honey.
Cheers, Slipstreem.
Even if one can get any amount of storage with no limit, FLAC is still more flexible option compared to WAV due to tagging, error robustness, etc.
WAV sounds better, it makes your toes wiggle. FLAC is DEFINITELY less dancable than WAV. Ever had to feeling to just stand up and dance? No? Well, you must be using FLAC. That's also what _many_ audiophiles claim.
Lossless formats such as FLAC compress wav files to about 65% of the original size. When you can buy a 1.5 TB hard drive for under $200 USD, the file size issue is not so important.
...and I can still fit more FLAC files on that drive than WAV files, your argument is a bit silly.
At 65% of the original size of the waves, you can fit a LOT more. With a 1.5TB drive, that's over 500GB of space that you'd save.
Silly indeed!
Is tefleming's post here related to this?
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=617125 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=69714&view=findpost&p=617125)
It seems that if someone is involved in an irrational love affair with WAV files, then all one can really do is wish them all the best.
tefleming, by the way if you are using Jaikoz Audio Tagger you should know that it's based on a data-mining service (Music IP). See here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=68068&view=findpost&p=616166) for details.
C.
Of course you save space by using FLAC instead of wav files. My point was: so what? Drive space is SO cheap that the smaller file size is a non-issue (at least to me). And it will only get cheaper. Larger drives for less money has been a continuous trend.
With wav files, you have a more universal format, supported by more software, than FLAC. FLAC is not (yet) a standard. Maybe it will be and maybe it will not. As of now, it is not universally supported. I can say the same thing for all of the lossless formats. So I prefer wav files. I have solved the metadata problem simply by using WMP and backing up my metadata periodically. It also eliminates the need to use Jaikoz.
I get that compressing to FLAC and using Foobar has more of a geek appeal. I'm going to have to miss out on the fun this time.
FLAC is not (yet) a standard. Maybe it will be and maybe it will not. As of now, it is not universally supported. I can say the same thing for all of the lossless formats.
Please define standard. Also, if, in ten years from now you dont have a FLAC player, simply decompress the files to WAV. Nothing lost except storage space.
but I've known some of these guys that could blindly tell you the brand of output tube being used in a amp.
Thankfully most of the world
progressed to solid state devices.
The same guys who can tell me the brand of output tube are:
1) environmentally unfriendly, akin to those who stubbornly stick to lightbulbs for day-to-day use when there are fluorescent tubes.
2a) the kind that prefers distortion, or more specifically, even-order harmonics (most people do prefer the warmth)
2b) to the extent that they're willing to pay for such distortion (why not create a clean audio path and then apply warm EQ)
3) probably have too much spare cash and are surrounded by glib audio salesmen who are able to take said cash off them.
Of course you save space by using FLAC instead of wav files. My point was: so what? Drive space is SO cheap that the smaller file size is a non-issue (at least to me). And it will only get cheaper. Larger drives for less money has been a continuous trend.
That is true but file size is still important. Not everyone can afford a $150 USB2.0 1TB hard drive. I know some people who can barely afford a $50 250GB USB2.0 hard drive. Not everyone has $200 to drop on a new hard drive simply because their 1TB model is filled with needless uncompressed music. So my point is: why have the extra space when it isn't needed. That is like spending $75,000 on an off-road vehicle only to use it to drive the kids back and forth from a suburban school.
With wav files, you have a more universal format, supported by more software, than FLAC. FLAC is not (yet) a standard. Maybe it will be and maybe it will not. As of now, it is not universally supported. I can say the same thing for all of the lossless formats. So I prefer wav files. I have solved the metadata problem simply by using WMP and backing up my metadata periodically. It also eliminates the need to use Jaikoz.
FLAC is just as supported throughout the audio community as WAV. iTunes continues to support WAV, AIFF, and ALAC but you can go to many applications such as foobar2000, dBpowerAMP, WinAMP, etc. and the will all play FLAC files. In fact, I have yet to see PCM WAV take off other than the computer realm. That is still no excuse to use an uncompressed format whenever many lossless formats provide the exact same quality with a fraction of the file size and natively support track tags (WAV track tag support is still all over the place).
I get that compressing to FLAC and using Foobar has more of a geek appeal. I'm going to have to miss out on the fun this time.
This statement right here shows that you have something against FLAC (and probably other lossless formats). I don't know why there are a certain number of people who get it in their head that WAV is the end-all of formats when there are plenty of other alternatives that are pretty much just as equally supported. The above statement also shows how you feel about people using FLAC: they are geeks. Well, I think it would be dumb for anyone to not use a lossless format over uncompressed WAV. Take from that what you will but you have yet to show us anything concrete as to why PCM WAV is better than FLAC (or any other lossless format). In fact, I can come up with more arguments making Apple lossless come out superior to WAV and they are all backed up by facts, not just opinions about the cost of storage ($200 is a lot of money!).
I wish FLAC were supported universally. I have some FLAC files on my PC. They don't play on my ipod. I have Apple Lossless files on my ipod. Foobar doesn't play them. WMP doesn't play them. My wav files seem to play with every player and every device. Yes, I can easily convert when I need to. But then I have multiple versions to manage, and I have to go through the trouble of converting them.
If FLAC were a standard, we would not have so many other lossless formats.
I will admit that the tagging issue can be an advanage for FLAC over wav. If a person decides to go with FLAC for that reason, then I think it's a good reason.
I have Apple Lossless files on my ipod. Foobar doesn't play them.
That's wrong. With an additional component (http://www.foobar2000.org/files/d76879013ba9ae37aa8868d9945b38a5/foo_input_alac.zip) it is possible.
I wish FLAC were supported universally. I have some FLAC files on my PC. They don't play on my ipod. I have Apple Lossless files on my ipod. Foobar doesn't play them. WMP doesn't play them.
It is true that FLAC doesn't work well with iPods/iTunes but foobar2000 can playback (and even convert) Apple lossless files. Windows Media Player can even playback ALAC files with the proper 3rd party plug-in. I can also name a few other applications that can playback ALAC. FLAC playback is even possible in Windows Media Player.
If FLAC were a standard, we would not have so many other lossless formats.
What is a standard though? AAC is a standard yet I know of many devices that can't play that format back. AIFF is another standard yet it can't be played back on many other devices (or software for that matter). WMA is another standard that is not supported by the most popular portable devices: iPods. So you can pretty much say the same thing about ANY format out there aside from mp3. I even know of many devices that won't playback WAV files. Well, I guess that means that PCM WAV isn't a standard since the Zune can't playback the files along with many other home audio/video devices. That type of thinking would lead to only one audio standard: mp3.
That is just not true. WAV is a standard and so are mp3, AAC (LC and HE), WMA, WavPack, FLAC, and a countless number of other formats. I still see no reason why someone should use uncompressed PCM WAV unless that is the only thing their device/software support (the chances of that are slim to none). Even then one would be better off going with a lossless format that they could decode, copy to an appropriate medium, and then never have to fuss with again.
In a couple years when you can't find the same version of WMP to reload your WAV tags onto you're probably going to regret using WAV.
FLAC will outlast WMP11 by a very, very long time. Hell, almost every format imaginable will.
If FLAC were a standard, we would not have so many other lossless formats.
What do standards have to do with the number of other formats of a particular type available? Also define what you mean by standard. Being able to play something in iTunes does not make it a standard!
As for FLAC and geek appeal I'm really confused, have you actually looked at the FLAC site and seen how many devices now support it? It's the same as any other codec, you install it and use it.
I think most of this thread verges on the idiotic.
However, it is a shame that foobar2k refuses to tag .wav files. It's not hard to add new chunks in a compatible way. There's already bwav. APE2, or similar, at the end in its own chunk would be great.
There is a sensible use for .wav files: they're for audio that you want to edit or process! I have a great number of these on my machine. I'm not going to FLAC them just so I can tag them. For now, the information in the filename itself is all that's usable.
Cheers,
David.
Mike G and kornchild2002: you make excellent points about FLAC files in general and maintaining metadata for WAV files in the future. It makes me uncomfortable to have the metadata stored in a separate file and that I will have to rely on WMP to access it properly.
So, I'm becoming convinced of the value of FLAC files. I can easily convert my WAV files to FLAC, but the biggest problem I have now is tagging thousands of FLAC files. Why doesn't Foobar tag the files as they are being ripped? Is there a plug-in that does this? For the ones that are already ripped, is there a batch tagging app that works well?
Lossless formats such as FLAC compress wav files to about 65% of the original size. When you can buy a 1.5 TB hard drive for under $200 USD, the file size issue is not so important.
That's definitely a silly comment.
So, I'm becoming convinced of the value of FLAC files. I can easily convert my WAV files to FLAC, but the biggest problem I have now is tagging thousands of FLAC files.
Software like EasyTAG can do it for you.
I've never heard a difference on the systems through which I've listened, but the claim has been made by _many_ audiophiles that wav sounds better to them than flac. And like me, many other have said they also hear no difference.
Call it what you will - placebo effect, lack of objective testing,
OK, it's expectation effect, and lack of objective testing.
_Many_ 'audiophiles' are too credulous, as well as ignorant of psychological norms.
whatever - but I've known some of these guys that could blindly tell you the brand of output tube being used in a amp. I know that's difficult to believe for many, particularly the under 30 crowd iPod generation here at HA.
No, it isn't, since tubes do tend to audibly distort an audio signal, and conceivably someone could train themselves to hear variations.
Not to mention that the under 30 crowd stands a far better chance at being discerning than the over 30 crowd.
[...] but the biggest problem I have now is tagging thousands of FLAC files. Why doesn't Foobar tag the files as they are being ripped? Is there a plug-in that does this? For the ones that are already ripped, is there a batch tagging app that works well?
Well, if you use the freedb-plugin, foobar definitely
will tag files during ripping. As far as I remember it is part of the default installer. Also for existing whole albums the plugin is capable of quickly (i.e. 3-4 clicks per album) tagging existing albums. It is accessible through the context menu "Get tags from freedb".
There exists also another plugin, foo_discogs (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=50523), which I generally prefer as the information from that databse has a higher quality standard.
Not to mention that the under 30 crowd stands a far better chance at being discerning than the over 30 crowd.
why's that?
Not to mention that the under 30 crowd stands a far better chance at being discerning than the over 30 crowd.
why's that?
Do some googling and find out. Everyones hearing deteriorates as they get older so you can hear less high frequencies if I remember correctly.
Not to mention that the under 30 crowd stands a far better chance at being discerning than the over 30 crowd.
why's that?
Do some googling and find out. Everyones hearing deteriorates as they get older so you can hear less high frequencies if I remember correctly.
So, being able to hear high frequencies makes you discerning? Or is it that tubes only produce high frequency distortion - Google it and find out
If person A in possession of WAV file X makes a Flac file Y out of it and gives it to person B, person B does not need any other information than this Flac file to completely reconstruct the original WAV file X on his computer. B can go to A and ask him, hey I've got this WAV Y now, can you compare it to your WAV X, please? And A will find that every bit in X is identical to every bit in Y.
That's not exactly true. FLAC can (but doesn't by default) keep non-audio chunks from WAV files.
The audio data would be bit-identical, though.
There should be no doubt that a FLAC file gives the exact same output as a WAV file (when properly decompressed). Therefore, the sound is the same. This has been tested and re-tested many times by many individuals. Not only is it lossless, but it is also reversible. So if a WAV file is compressed to FLAC, the identical WAV file can be reproduced from the FLAC file.
The advantages of FLAC are: 1. Metadata stored within the FLAC file itself, 2. Space requirements, and 3. Support within the computer audio community. My original thought was that there was no reason to compress to FLAC. I have since been convinced by kornchild2002 and others that storing music files in FLAC is the way to go.
The argument about 24 bit vs. 16 bit files is a bit more complicated. Whether differences can be heard between otherwise identical recordings depends on many factors: type of music and instruments used, recording equipment, processing equipment, editing, playback equipment, and the listener. Whether DVD-A and SACD sound better than CD is a similar argument.
Or is it that tubes only produce high frequency distortion - Google it and find out
Distortion is generated from overtones. In the case of tubes they are even harmonics (ie. 2x, 4x, 8x, 10x). Last time I checked 2x is a higher frequency than the fundamental.
Did you actually
read this discussion before inserting your 2 cents?
Go back and look at the 8th reply.
Or is it that tubes only produce high frequency distortion - Google it and find out
Distortion is generated from overtones. In the case of tubes they are even harmonics (ie. 2x, 4x, 8x, 10x). Last time I checked 2x is a higher frequency than the fundamental.
Did you actually read this discussion before inserting your 2 cents?
Go back and look at the 8th reply.
Yes, I did read it. I wasn't sure what your remark about the under-30's being more discerning was getting at as there was no context.
Last time I checked 2x 200 hZ was 400hZ and I'm damned sure anybody over 30 can hear that.
Why do you have to be so agressive all the time?
Why do you feel the need to argue points that fly in the face of common sense?
However, it is a shame that foobar2k refuses to tag .wav files. It's not hard to add new chunks in a compatible way. There's already bwav. APE2, or similar, at the end in its own chunk would be great.
Agreed. I'd actually
love to see a new chunk with XML-formatted tag data that's extensible, not unlike iXML (http://www.gallery.co.uk/ixml/), but I know parsing performance is an issue there. An interesting benefit with such a scheme, however, is that tag data could be potentially kept external in .xml files if desired.
Why do you feel the need to argue points that fly in the face of common sense?
Well, I'm not arguing anything. I asked a simple question.
You're acting as if I was the one who told you to go google age-related hearing deterioration, though the guy that did seemed to know the simple answer.
Anyway, I apologize for being testy. This topic was hopeless from the first post.
That's not exactly true. FLAC can (but doesn't by default) keep non-audio chunks from WAV files.
The audio data would be bit-identical, though.
You shouldn't say this out of context or the audio-esoteric queens will read it again as "see! I told you so". You can write all kind of stuff of data into a WAV header not needed for spec-conforming interpretation of the audio stream. If you limit yourself to the minimal header needed for the definition of the embedded PCM stream, the FLAC output will be identical even in the standard setting. If you happen to hide a small poem besides chapter marks and tags from your editing application inside the header, Flac won't preserve that until you tell it to do so.
You're acting as if I was the one who told you to go google age-related hearing deterioration, though the guy that did seemed to know the simple answer.
Anyway, I apologize for being testy. This topic was hopeless from the first post.
I too apologise. I was reacting to what seemed to me to be curt relies to a perfectly innocent question - only one of which was from you it's true.
Let's start over
Ok, but before that, I would like to concede the point that life-experience and training can make a difference between someone under 30 and someone over 30. When I was in my 20s and used to go to boutique stereo shops, the guys who knew the tube amps and the guys who could afford them were in their 40s.
To acknowledge another point that was raised in a part of the discussion that was split concerning progressing technology, I get the feeling that fewer and fewer kids in their 20s are being exposed to tube amps; though I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I think most of us agree that it's better to have an amplifier that doesn't color the sound.
Off-topic discussion initiated by danvolker has been moved here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=617588 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=69556&view=findpost&p=617588)
Not to mention that the under 30 crowd stands a far better chance at being discerning than the over 30 crowd.
why's that?
Do some googling and find out. Everyones hearing deteriorates as they get older so you can hear less high frequencies if I remember correctly.
So, being able to hear high frequencies makes you discerning? Or is it that tubes only produce high frequency distortion - Google it and find out
No but younger people tend to be able to appreciate a wider range of frequencies which is likely to them being able to tell the difference between sounds. It may not ultimately have been answering your point so for that I apologise.
There seems to be a lot of people on forums that don't want to find things out for themselves, they'd rather behave like kids and keep asking 'Why?' to everything. Google can give you an answer quicker than a forum usually
Off-topic discussion initiated by danvolker has been moved here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=617588 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=69556&view=findpost&p=617588)
A post from that which I think is worth discussing is the idea that "mp3" is like "fast food" - i.e. mass market junk - and that the potential for higher quality has diminished from the 1970s.
This is demonstrably nonsense. I have excellent records, and some good (some "top end") audio equipment from the 1930s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Some of it is undeniably far more fun than an iPod, and lots of it sounds far better than a
bad mp3.
However, if we're talking about a decent mp3, played from an iPod either into one of these vintage systems, or into a modern pair of decent ear-buds, I find little to praise about the sound of a decent turntable and record against a decent mp3. At best, the differences are minuscule, and at worst, the problems of vinyl (and shellac!) are downright annoying in terms of damaging true musical enjoyment.
(If you want to listen to the sound of a 1960s hi-fi, then you need a 1960s hi-fi; if you want to listen to the music, an iPod has much to recommend it!)
Realistically, I wouldn't have been able to afford some of the old equipment I have when it was new. This is the other interesting comparison: a decent mp3 player is more "available", cheaper, and more widely used than a Dansette record plays from the 1960s, or a cheap music centre from the 1970s. The idea that iPods and mp3s have decreased the audio quality available to "normal" people is plainly wrong...
As most people have found, at a given modest price point, headphones let you hear far more of the music than similarly priced speakers. I think speakers are ultimately better - but for most budgets, most rooms/locations, and most "wife friendly" layouts they don't perform anywhere near as well as they could. So the widespread use of headphones lets most people hear more of the music.
Also, the idea that a
typical record player from the 1960s or 1970s was getting most of the musical information from those record grooves is simply fanciful. I shudder to think of the most common styli and cartridges from the 1960s, and things weren't that much better in the 1970s.
Very high end stuff was better, though TBH in the 1960s even the best you could buy would still wear the record out pretty quickly.
It's a simple fact really. The "common" system in the 1960s was a Dasette style record player. The "common" system in the late 1970s was a "music centre". The "common" system now is an iPod. It's probably the best audio reproduction that has ever become so "common".
No wonder audiophiles hate it!
Cheers,
David.
P.S. for "iPod" read "mp3 player". e.g. I use a Sansa Clip.
Is a wonderfully foolish thread! I just had to put my 2 cents in. Audio listening is often more of a religion than a hobby. I truly love the green markers! I wonder if they got that amazing tech tip from aliens. I know someone who only listens to vinyl because everything else is less. I don’t even try to argue with that one. Maybe green marks would work on vinyl!!
If you can hear the difference to warrant all that extra space; do it. I know someone with 6 TBs of music. The format would really matter.
The reason why it is hard to find an encoder that will encode more than 320 CRB mp3 is the cut off for 320 is at the theoretical limit for human hearing. Only the very young perfect ears can possibly hear the highest tones. If you can read this you are probably too old to hear those high notes. Lossless preserves tones only dogs and bats can hear. Maybe your dog enjoys music.
I remember a discussion about the Helix vbr mp3 process. It creates some artifacts well within a 40 year olds hearing. However, even much younger listeners couldn’t hear them. This is quite telling. This was a sharp smack to reality. There is a world of difference between able to hear a highly amplified tone in a back ground of silence when you are listening for it than picking up that less amplified tone in music.
I believe the over 30 crowd really can't here the difference between 190 CBR mp3 and a wave file. I doubt that the under 30 can either. As we age, we rapidly lose the ability to hear higher tones but many of us learn to listen more carefully. My college age boy doesn't notice poor quality or artifacts even though he can still hear mosquito tones. They range 17-19 kHz. No one above 25 can hear those tones so they are used in HS for ring tones. Everyone but the teacher knows your cell phone is ringing. By the time you are out of college you can't hear them either.
Most of us waste resources in audio over kill. I listen to vbr mp3s set to the highest setting knowing I can't hear the extra quality. That is MY choice to waist 20% file size. If you choose to have more overkill of 100s of percent that is your business.
The green markers are funny because carefully produced 192 CBR mp3 is more likely to produce a truer sound than the CD with green marks on it or not. Optical reads are not 100% reliable. The best rippers read the same block multiple times to insure they got the read right. I doubt that your average CD player does that.
I still have an old dinosaur stereo, one of the most powerful ever made. Playing mp3s on my iPod with good ear buds comes close to the quality of the dinosaur. The difference is the iPod does not shake the house. Low notes from the dinosaur travel through the house even if the stereo is on very low. I am not allowed to play it. My speakers can produce an earth rattling 4 Hz while my buds can do 5 Hz. They do rattle my head a bit but can’t rattle my body.
Another comedy post full of factual inaccuracies! I hope this thread can be kept open and used for this light-hearted purpose. It makes a pleasant change around here and may stop the "virus" from spreading onto the rest of the forum if the infection is quarantined.
Cheers, Slipstreem.
Lossless preserves tones only dogs and bats can hear. Maybe your dog enjoys music.
Obviously, it's the sampling frequency in the first place, rather than lossy/lossless compression scheme, than may preserve frequencies that dogs and bats can hear, but most humans can't. To cover dog frequency range, you need sampling frequency of at least 96 kHz, to cover what certain bats can hear, you would have to go above 200 kHz with the sampling rate.
They range 17-19 kHz. No one above 25 can hear those tones so they are used in HS for ring tones.
Age-related HF hearing decline does not occur in the same way in all people, and there are people above 25 who can hear in this range.
a decent mp3 player is more "available", cheaper, and more widely used than a Dansette record plays from the 1960s, or a cheap music centre from the 1970s. The idea that iPods and mp3s have decreased the audio quality available to "normal" people is plainly wrong...
Mp3 players, and CD before them, have reduced the high quality analogue audio that people have been enjoying since the 1960s?!
I dug out a "suitcase" style record player from the late 1960s. I connected the tape output to my sound card. This gives a fairly accurate recording of what the machine sounds like - except the machine's own speaker has far less top-end (and mid-range!), and a far more pronounced and boomy bass, than anything you're likely to play these files through.
The Beatles, The Red Album, last track on record 1 side 2:
[attachment=5092:Vinyl_33...esterday.mp3]
The same song from The Beatles 1 CD:
[attachment=5093:CD___The...esterday.mp3]
Oh how CDs and mp3 have robbed us of the wonderful sound quality people could afford in the 1960s!
(Note: this is a stereo record, played back in mono, as was common in the late 1960s / early 1970s - this gives hit-and-miss results - in this case it's a really phasey sounding mixdown. This really is a bad example of vinyl in every way, but it's what people actually listened to!).
To be fair, here's a 7" 45rpm single played on the same record player:
[attachment=5094:Vinyl_45...ulations.mp3]
I have thousands of records, and I've owned tens of these kind of record players - this really is typical of the sound. Sometimes it's better (newer stylus, mint record), sometimes it's worse (cheaper record player, more worn out record, completely wrecked stylus with a coin on top to make it track!). On the record player itself, the boomy bass (louder than everything else) helps to hide the crackles and distortion a bit.
The point? Yes, there was some great hi-fi around in the 1960s for rich people, but the sound quality that "normal" people got from "normal" equipment was variable, and generally poor. Plus the records scratched easily and wore out very quickly.
A half-decent mp3 player, that "normal" people own in the 21st century,
is a world away from the sound quality of 1960s and 1970s analogue - it's 1000x better!
Cheers,
David.
P.S. but my kids still love stacking some 45s on this old record player and dancing around to it!
Lossless preserves tones only dogs and bats can hear. Maybe your dog enjoys music.
Obviously, it's the sampling frequency in the first place, rather than lossy/lossless compression scheme, than may preserve frequencies that dogs and bats can hear, but most humans can't. To cover dog frequency range, you need sampling frequency of at least 96 kHz, to cover what certain bats can hear, you would have to go above 200 kHz with the sampling rate.
It would be interesting if so-called super tweeters and 96kHz were tested with animals... I wonder if those ST are even doing anything. Has anyone even cared to try? It seems to me that nobody would bother. The believers of course won't, and the rest of us think the question isn't even worth asking (but I just asked it... )
Well, CD can do 20kHz - 22kHz (despite common specs) - to humans that's inaudible at sensible levels, while various animals can hear those frequencies quite well.
Many super tweeters, reproducing hi-res recordings, certainly do something - as in you can record the output and see it on a spectrogram.
Anecdotally, our hamster used to go mad whenever I played vinyl, while it seemed completely uninterested in CD. Hardly scientific though!
Cheers,
David.
Anecdotally, our hamster used to go mad whenever I played vinyl, while it seemed completely uninterested in CD. Hardly scientific though!
Watching the Hydrogenaudio community neglect even the profoundest evidence, that vinyl is still superior to Redbook audio, is worthwhile. Things are arbitrarily called scientific or unscientific, just as it fits this community's agenda.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Watching the Hydrogenaudio community neglect even the profoundest evidence, that vinyl is still superior to Redbook audio is worthwhile. Things are arbitrarily called scientific or unscientific, just as it fits this community's agenda.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
RPP3PO, did you forget your quote tags?
Anecdotally, our hamster used to go mad whenever I played vinyl, while it seemed completely uninterested in CD. Hardly scientific though!
Maybe your hamster was nerved by the crackling and rumbling of vinyl
Stereophile should be delighted to emphasize its decade long commitment to trustable reviewing. For years we have been using a battery of 16 hamsters at every audio review. They are all coming from only the most reputable AES member households. It is aggravating to read again how a questionable protocol seems to be the only accepted "scientific" method around here.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Anecdotally, our hamster used to go mad whenever I played vinyl, while it seemed completely uninterested in CD. Hardly scientific though!
Maybe your hamster was nerved by the crackling and rumbling of vinyl
No joke - it wasn't the music - it went mad the second the needle hit the record, before the music itself started.
rpp3po - LOL! - stop it!
Cheers,
David.
rpp3po ,
I'm still processing the idea that John Locke isn't really John Locke. So please wait until I sort that out before you turn into John Atkinson.
With wav files, you have a more universal format, supported by more software, than FLAC. FLAC is not (yet) a standard. Maybe it will be and maybe it will not. As of now, it is not universally supported. I can say the same thing for all of the lossless formats. So I prefer wav files. I have solved the metadata problem simply by using WMP and backing up my metadata periodically. It also eliminates the need to use Jaikoz.
lol, so your solution to FLAC not being a standard is to use a non-standard way to store metadata?