Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Lossless vs. Redbook tests? (Read 116605 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #175 –
Quote from: usernaim on
Greynol's comment, coming from such a bigwig over here, was particularly disturbing.  "Consider yourselves lucky."

1) I apologize for that comment only in the fact that it diminishes what has been said here by knowledgeable people who did bother to participate.

2) I reject the notion that I'm a "bigwig", out-spoken about things I feel comfortable with, yes; bigwig, no.

3) Feel free to use the search function.  Very little in this thread is new information.  Many people are tired of carrying on the same conversation.  Although this doesn't say much since I'm not a developer or a computer engineer and don't consider myself particularly astute in this field, if I weren't a moderator, I would have ignored this discussion completely.

...so yeah, consider yourselves lucky that some of the knowledgeable members decided to participate in this discussion.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #176 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: usernaim on
Greynol's comment, coming from such a bigwig over here, was particularly disturbing.  "Consider yourselves lucky."

1) I apologize for that comment only in the fact that it diminishes what has been said here by knowledgeable people who did bother to participate.

2) I reject the notion that I'm a "bigwig", out-spoken about things I feel comfortable with, yes; bigwig, no.

3) Feel free to use the search function.  Very little in this thread is new information.  Many people are tired of carrying on the same conversation.  Although this doesn't say much since I'm not a developer or a computer engineer and don't consider myself particularly astute in this field, if I weren't a moderator, I would have ignored this discussion completely.

...so yeah, consider yourselves lucky that some of the knowledgeable members decided to participate in this discussion.

1) Indeed it did and i appreciate those contributions.  But poster didn't ask for new information.  He asked for information new to him.  No one was obligated to answer.
2) It says "Super-moderator" under you name.  How much more of a bigwig at this site could you be?  If that doesn't translate to "I represent this site in an official capacity" what would?
3)
a) use the search function is an appropriate response but...
b) the threads cited on page one do not address the issues OP had.  Those threads in fact are further examples of the attitude here, most posts merely repeating stuff like "what part of lossless do you not understand?  Loss less, as in without loss."  As in not at all helpful or explanatory.  No one doubted that lossless might actually lose data.  The question was whether the decoding of lossless could affect audio quality in some other way.
c) many people came over to Computer Audiophile to snicker and say bad words. I personally took no offense, particularly being familiar with one of the culprits from another venue.  But others certainly did, and it was not in keeping with the culture of politeness there.  And if you're trolling over to another forum to tell them how wrong they are, you might as well explain it.  That's what Axon did.  Again, bravo.
d) the search function on a forum like this is pretty unwieldy.  The OP was quite earnest in asking for information.  No obligation to answer him, particularly to be rude.
e) I don't see a block diagram of the way the data traverses through a computer when ripped and saved nor when retrieved from a hard disk, or how a soundcard works in the technical, hardware, or software guides.  I think it would be a great addition to the site and would help dispel a lot of audiophile misconceptions and/or anxieties about how their data is played back.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #177 –
Then let's revisit the initial post, shall we? 

Quote from: AV-OCD on
I was referred to this site by a friend in another computer hi-fi site because that one is starting to get knee deep in the all of the subjective, touchy-feely audiophile stuff.
This suggests that the OP is somewhat skeptical of subjectivism and has come here for an alternative point of view.  This is actually very encouraging and was unfortunately not recognized by many, mainly because the topic has already been played out so many times before.

Quote from: AV-OCD on
I've searched this forum as best I could but cannot not find any test results for comparing the sound quality of lossless compression (FLAC, ALAC, etc) files to the uncompressed file (Redbook, WAV, AIFF).  I did find a couple of threads on the subject, and the answers were usually a terse "lossless = no loss."  Which is fine and dandy, but I'd like to see the actual tests that lead these people to this conclusion.
The reason being is that such tests are useless, period, full stop.  Ah, ah, I said FULL STOP.

Quote from: AV-OCD on
My motivation is this comment made in that other forum:

<Unsubstantiated, ill-conceived, third party nonsense removed>

Now the question, "Why?" would have been in order, and, if asked politely, would have probably been given a serious response.

It didn't happen this way and the next response by the OP was to say we're being dicks about it.

You should take this into consideration before accusing us of being rude.  I am only concerned with what's gone on in this discussion, since your attacks were leveled against this discussion.  It is not our responsibility to go over and educate people in another forum, especially when the thread in question was being dominated by people who clearly aren't the least bit interested in understanding how these things actually work.  If you think there are people there who could benefit from some actual truth, I would recommend sending them over here.  Just warn them that we tend to be a little hard on newbies who appear to buy into the subjectivist point of view.  Ok, a little hard is an understatement.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #178 –
Quote from: greynol on
Then let's revisit the initial post, shall we? 
<SNIP>
Now the question, "Why?" would have been in order, and, if asked politely, would have probably been given a serious response.

It didn't happen this way and the next response by the OP was to say we're being dicks about it.


I didn't see  anything impolite in the way OP asked his question. There was a knee-jerk reaction, and some people were unable to distinguish between someone quoting dodgy stuff and actually proposing it as the truth. If someone here asks "Why are audiophiles wrong," they're very likely to be accused of imbecility.

OK, it's the internet: but that's not OP's fault.

Maybe HA should become a private forum; it looks like it's a rational general audio forum, but the most distinguished members (and I mean that, no sarcasm) are high-grade developers of lossy encoders, and see it as a site for professional discussion. I have no problems with that, but I hadn't realised that myself at first.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #179 –
Quote from: greynol on
Then let's revisit the initial post, shall we?  ...
...
Quote from: AV-OCD on
I've searched this forum as best I could but cannot not find any test results for comparing the sound quality of lossless compression (FLAC, ALAC, etc) files to the uncompressed file (Redbook, WAV, AIFF).  I did find a couple of threads on the subject, and the answers were usually a terse "lossless = no loss."  Which is fine and dandy, but I'd like to see the actual tests that lead these people to this conclusion.
The reason being is that such tests are useless, period, full stop.  Ah, ah, I said FULL STOP.

It was later specified that the differences are assumed (or even "measured") to show up only during playback because there are additional factors involved, not just the lossless encoding & decoding process.

That was exactly the reason I did my two reproduciple tests that compared the output in real-time playback situations and released the results. Now the original poster has hard evidence that can be used. I'm actually a bit surprised that no one from the "other camp" has criticized my test methodology. Actually, very few have commented the tests at all.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #180 –
Quote from: MichaelW on
I didn't see  anything impolite in the way OP asked his question.
I meant his follow-up.  This is not to exonerate others who were less than polite or those who shot the messenger.

Quote from: Alex B on
Actually, very few have commented the tests at all.
I wouldn't expect many.  Immutable subjectivists generally ignore facts that don't support their world view.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #181 –
Quote from: greynol on
It didn't happen this way and the next response by the OP was to say we're being dicks about it.

You should take this into consideration before accusing us of being rude.  I am only concerned with what's gone on in this discussion, since your attacks were leveled against this discussion.  It is not our responsibility to go over and educate people in another forum, especially when the thread in question was being dominated by people who clearly aren't the least bit interested in understanding how these things actually work.  If you think there are people there who could benefit from some actual truth, I would recommend sending them over here.  Just warn them that we tend to be a little hard on newbies who appear to buy into the subjectivist point of view.  Ok, a little hard is an understatement.

Well, I don't see how anyone could plausibly characterize the behavior of many HA folk on this thread and on CA as anything but rude, particularly the responses before OP complained.

You may believe that the people in that thread on CA are not interested in how things actually work, but that is not true.  And your attitude is precisely why you think that.  My original point was not that rudeness is bad per se, but that it prevents communication and the spread of enlightenment.  Your attitude is profoundly childish and defensive. 

My guess is many people here have had enough dialogues in which they failed to convince someone of something that is unarguably true that they are wary of interacting with non-experts.

The defensive part is to blame non-experts for not understanding you, when in fact if you fail to explain something it is your shortcoming (though the other person's loss).

The childish part is to fly off the handle, fail to actually listen to your interlocutors, and then make ad hominem attacks on the irrationality of others.  Like you just did above.

You can play in your own sandbox however you like, and I suppose you can go throw sand in someone else's if you feel like it, but just as a post by an HA'er over on CA said "I call bullshit," well... let's just say that your comportment makes it easy for interested, rational non-experts to dismiss whatever expertise you may possess as questionable due to your extremism or not even worth the trouble to evaluate due to your propensity to insult anyone who doesn't agree accept your pronouncements blindly.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #182 –
Quote from: usernaim on
The childish part is to fly off the handle, fail to actually listen to your interlocutors, and then make ad hominem attacks on the irrationality of others.  Like you just did above.

By "you" I hope it was meant in the plural form.  If by "you" you meant me, then I challenge you to demonstrate where I have flown off the handle and made ad hominem attacks.

...or did that thread at CA suddenly change course demonstrating that there are many of you who are actually skeptics and have enough courage to challenge the more bellicose contributors?

Quote from: usernaim on
let's just say that your comportment makes it easy for interested, rational non-experts to dismiss whatever expertise you may possess as questionable due to your extremism or not even worth the trouble to evaluate due to your propensity to insult anyone who doesn't agree accept your pronouncements blindly.

Feel free to justify people's dismissal however you like.  I don't think I'm alone in feeling dispassionate over your concern as you've expressed it.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #183 –
Quote from: usernaim on
brabrabra


You are picking on the wrong guy. Greynol is one of the most level-headed moderators from any forum I know. Don't look just at this thread. His diligent long time track record is beyond reproach. The only thing I see happening here that he is defending against personal attacks that he hasn't started.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #184 –
Off-topic debate about what happens well after a lossless file is decoded for playback has been moved here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=71488

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #185 –
Quote from: greynol on
By "you" I hope it was meant in the plural form.  If by "you" you meant me, then I challenge you to demonstrate where I have flown off the handle and made ad hominem attacks.


I did not mean you Greynol but multiple other posters on the thread, whom I won't single out.

Finally,  I want to thank those that did generously share their knowledge here and at CA.  I learned useful stuff and I appreciate it.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #186 –
I was interested, so I just performed an experiment on my compute, using a small custom written ABX tester which played either a WAV or a FLAC directly.

Decoding FLAC in real time (as opposed to playing a WAV) causes the fan on my laptop to slightly increase in speed. Humorously (for me at least), I can only ABX the resulting noise if I mute my speakers.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #187 –
So I guess this was either an ancient CPU or an ancient decoding lib? Flac decoding needs only very few CPU instructions per sample.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #188 –
Probably not - many modern laptops only use the processor cycles that are actually needed, and regulate the fan accordingly.

Whereas desktops are the opposite - I remember what a difference CPUidle made to one of mine a few years back.

Cheers,
David.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #189 –
Might be true. I'm just not used to hearing any fans on my 2,4 GHz C2D notebook, only when both cores have above ~50% load. And you would probably need at least a 20-channel FLAC file to reach that.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #190 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
So I guess this was either an ancient CPU or an ancient decoding lib? Flac decoding needs only very few CPU instructions per sample.


I went back and checked again, I made a little mistake!

The process that was happening is the following:

1) Play starts. The player I use completely decodes the FLAC file, at 100% CPU usage, while playing.
2) FLAC decoding finishes fairly quickly, but the CPU fan continues to spin for 30 seconds or so.

This is a very silly experiment, but it does show it's conceivable, with a dodgy enough setup, than an uninformed person could think they can hear the difference between FLAC and WAV. Of course, such people should hopefully quickly accept the flaw in their methodology.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #191 –
Thanks for the update! I totally agree to your conclusions.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #192 –
Most ABX testers actually decode both samples to wav first, for obvious reasons.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #193 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Probably not - many modern laptops only use the processor cycles that are actually needed, and regulate the fan accordingly.

Whereas desktops are the opposite -


Not any more. Modern desktops only use the processor cycles that are actually needed, and regulate the fan accordingly.

Lossless vs. Redbook tests?

Reply #194 –
Quote from: pdq on
Most ABX testers actually decode both samples to wav first, for obvious reasons.



One not-so-obvious reason is that is the way the guy who invented ABX likes to see it done! ;-)