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: Accuracy FLAC decoder (Read 28570 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Accuracy FLAC decoder

Reply #100 –
Quote from: rick.hughes on
[...] perhaps by "transcoding" English -> Chinese -> English or something.

Apparently something got lost in the 16->24->16 bit translation.
"I hear it when I see it."

Accuracy FLAC decoder

Reply #101 –
I can listen and understand what you will write. On the condition that it will be directly related to the topic. And I think that people need to calm down and stop calling each other trolls. In your cozy corner came of homo sapiens from the outside world, in this you can be sure. It is possible that I even help you with the adaptation of the tests in the right fair direction from which you aspire to stray farther. Generally speaking strange to hear some words from people who you unwittingly helping get out of the swamp.

Accuracy FLAC decoder

Reply #102 –
Quote from: Bublic on
I can listen and understand what you will write. On the condition that it will be directly related to the topic. And I think that people need to calm down and stop calling each other trolls. In your cozy corner came of homo sapiens from the outside world, in this you can be sure. It is possible that I even help you with the adaptation of the tests in the right fair direction from which you aspire to stray farther. Generally speaking strange to hear some words from people who you unwittingly helping get out of the swamp.


I invested a great deal of time into a polite point-byt-point reply to you with many details and many questions, and I get no response.  Do you not understand why others question your motives?
Creature of habit.

Accuracy FLAC decoder

Reply #103 –
Soap
Why I started the topic
As I said at the beginning of Post # 70, I have no evidence that foobar does the same as winamp. I did not know that this is possible in the player, and I thought that this decoder FLAC. Read again, if you want. Now I would like to see the logs and then there will be some certainty, for example.
Quote from: Soap on
Quote from: Bublic on
I use a 16-bit PC sound cards and my subjective opinion, at low frequencies there is some advantage APE over the FLAC.

This is literally mathematically impossible unless your computer or software is fucked.
IF your computer or software is fucked this is not what one would expect it to sound like.

You came up with that OS fucked. I gave a link that W7 fucked, and a lot more in the long run can be fucked. I have an example that in this configuration without errors recalculation bit-depth works the other a soft-player. Therefore, fucked your version of what was unknown to you, but now you know that.

Quote from: Soap on
Quote from: Bublic on
It is evident that Winamp out_wave.dll has the correct 16-bit output to WAV, and the 24-bit for 16 / 44.1 flac, which leads to unnecessary conversion 16 - 24 - 16 in the case of fair 16-bit DAC.


16-24-16 MIGHT increase the noise level an almost certainly imperceptible amount. It can not produce the symptoms your are describing.

That's funny. Are you sure that only this or you that someone said, or do you find out yourself? And the consequences of 16-32-16? There is an opinion (I'm), it leads to the same. To what precision, you are ready to guarantee that nothing bad will happen?
A close analogy is a children's blocks. Cut them into pieces in a hermetic room, you are sure to meet with sawdust, but then somehow will gather non-ideal, curve figure. If you already have the cubes, and then they have to play.
(I do not ask you how many pieces you intend to cut itself possible, then to assemble without loss. Not by how much. But this audiophile approach. And a man without Caterpillar no reason to believe that he was mistaken.)

Quote from: Soap on
Quote from: Bublic on
Is it possible to learn more about how it works FLAC-decoder step-by-step? Library to compile the decoder, is only one, or if there are several decoders FLAC? Is it possible (not in the laboratory) to objectively compare Decoders APE and FLAC for instance?


You can, on your machine, objectively decode them. IF YOU WOULD ACTUALLY DO SO you would find they output exactly what was stored. 1 to 1.

You are free to do so, but the work has already been done for you by the people who make the software and hundreds and thousands of others. Why do you disbelieve the preponderance of the evidence?

The fact that I do not object to progress as such. I'm not ready to take the curve figures for what was once normal and beautiful. You are ready and it is your right not to see-hear the flaws. Did I have a good memory for images and sound, I remember my children's feelings (In English didn't translate, closely literal "image of sound", it's common term!)

Other questions somehow have got answers. Or argue with you on them I do not see the point.

Accuracy FLAC decoder

Reply #104 –
"A close analogy is a children's blocks. Cut them into pieces in a hermetic room, you are sure to meet with sawdust, but then somehow will gather non-ideal, curve figure. If you already have the cubes, and then they have to play."

A HORRIBLE, WORTHLESS, MISLEADING,  analogy.  For on computers there is no sawdust.  Cuts are perfect and reconstruction is perfect.

"That's funny. Are you sure that only this or you that someone said, or do you find out yourself? And the consequences of 16-32-16? There is an opinion (I'm), it leads to the same. To what precision, you are ready to guarantee that nothing bad will happen?"

To 100% precision I guarantee that the audio flaws you describe are not a possible result of 16-24-16 or 16-32-16 or 16-54367-16


"That's funny. Are you sure that only this or you that someone said, or do you find out yourself? And the consequences of 16-32-16? There is an opinion (I'm), it leads to the same. To what precision, you are ready to guarantee that nothing bad will happen?"

You appear to be claiming to have perceptions abilities which defy simple math. 
You appear to believe that computers do not produce predictable outputs.
Creature of habit.

Accuracy FLAC decoder

Reply #105 –
Quote from: rick.hughes on
Quote from: saratoga on
Quote from: Bublic on
saratoga
You, as I understand, you want to talk about something abstractness.


I'll make this concrete then if you aren't interested in the theory behind this: everything is fine and you don't have to worry.

I'm pretty convinced this troll understands us perfectly well and the inability to make themselves understood is contrived, perhaps by "transcoding" English -> Chinese -> English or something.

Judge from the Cyrillic characters in the screenshots I guess the OP doesn't know about Chinese. Actually I am the one who can write good Chinese, see my location.

The sawdust example is a real joke, I can't find such claims even in 6moons