Is lossless really as good as wav?
I understand that in theory FLAC is lossless and therefore should be as accurate as the original wav file. However, given the extra processing required to ‘unpack’ the data on replay, does FLAC really sound as good? I am about to rip all of my classical CDs to hard disc for use with Foobar and a Squeezebox3 and want to get it right!
Cheers
Yes
> Is lossless really as good as wav?
No. It usually is even better (in terms of meta data storing capabilities)
The "Is this better than that" questions largely depend on what things are important to you. You seem to be mostly concerned about sound quality. In this case FLAC and the like are fine (= can't get any better).
However, given the extra processing required to ‘unpack’ the data on replay, does FLAC really sound as good?
The decoding may cause some increase in the CPU fan noise, but only for the higher levels of some CPU-intensive formats (e.g. OptimFrog --mode bestnew), not for FLAC. But it's external noise, not a distortion of the audio signal.
You really should have done some reading before posting such a question!
I would reiterate SebastianG's response that lossless is better in the fact that it is smaller and has good support for storing metadata.
There will be no audio quality difference.
just run bitcompare in foobar, or decode flac back to wav and compare files (for example in total commander)
yeah, and post the result asap
in theory FLAC is lossless
Not just in theory mate. Lossless is lossless in reality too. Stop being dumb. I don't want another "lossless isn't lossless" thread again. It either is or it isn't, and it very much is. Consider for a moment the absurdity of claming that lossless isn't lossless. This can be proven mathematically, so you're saying that mathematics is bollocks.
Hi, I was just wondering here.... Is it possible for developers to create a special version of the FLAC encoder, such as VBR FLAC? We all know that MP3 is limited to 320kbps, but FLAC is not. What if someone created or modified the existent FLAC algorithm to support VBR FLAC... I mean, you could get a VIRTUAL LOSSLESS file, if that thing could store VBR at its maximum consistency, that is... 32kbps for silence and up to 1411kbps for dramatic samples... we would be able to get real small file sizes... just an idea!
We could think of a new concept of lossless... REAL LOSSLESS that is what we have now with FLAC... and VIRTUAL LOSSLESS, that is, in terms of audio quality is exactly the same but the dramatic samples are stored without discarding any of its information!
Hi, I was just wondering here.... Is it possible for developers to create a special version of the FLAC encoder, such as VBR FLAC? We all know that MP3 is limited to 320kbps, but FLAC is not. What if someone created or modified the existent FLAC algorithm to support VBR FLAC... I mean, you could get a VIRTUAL LOSSLESS file, if that thing could store VBR at its maximum consistency, that is... 32kbps for silence and up to 1411kbps for dramatic samples... we would be able to get real small file sizes... just an idea!
We could think of a new concept of lossless... REAL LOSSLESS that is what we have now with FLAC... and VIRTUAL LOSSLESS, that is, in terms of audio quality is exactly the same but the dramatic samples are stored without discarding any of its information!
FLAC is VBR by it's definition. and virtual lossless is anything which is transparent to you...
oh i see... but you're cutting short... virtual lossless would be something definitely without any kind of artifacts, contrary on current lossy schemes...
this virtual lossless would be "lossy" anyway and not able to restore data bit by bit back as FLAC usually does. I think the better definition for this is... to have a lossy data compressor without any artifact present.
The best way to think of lossless is that it's like zipping your .wav file and have a decoder that can playback wavs straight from the .zip. Lossless doesn't change any bits, hence the term.
It's always VBR because some parts of the music are simpler and thus can be written down more efficiently than others. Like with data compression (where not all files and all parts in one file are equally compressed), a file that is truly random (white noise in audio terms) cannot be written down smaller than it already is, and this is the case for lossless, but codecs like mp3 will just write it down with however as many bits as you tell it to use.
Please think for a few minutes.
without any artifacts means lossless. Or are you talking about a lossy lossless scheme?
It cannot be both.
Those weird lossless topics over the past few hours are really entertaining
I think we all need some sleep...
I suppose it's late at night over in Jakarta. I've only been awake for a few hours.
Bourne, at what point artifacts can't be heard is pretty subjective.
Is Lame -b 320 or Ogg q10 not transparent to you?
I mean, you could get a VIRTUAL LOSSLESS file, if that thing could store VBR at its maximum consistency, that is... 32kbps for silence and up to 1411kbps for dramatic samples... we would be able to get real small file sizes... just an idea!
Your idea has several names: Musepack, Vorbis, AAC... and more generally lossy encoding with transparent quality.
oh i see... but you're cutting short... virtual lossless would be something definitely without any kind of artifacts, contrary on current lossy schemes...
this virtual lossless would be "lossy" anyway and not able to restore data bit by bit back as FLAC usually does. I think the better definition for this is... to have a lossy data compressor without any artifact present.
Have you ever tested WavPack in hybrid mode for example (around 384 bkps)? This is in fact transparency without detecting artifacts cause no psymodel is used here (well, I've never detect some, maybe others who say they can hear artifacts on Lame VBR -V 2 --vbr-new with their 2 dollar earphones lol)
in theory FLAC is lossless
Not just in theory mate. Lossless is lossless in reality too. Stop being dumb. I don't want another "lossless isn't lossless" thread again. It either is or it isn't, and it very much is. Consider for a moment the absurdity of claming that lossless isn't lossless. This can be proven mathematically, so you're saying that mathematics is bollocks.
I will assume that your response is a result of a reduced IQ and not just being an ars*hole….
If you had bothered to read my post properly before dispatching the heap of vitriol (look it up) you will have seen that I stated that; “I understand that in theory FLAC is lossless and therefore should be as accurate as the original wav file”. In other words, I understand the theory why FLAC is as lossless as wav. I suppose I should have used ‘is’ as opposed to ‘should’ but I didn’t think for a minute that anybody on this Forum would be stupid enough to think that FLAC wasn’t lossless. What I was asking, was if the extra processing introduced any quality change. I did not start a “lossless isn't lossless" thread again. I also didn’t say that mathematics is bollocks!
Anyway, it’s time you returned to your crayoning….
eeerm...
You did ask if lossless is as good as wav.
Is full moon today?
Why should extra processing alter the result? If the result is bit identical to the original, nothing was altered. That is how simple it is if folks dont always smell conspiracy.
Or did you ever notice any change done to a word document after zipping and unzipping it?
Q: are you another incarnation of Excelsior?
This is in fact transparency without detecting artifacts cause no psymodel is used here
Be careful not to draw the wrong conlusions.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=432927 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=48514&view=findpost&p=432927)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=407407 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=46062&view=findpost&p=407407)
You really should have done some reading before posting such a question!
I would reiterate SebastianG's response that lossless is better in the fact that it is smaller and has good support for storing metadata.
There will be no audio quality difference.
I did do some reading beforehand but didn’t find an answer
to my question. SebastianG's response was interesting (and welcome) but did not address the question. As I said to the other ‘gentleman’ I was not disputing that FLAC was not lossless. I was merely asking if the extra processing on replay had an effect. If I had asked a few years ago on this Forum if all digital outputs were equal, no doubt that I would have been told that digital was digital and ‘consider for a moment the absurdity of claming that digital isn't digital. This can be proven mathematically, so you're saying that mathematics is bollocks.’
Then along came jitter……
I will say this in countryman's defense, playback of a lossless file like ape encoded @insane can get interrupted since it is so demanding of resources, but this isn't going to happen while decoding flac, regardless of the compression level.
I understand the theory why FLAC is as lossless as wav.
What I was asking, was if the extra processing introduced any quality change.
You're saying you know FLAC is lossless, yet you ask whether the processing introduces a quality change (ie. not lossless). I'm sure I'm not the only one here who can't make sense of that.
Anyway, it’s time you returned to your crayoning…
Very well.
(http://jensrex.net/img/lossless.png)
[quote name='Sunhillow' date='Nov 13 2006, 20:02' post='449176']
eeerm...
You did ask if lossless is as good as wav.
Is full moon today? [/quote]
Yes I did! This is because wav is uncompressed and FLAC is compressed hence the smaller storage requirements. As I understand it, when you replay a FLAC file it has to be uncompressed (unpacked) on the fly whilst undertaking the usual replay processing. My question was whether this had an effect.
[/quote]
Why should extra processing alter the result? [/quote]
Dunno. That is why I asked the question..
[/quote]
If the result is bit identical to the original, nothing was altered. That is how simple it is if folks don’t always smell conspiracy. [/quote]
[/quote]
Or did you ever notice any change done to a word document after zipping and unzipping it? [/quote]
No, but then I don’t read documents whilst they are unzipping.
[/quote]
Q: are you another incarnation of Excelsior?
[/quote]
What?
FLAC, the lossless-but-not-quite-because-of-processing codec. I should go patent this.
http://m-w.com/dictionary/lossless (http://m-w.com/dictionary/lossless)
Main Entry: loss·less
Pronunciation: 'los-l&s
Function: adjective
: done or being without loss (as of power or data) <lossless data compression> <lossless power transmission>
e.g. the lack of loss. e.g. no loss. e.g. you get out exactly what you put in.
-brendan
bhoar,
your dictionary forgot to explain the difference between inherent losslessness and losslessness with added computing
The question isn't difficult to understand but it appears some people manage it anyway. Think of it as analogous to writing to CD-R. The process can, and usually is, good enough that one can later extract a file that will prove to be bit for bit identical to the original source that was written to the CD-R. However, if the computer is too busy with other tasks at the same time it is writing to the CD-R, the data on the CD-R might end up with defects. In some cases that will mean the CD-R is unplayable, in others it means the music is mixed with occasional bad noise.
The inquiry, reworded, was 'does/can anything similar happen during FLAC playback? Might the data being decoded, or the data going to the DAC, be corrupted because total system load is too high?" The answer is yes, it is possible. The FLAC source isn't effected by this. The process of decoding might also remain pure, but the decoding might not be accomplished in real time. If there is any interruption in flow because of too much multi-tasking, what comes out your speakers might not be what you expected. The same thing can happen during recording from analogue sources, even though the computer that is capable of making perfect recordings. Clearly this is not a frequent problem for FLAC playback.
What you are describing, is possible (though highly unlikely) for all data stored on a computer.
Edit: On second thought, I'm not sure it's possible at all (hardware failure aside). In the case of system overload during audio playback, you'll just get gaps in the decoded output. I guess you can describe that as loss if you want.
What you are describing, is possible (though highly unlikely) for all data stored on a computer.
(addressing the bolding which I added)
...for flac maybe, but not for Monkey's Audio.
I also note your edit.
bhoar,
your dictionary forgot to explain the difference between inherent losslessness and losslessness with added computing
How would you convert to another format without added computing?
-brendan
Magic.
I propose that we use the term lossless only for the encoding process, and use the term sonically identical for the decoding process.
Some people claim playing music from ram sound better than from HDD, eh, they are both from "lossless" sources. Whether that is true or not doesn't matter, just that it is possible for it to sound different, depending on the timing. And i don't care if people hear it or not, i know i wont.
You guys are all very entertaining!
Funny thread.
I'd add that FLAC, as a codec and format, is independent of the hardware.
FLAC files can be played while being decoded; FLAC files can be played after they're decoded (to WAV)..
While you can experience hardware problems or interruptions in the playback caused by a busy CPU (FLAC wouldn't keep it very busy, likely another process or processes), you could also experience the same problems while playing back a WAV file. Does that mean there is a problem with the WAV file?
These possible interruptions are independent of the FLAC or WAV files themselves.
One thing I love about FLAC is that it is designed to use very little processing in the decode process, and this encourages hardware player vendors to support the format.
Long live FLAC.
Some people claim playing music from ram sound better than from HDD, eh, they are both from "lossless" sources.
Now that's just a very stupid claim. It's not going to happen. If the HDD is bad, then your files aren't gonna decode properly. If the RAM is bad, it'd have be a pretty large amount of errors by RAM standards to affect the sound (and only if its to the decoded data). And if it happens before decoding, then again, you're going to have errors, not different sound. Plus, bad RAM tends to also cause all sorts of problems, so the odds of it only affecting sound are even LESS likely.
The odds of either one happening are quite low.
ok, fellas some of you are getting me wrong... I'm not talking about able or not able to hear artifacts... I'm talking about knowledge of having or not artifacts. THINK of a lossy implementation that could set the bitrate of a sample up to 1411 kbps, while 32 kbps in the "white noise" space. Got it now?
Imagine if LAME could encode some samples up to 1411kbps, and not be limited to 320kbps. That is what I'm talking about when I say 'virtual lossless' and 'not technically having any kind of artifacts'... it's not about hearing it or not...
Yeah, um, that's called basically unrestricted VBR, which vorbis and AAC can do (well, to an extent..).
It's still not "virtual lossless". Stop using that term.
That's funny, 'cause I was going to take the other side of it.
There are codecs that encode with no artifacts whether they can be heard or not heard, they are lossless codecs with bitrates that are variable. Some of the more common ones are flac, WavPack and Monkey's Audio.
There is no such thing as "virtual lossless" as there is no such thing as lossy but with no artifacts.
What I was asking, was if the extra processing introduced any quality change.
If it did, i wouldn't be lossless.
Let's say you have an old laptop that gets its cooling fans revved up under heavy processing load. (Do old laptops have that feature? Anyway....) If you play 3D-intensive games on it, the laptop will get hotter and start whirring louder.
Does it make your 3D game behave weirdly? No. (But if it overheats, your laptop may crash...) Heavy load doesn't affect calculation.
Same thing with lossless audio. Heavy load doesn't affect calculation, and lossless decompression is usually not a CPU-intensive process.
Ok, if you've got a bad quality motherboard with bad power filtering and a bad sound card that also has poor power filtering, it's possible that the electrical interference generated by the processor (and hard drive, and everything else in the computer for that fact) could generate audible noise at the analog output of the soundcard. But if that's the case, doing anything with the computer is going to cause problems. And of course the actual digital data will not be affected (otherwise the errors would corrupt all data the computer is processing and cause it to crash,) only the analog output from the D/A converters and/or amplifiers on the sound card.
There is no such thing as "virtual lossless" as there is no such thing as lossy but with no artifacts.
Depends on how you define artifact. If you define it as "perceptible difference," then you have "transparency."
That's fine, and it brings me back to post #14 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=50156&view=findpost&p=449157) of this thread.
EDIT: ...and note the possible definition that you've introduced, "perceptible difference" will not be the same from person to person (that is to say the difference, not the definition). Bourne, OTOH is talking about artifacts as if they aren't based on subjective listening which was the precise context of my response.
So, can you convince Bourne that what he's asking for already exists or if it doesn't already exist, enlighten those of us (me in particular) as to what he's talking about?
Depends on how you define artifact. If you define it as "perceptible difference," then you have "transparency."
Is it even theoretically possible for a lossy algorithm to never have perceptible differences (within the human range of hearing)?
Sure, but the problem is making an efficient lossy algorithm that doesn't require significant resources to decode.
ok, fellas some of you are getting me wrong... I'm not talking about able or not able to hear artifacts... I'm talking about knowledge of having or not artifacts. THINK of a lossy implementation that could set the bitrate of a sample up to 1411 kbps, while 32 kbps in the "white noise" space. Got it now?
Imagine if LAME could encode some samples up to 1411kbps, and not be limited to 320kbps. That is what I'm talking about when I say 'virtual lossless' and 'not technically having any kind of artifacts'... it's not about hearing it or not...
Kinda like saying the sum of an infinite number of fourier series tend towards the exact approximation of any function. If you add an infinite number of different codecs.... Eh.
Let's say you have an old laptop that gets its cooling fans revved up under heavy processing load. (Do old laptops have that feature? Anyway....) If you play 3D-intensive games on it, the laptop will get hotter and start whirring louder.
Does it make your 3D game behave weirdly? No. (But if it overheats, your laptop may crash...) Heavy load doesn't affect calculation.
Same thing with lossless audio. Heavy load doesn't affect calculation, and lossless decompression is usually not a CPU-intensive process.
If I understand Countryman's question, I'd disagree. Playing a 3D game on an old laptop would be a totally different experience compared to playing it on a faster desktop in terms of fps. But, perhaps he does mean problems with calculation. In that case I'd agree.
Seeing the amount of discussion of what was actually the question, I'm interested to see countryman's reaction to the answers sofar.
Is it even theoretically possible for a lossy algorithm to never have perceptible differences (within the human range of hearing)?
Yes, upsampling to 192 kHz.
If I understand Countryman's question, I'd disagree. Playing a 3D game on an old laptop would be a totally different experience compared to playing it on a faster desktop in terms of fps.
OK, it isn't a perfect analogy. Nevertheless, consider a game that would run just as well on both systems, but one that would make a laptop whirr.
It's 02:26 and I can't sleep after reading this topic. I just was thinking in my bed about infinity of human bluntness (stupidness). I think human bluntness has no limits and less has dimensions (2d 3d ?).
Somebody can be wrong double-infinitely.
Bourne 5 mins ago you didn't know that FLAC is vbr and at the same time introduce a new therms like 'virtual' lossless. Even young man who can think logically know that ' each txt page can be compressed differently' depends of complexity. Speaking roughly the same way each second of wav has different complexity -> different compress ratio -> VBR.
ok, fellas some of you are getting me wrong... I'm not talking about able or not able to hear artifacts... I'm talking about knowledge of having or not artifacts.
Does such kind of knowledge is possible to introduce to any program language? Until now PC hasn't a status of a human brain!
From this point of view your statement is infinitively wrong.
But let's just think that PC has a status of human brain. But artifact can exist or not ... for different people.
So how PC will take decision?
Including this impossibility you're already wrong twice infinitively.
There is no human who can change the informatic (mathematic ... call it whatever) concept of LOSSLESS.
LOSSLESS = no data loss = bit identical
And what the huck is 'virtual'?
Virtual = not real
V?rtual lossless = not real lossless = not bit identical information = lossy
Imagine if we could have sex virtually. There wouldn't neither one man live in planet.
It is discrete.
A lossless algorithm can have some losses in some circumstances such as when the lossless codec is not fully lossless in which case the partially lossless algorithm should be redefined as "semi-lossless", although this may not always be the case in some circumstances such as a "fully lossless" codec, which by definition does not have any losses at all....
I hope this clears it up.
ok, i stop calling it lossless, virtual hell, the hell... etc...
i am calling out for a new lossy codec, that has unrestricted VBR up to 1411kbps. Ok? I do not accept codecs that can do that thing only "to an extent" at all...
Why go up to 1411kbps when codecs can achieve losslessness at almost always lower bitrates? To waste space? What's the point?
[nigel tufnel]
...but these waves go up to 1411.2 kbps!
[/nigel tufnel]
i am calling out for a new lossy codec, that has unrestricted VBR up to 1411kbps. Ok? I do not accept codecs that can do that thing only "to an extent" at all...
You haven't seen how some VBR encoders react to extreme sharp attacks. Sometimes bitrates can jump higher than 600kbps.
Unrestricted VBR already exists.
[nigel tufnel]
...but these waves go up to 1411.2 kbps!
[/nigel tufnel]
Each extra kb/s makes me feel that little bit more hardcore.
Is it even theoretically possible for a lossy algorithm to never have perceptible differences (within the human range of hearing)?
Yes, upsampling to 192 kHz.
Let me rephrase: a lossy, psychoacoustic audio codec that would never have perceptible differences. Does theory show if it's possible or not?
i am calling out for a new lossy codec, that has unrestricted VBR up to 1411kbps. Ok? I do not accept codecs that can do that thing only "to an extent" at all...
I said to an extent only because the quality level will dictate how extreme the bitrate maximums will go, but for all intents and purposes it is unrestricted, since it can go as high as it feels it needs to for that quality level.
ok, i stop calling it lossless, virtual hell, the hell... etc...
i am calling out for a new lossy codec, that has unrestricted VBR up to 1411kbps. Ok? I do not accept codecs that can do that thing only "to an extent" at all...
Every lossless codec must be unrestricted. It will go much higher then just 1411 kbps if you use 24bit/96kHz. Imagine if you recorded a white noise. This can't be compressed at all. A lossless sompressed file will have the same bitrate as original WAV.
On the other hand if you record 5 minutes of absolute silence, a losslessly compressed file will have just a few bits (much lower then 32 kbps).
Everything you're talking about already exists and is implemented in ALL lossless codecs. Just use your logics and you should be able do deduct it yourself.
You guys have way too much free time...
This is my concept about 'Virtual Lossless'. Loss some data but not loss in qualtiy is lossless, no data lost but quality was degraded is lossy.
Well, in that case, you're wrong. Mathematically altering audio data while, to the listener, retaining perceptible identicality to the source is transparency. And WaxCyl, I sincerely hope that your post was a (bad) joke.
To make it clear and simple:
If after decompressing a compressed file the result is the same as original file, the compression is lossless. This is an objective truth.
If after decompressing a compressed file the result is different then original file, but there is no audible difference, the compression is transparent (and lossy). This is very subjective.
I cut the silence in the start and the end of the song (someone called it 'no gap' or gapless), so does the edit file make sense about 'virtual' lossless?
I cut the silence in the start and the end of the song (someone called it 'no gap' or gapless), so does the edit file make sense about 'virtual' lossless?
I don't think so. You lose some high quality silence, so it's lossy .
I cut the silence in the start and the end of the song (someone called it 'no gap' or gapless), so does the edit file make sense about 'virtual' lossless?
Are you sure I didn't hear anything in that "silence"?
-brendan
... If I had asked a few years ago on this Forum if all digital outputs were equal, no doubt that I would have been told that digital was digital and ‘consider for a moment the absurdity of claming that digital isn't digital. This can be proven mathematically, so you're saying that mathematics is bollocks.’
Then along came jitter……
Ahhh, the old jitter jibe eh...
Jitter is a known aspect of any clock based signal, and has been around well before the CD player was even created. What happened 'a few years ago' was audiophiles discovered it and decided that it was another point on which to place their 'expertise', 'golden ears' and truck loads of cash.
Feel free to point to some valid data showing that jitter from any non-faulty hardware has any human-noticeable effect on sound ;-)
musepack --quality 10 is what you seek
Is lossless really as good as wav?
I understand that in theory FLAC is lossless and therefore should be as accurate as the original wav file. However, given the extra processing required to ‘unpack’ the data on replay, does FLAC really sound as good? I am about to rip all of my classical CDs to hard disc for use with Foobar and a Squeezebox3 and want to get it right!
I've tried WMAL (Microsoft), ALAC (Apple), APE, Shorten, WavePack, FLAC, even RAL (RealAudio), and could not choose among them on the basis of sound quality alone, nor could I tell any of them from the original WAVs from which I encoded. Some are more efficient in their compression, some are faster than others in either encoding or decoding, some have such features as streaming and multi-channel support, some have error-correcting features, some have better hardware, software or OS support than others, yada, yada...
I chose FLAC because of its robustness, relatively high speed, tagging and streaming support, and best of all, it is open-source - not tagged to any evil empire like Microsoft or Apple. And since I run both WinTel and Linux boxes, OS support is important to me and FLAC can be used almost anywhere. If you have the balls to write over the firmware of your iPod, you can even use it there, too, with the help of Rockbox.
Since you are a classical music lover, as am I, consider getting the something like the Olive Symphony music server. This is a high-end CD player/burner/ripper with a hard drive-based server with software designed for classical music listeners. It rips CDs to FLAC or MP3 directly and stores them on the hard drive for direct playback. The company also offers units that have streaming servers as well. These units are not cheap, but their quality is absolutely first-rate, and of all the lossless formats out there, they support FLAC.
Check them out at http://www.olive.us/p_bin/?cid=01_01_explore (http://www.olive.us/p_bin/?cid=01_01_explore).
Lastly, this is purely anecdotal and unscientific, but audiophiles in the self-styled "golden-ear" club - I'm talking about analog-forever diehards who only recently bought CD players because they've finally gotten "good enough" to be called hi-fi; guys who own no furniture but drop SIX GRAND on a TURNTABLE - generally do accept FLAC as "CD quality", if not quite as good as the best vinyl.
Take that for whatever it may be worth to you.
Lossless means that no audio information is lost?!?!? But, there MUST BE SOME QUALITY LOSS!
(Bad joke, of course.)
This discussion is hilarious.
"Virtual lossless"; "high-quality silence"... This topic has made my day. Thank you all!
Lossless means that no audio information is lost?!?!? But, there MUST BE SOME QUALITY LOSS!
Luckily most people don't realize that the audio data on SACD is losslessly compressed. Will it still sound as good when you know ?
Well, in that case, you're wrong. Mathematically altering audio data while, to the listener, retaining perceptible identicality to the source is transparency. And WaxCyl, I sincerely hope that your post was a (bad) joke.
Of course it was a joke.... but what do you mean by BAD joke?
(Well I thought it was funny anyway)
I have tried about 10 WAV(CD or microphone recording by my mouth)
the MD5 sum(even SHA256, if I got a hash collision, i would win 100 lotteries) of orginal WAVE and compressed->decompressed wav
They are all identical!
They are all identical!
surprise surprise