Skip to main content
Topic: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version? (Read 1905 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

After encoding some hires WAV files into FLAC, I (for the hell of it) did a listening test to see whether I could tell the difference between the two. Surprisingly, I could. More tests got me the same results. I then, at random, chose 16bit lossless files and ran the same tests & got the same results also.

Now all this was done with the latest version of NetRanger's FLAC build. I then tried the same tests with John33's version of FLAC to see if I'd get the same results. Instead, I got what I was supposed to get: identical sounding files.

To sum it up: Something in GIT, after John33 made his version of FLAC 1.3.2, popped up there that resulted in FLAC files having deadened sound, IMO.

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #1
Code: [Select]
C:\Users\manea\Music>"flac NETRANGER.exe" -8 "01-03. Last Goodbye.wav" -o "01-03. Last Goodbye NETRANGER.flac"

flac 1.3.2
Copyright (C) 2000-2009  Josh Coalson, 2011-2016  Xiph.Org Foundation
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.  This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.  Type `flac' for details.

01-03. Last Goodbye.wav: wrote 35423927 bytes, ratio=0.729

C:\Users\manea\Music>"flac JOHN33.exe" -8 "01-03. Last Goodbye.wav" -o "01-03. Last Goodbye JOHN33.flac"

flac 1.3.2
Copyright (C) 2000-2009  Josh Coalson, 2011-2016  Xiph.Org Foundation
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.  This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.  Type `flac' for details.

01-03. Last Goodbye.wav: wrote 35423927 bytes, ratio=0.729

C:\Users\manea\Music>"flac NETRANGER.exe" -d "01-03. Last Goodbye NETRANGER.flac"

flac 1.3.2
Copyright (C) 2000-2009  Josh Coalson, 2011-2016  Xiph.Org Foundation
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.  This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.  Type `flac' for details.

01-03. Last Goodbye NETRANGER.flac: done

C:\Users\manea\Music>"flac JOHN33.exe" -d "01-03. Last Goodbye JOHN33.flac"

flac 1.3.2
Copyright (C) 2000-2009  Josh Coalson, 2011-2016  Xiph.Org Foundation
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.  This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.  Type `flac' for details.

01-03. Last Goodbye JOHN33.flac: done

C:\Users\manea\Music>FC "01-03. Last Goodbye JOHN33.wav" "01-03. Last Goodbye NETRANGER.wav"
Comparing files 01-03. Last Goodbye JOHN33.wav and 01-03. LAST GOODBYE NETRANGER.WAV
FC: no differences encountered

The encoders aren't the issue, something wrong with your playback most likely. Replaygain maybe?
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #2
The idea alone performing listening tests between flac versions when they create valid files sounds strange and need a valid setup to satisfy our TOS8.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #3
We should give the OP a chance to provide samples and logged results from a valid double-blind test. Failing that this discussion will make its way into the recycle bin.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #4
Code: [Select]
C:\Users\manea\Music>"flac NETRANGER.exe" -8 "01-03. Last Goodbye.wav" -o "01-03. Last Goodbye NETRANGER.flac"

flac 1.3.2
Copyright (C) 2000-2009  Josh Coalson, 2011-2016  Xiph.Org Foundation
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.  This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.  Type `flac' for details.

01-03. Last Goodbye.wav: wrote 35423927 bytes, ratio=0.729

C:\Users\manea\Music>"flac JOHN33.exe" -8 "01-03. Last Goodbye.wav" -o "01-03. Last Goodbye JOHN33.flac"

flac 1.3.2
Copyright (C) 2000-2009  Josh Coalson, 2011-2016  Xiph.Org Foundation
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.  This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.  Type `flac' for details.

01-03. Last Goodbye.wav: wrote 35423927 bytes, ratio=0.729

C:\Users\manea\Music>"flac NETRANGER.exe" -d "01-03. Last Goodbye NETRANGER.flac"

flac 1.3.2
Copyright (C) 2000-2009  Josh Coalson, 2011-2016  Xiph.Org Foundation
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.  This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.  Type `flac' for details.

01-03. Last Goodbye NETRANGER.flac: done

C:\Users\manea\Music>"flac JOHN33.exe" -d "01-03. Last Goodbye JOHN33.flac"

flac 1.3.2
Copyright (C) 2000-2009  Josh Coalson, 2011-2016  Xiph.Org Foundation
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.  This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.  Type `flac' for details.

01-03. Last Goodbye JOHN33.flac: done

C:\Users\manea\Music>FC "01-03. Last Goodbye JOHN33.wav" "01-03. Last Goodbye NETRANGER.wav"
Comparing files 01-03. Last Goodbye JOHN33.wav and 01-03. LAST GOODBYE NETRANGER.WAV
FC: no differences encountered

The encoders aren't the issue, something wrong with your playback most likely. Replaygain maybe?


No. Both files were stripped of all metadata when I tested them.

BTW: Standard tests (i.e. md5 hash checks, bit comparision) won't pick this type of thing up. You have to use your ears to hear the difference. And, the last time I checked, this isn't the 1st time this has happened. I think something similar happened back in 2015. In any case, this just reminds me of how solid John33 is when it comes to creating his stuff.

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #5
BTW: Standard tests (i.e. md5 hash checks, bit comparision) won't pick this type of thing up. You have to use your ears to hear the difference.
This means that this difference doesn't exist in reality.
That's why proper double blind tests are necessary.

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #6
Quote from: ManInTheDark
BTW: Standard tests (i.e. md5 hash checks, bit comparision) won't pick this type of thing up. You have to use your ears to hear the difference.
This is exactly what it does, picks up any changes between files. if the files are bit identical then they can't be the source of any audio difference. Why would you think audio files are any different to any other format that are verified with checksums?

Probably easier if you just attach some short samples showing the problem.
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #7
If the decoded result is bit identical, but the files themselves are not bit identical, the only possible explanation of sounding different that *isn't* placebo, is that somehow, the processing and calculation order going into the decoder is different, resulting in different noise in your sound system.

It's more likely placebo, unless you are using "AC'97" onboard audio or front audio jacks from a really bad sound card. I can give an example of a front panel audio connector card that is broken, even though it's an allegedly "high quality" sound card: The Asus Xonar DX. It managed to have audible noise and crosstalk between the output and the microphone input, while my motherboard's onboard audio has no such thing. Such a setup could potentially also have audible noise from the CPU calculating, disk I/O happening, or even moving the mouse around.

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #8
But could the audible difference caused by the soundcard be directly correlated with the files?

I don’t buy it. Regardless, such difference can still be reveled with a properly controlled DBT, which includes the fb2k plugin.

Next post by the OP must include logged DBT results, per forum rules, despite his belief that such a test can’t reveal differences. Failure to conform will end in the termination of this discussion.

As far as we’re concerned: corrobatating evidence or it didn’t happen, as far as this forum is concerned.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?


Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #10
Code: [Select]
All tracks decoded fine, no differences found.

Comparing:
"C:\Users\manea\Music\01. John33_Court and Spark (featuring Norah Jones).flac"
"C:\Users\manea\Music\01. NetRanger_Court and Spark (featuring Norah Jones).flac"
Compared 1102501 samples.
No differences in decoded data found.
Channel peaks: 0.954407 (-0.41 dBTP) 0.926666 (-0.66 dBTP)

Total duration processed: 0:25.000
Time elapsed: 0:00.044
563.62x realtime
Code: [Select]
C:\Users\manea\Music>fc "01. John33_Court and Spark (featuring Norah Jones).flac" "01. NetRanger_Court and Spark (featuring Norah Jones).flac"
Comparing files 01. John33_Court and Spark (featuring Norah Jones).flac and 01. NETRANGER_COURT AND SPARK (FEATURING NORAH JONES).FLAC
FC: no differences encountered
Code: [Select]
PS C:\Users\manea> Get-FileHash "C:\Users\manea\Music\01. John33_Court and Spark (featuring Norah Jones).flac"

Algorithm       Hash                                                                   Path
---------       ----                                                                   ----
SHA256          531D378774D25FB4C9BA77CA76B0F11776399BD456610DBCDF3E67F5C0A189F6       C:\Users\manea\Music\01. John...


PS C:\Users\manea> Get-FileHash "C:\Users\manea\Music\01. NetRanger_Court and Spark (featuring Norah Jones).flac"

Algorithm       Hash                                                                   Path
---------       ----                                                                   ----
SHA256          531D378774D25FB4C9BA77CA76B0F11776399BD456610DBCDF3E67F5C0A189F6       C:\Users\manea\Music\01. NetR...

just had a quick listen, sound the same.

The files are bit identical, you can see that with the FLAC internal md5 checksum being the same between both encodes if the 3 examples above don't convince you. If the files are the same then there is something else in your playback chain that would be causing this difference.
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #11
just had a quick listen, sound the same.

...if the 3 examples above don't convince you...

I wouldn't even bother to have a listen after the 3 tests you've performed, you are too thorough and too nice.

Whatever audible difference their is, it's not coming from the bit identical files. Something is seriously wrong with any setup that produces an audible difference between those files. It would be like playing one file repeatedly and getting audible difference from one single file.

EDIT:
To not leave this in the air. I might suggest it could be a READ ERROR on the device? Maybe that storage device is not very reliable, or in it's finals days. Could also come from bad RAM? Or some other process is interfering with the test.



Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #13
I might suggest it could be a READ ERROR on the device?
It won't degrade "gracefully" if it makes read errors. '
More likely to make a difference, would be two files on different devices, where one is a (physically!) noisy drive and the other is not. Would be easily detectable by copying files back and forth.

Even more likely would be placebo.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #14
🤦🏻‍♂️

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #15
Bad ram?  I guess that ram decides to go bad when one file is being decoded and not the other?

Why are we speculating about possible causes of differences when there is zero evidence demonstrating that there are in fact differences?  The evidence suggests just the opposite: both files are bitwise identical when decoded.

Our rules are pretty clear: support your claims or don’t make them. I don’t see any reason to grant the benefit of the doubt under this condition.

Supporting evidence or it didn’t happen.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

 

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #17
Son of a bitch, I didn't read that comparison post fully, I take back what I said about processing and calculating, if the two compressed files are not just decoding the same data, but the compressed data itself is 100% identical, so the processing necessary to decode them would be 100% identical anyway. And I was just trying to come up with an answer for how anything other than the obvious placebo/troll could explain it, not actually postulate a legitimate proof of this idiocy.

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #18
We should give the OP a chance to provide samples and logged results from a valid double-blind test.

There. Satisfied?



I'm a troll & an idiot (nice one Kode54) for saying that I heard a difference between FLAC files created from NetRanger's & John33's FLAC encoders??? My system is just fine, RAM, headphones, new external sound card & everything else. What about your system? Or your hearing? Either one or the other sucks, or both suck. But don't be name-calling assholes just because you don't agree. Greynol included.

 BTW: Lock the thread. Dealing with the people in this thread is a waste of time.

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #19
Have you read what has been said in this thread? The two files are 100% identical. There is absolutely no way they could sound different since there is nothing different about them.

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #20
I guess I’m also a “name-calling asshole” who doesn’t agree with an unsupported anecdote. Yay for me.
Hydrogenaudio is supposed to be an objectively minded community that relies on double-blind testing and relevant methods of comparison in discussion about sound quality. The usual "audiophile" speak of non-audio related terms which are completely subjective and open to redefinition on a whim, are useless for any sort of progression in discussion.

This rule is the very core of Hydrogenaudio, so it is very important that you follow it.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,3974.html
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #21
What about your system? Or your hearing?

The files are identical. The only fault can be with something in your setup. Two files that are identical cannot sound different. They ARE the same data.

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #22
Hearing a difference isn't what makes you an idiot. I doubt there's a member of this forum that hasn't fooled himself sometime, thinking that he heard a difference between one thing and another. What makes you an idiot (or maybe a troll) is doubling down on your original statement with no real, controlled testing to back up your claim.

Re: FLAC sounds better with John33's version than NetRanger's version?

Reply #23
Do we really need to keep going with this topic?

ManInTheDark's statement has been proven false with multiple examples using the samples that he\she has provided.
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.


 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019