• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Comparing CD ripper outputs ?

here's from another article:
Influence of FLAC Compression Level on Sound Quality
In our previous series on computer audio (TAS Issues 218–221), we reported a sonic degradation when WAV files were compressed into the FLAC format. These results were disputed by those who claimed this was impossible since once the files were converted back to WAV, the files were bit identical. We made the same measurements on the digital files ourselves and obtained the same results. Yet we stood by our subjective results then and continue to do so now. The problem is that measuring digital files themselves has no bearing on the ambient jitter coming from a variety of sources generated within a computer, and it does not reveal audible sonic differences. Only when the digital information is transformed to analog by the DAC do these sonic differences become manifest. So we decided to ask whether we could make meaningful measurements using the subjective and objective methodology we described in Part 1 of this new series. The degradation that occurs when playing FLAC files over a range of different compression levels as assessed with these two methods is shown in Figure 1.

Fig%201.png


A serious degree of sonic degradation is heard when WAV files are compressed using FLAC. It appears to follow a regular, negative hyperbolic pattern, whether quantified subjectively or by the more objective technique of height measurement. These results agree with our previous finding that FLAC compression of a WAV file (at level 5 in dBPA) degrades playback sound quality (SQ) from a typical PC server (see TAS, Issue 220, Feb. 2012). Under the circumstances of this experiment, we found that the height method was significantly more sensitive than our subjective method. We also show the actual percentage compression at each setting within dBPA. Counterintuitively, it can be seen that there is no quantitative proportionality whatsoever between the degree of compression and sound degradation. We have also examined the effect of the so-called “U” or uncompressed setting on sound quality found on recent versions of dBPA. This setting is not the same as the “0” setting, and it produces a file about 1% larger than the original WAV file (data not shown). The sound quality of this file is still not equal to the parent WAV, but the degradation is close to the detection limits of either of our two methods, something on the order of about 5 points on our subjective scale and within 2 inches on our height scale. As for why this degradation occurs when using FLAC files, we can only speculate that real time format decompression somehow creates an extra drain on computer CPU resources that occurs concurrently with the digital- to-analog conversion step, presumably mediated by an increase in system jitter. Given the apparent audibility of pico-second and even femto-second jitter, perhaps it should come as no surprise that the ear can detect the effect of lossless decompression on SQ. The magnitude of this degradation might well vary with the number of other background processes running simultaneously on a given computer. The solution to this problem is to convert compressed files to WAV, store to the hard drive, and use these files for critical listening. This is what we have done for all of our high resolution downloads1. On the basis of these results, we strongly encourage all commercial download sites to offer the customer the purchase option of a completely un-manipulated WAV file or, for purposes of metadata convenience with some playback programs, minimally compressed FLAC files using the U setting found in dBPA, despite commercial resistance to following this advice.

 
here's from another article:
Influence of FLAC Compression Level on Sound Quality
In our previous series on computer audio (TAS Issues 218–221), we reported a sonic degradation when WAV files were compressed into the FLAC format. These results were disputed by those who claimed this was impossible since once the files were converted back to WAV, the files were bit identical. We made the same measurements on the digital files ourselves and obtained the same results. Yet we stood by our subjective results then and continue to do so now. The problem is that measuring digital files themselves has no bearing on the ambient jitter coming from a variety of sources generated within a computer, and it does not reveal audible sonic differences. Only when the digital information is transformed to analog by the DAC do these sonic differences become manifest. So we decided to ask whether we could make meaningful measurements using the subjective and objective methodology we described in Part 1 of this new series. The degradation that occurs when playing FLAC files over a range of different compression levels as assessed with these two methods is shown in Figure 1.

Fig%201.png


A serious degree of sonic degradation is heard when WAV files are compressed using FLAC. It appears to follow a regular, negative hyperbolic pattern, whether quantified subjectively or by the more objective technique of height measurement. These results agree with our previous finding that FLAC compression of a WAV file (at level 5 in dBPA) degrades playback sound quality (SQ) from a typical PC server (see TAS, Issue 220, Feb. 2012). Under the circumstances of this experiment, we found that the height method was significantly more sensitive than our subjective method. We also show the actual percentage compression at each setting within dBPA. Counterintuitively, it can be seen that there is no quantitative proportionality whatsoever between the degree of compression and sound degradation. We have also examined the effect of the so-called “U” or uncompressed setting on sound quality found on recent versions of dBPA. This setting is not the same as the “0” setting, and it produces a file about 1% larger than the original WAV file (data not shown). The sound quality of this file is still not equal to the parent WAV, but the degradation is close to the detection limits of either of our two methods, something on the order of about 5 points on our subjective scale and within 2 inches on our height scale. As for why this degradation occurs when using FLAC files, we can only speculate that real time format decompression somehow creates an extra drain on computer CPU resources that occurs concurrently with the digital- to-analog conversion step, presumably mediated by an increase in system jitter. Given the apparent audibility of pico-second and even femto-second jitter, perhaps it should come as no surprise that the ear can detect the effect of lossless decompression on SQ. The magnitude of this degradation might well vary with the number of other background processes running simultaneously on a given computer. The solution to this problem is to convert compressed files to WAV, store to the hard drive, and use these files for critical listening. This is what we have done for all of our high resolution downloads1. On the basis of these results, we strongly encourage all commercial download sites to offer the customer the purchase option of a completely un-manipulated WAV file or, for purposes of metadata convenience with some playback programs, minimally compressed FLAC files using the U setting found in dBPA, despite commercial resistance to following this advice.


Please use more discretion in what you consider legitimate sources. You are posting absolute horseshit.
 
I'm sorry, but that article is absolute pseudoscience rubbish. Instead of doing a trivial bitstream comparison, they invented their own measurement of "height":
your avatar says "addicted to fun and learning" lol.

so now you don't even trust info coming from a doctor?

like i said try it yourself. rip the same cd with "windows media player" "EAC" and "Foobar200" at stock settings then do an extraction to wav and manual conversion of wav to FLAC level 0 (i use FLAC Frontend) and see which one sounds closest to the wav file. if you're not "open to learning" then just leave it be. once again the tip was for the OP and anyone else that can hear the difference. i gave you multiple articles read as proof of my claim. i'm leaving it at that. have a good day sir.
 
your avatar says "addicted to fun and learning" lol.

so now you don't even trust info coming from a doctor?

This is a joke, right? Please tell us that you're joking.

like i said try it yourself. rip the same cd with "windows media player" "EAC" and "Foobar200" at stock settings then do an extraction to wav and manual conversion of wav to FLAC level 0 (i use FLAC Frontend) and see which one sounds closest to the wav file. if you're not "open to learning" then just leave it be. once again the tip was for the OP and anyone else that can hear the difference. i gave you multiple articles read as proof of my claim. i'm leaving it at that. have a good day sir.

There's no need to try it, just as there's no need to jump off a bridge to know that gravity still works.

The articles you gave us to support your claims are complete garbage, as explained in previous posts.
 
Please use more discretion in what you consider legitimate sources. You are posting absolute horseshit.
tell that to "The Absolute Sound" magazine and Dr. Charles Zeilig And Jay Clawson of HiFi Critic. did you even read the articles? how is that "horseshit"?

and like i said like the OP i'm not the only one hearing a difference in the sound. if you don't then whatever just move along.
 
There's a nice 11 page thread here on ASR from all the way back in 2016 that shows how it's horseshit. I linked it above. Did you read it?

:facepalm:
 
The thing about conventional wisdom is that it often tends to be more conventional than it is wise. I suggest trying to rip a few of the same CDs to .wav or .aif format and then comparing to the CD. Draw your own conclusions.

It is clear that not everyone is sensitive to it but I do know a number of folks who have started saying what I've been saying for years: Theory notwithstanding, formats like flac don't sound the same and raw PCM (e.g. .aif or .wav).

Some folks who don't want to believe this will say it is the playback gear that is at fault. Perhaps. If so, I'm just unfortunate in that none of the gear I've heard is "good" enough to obscure the differences, whether the comparisons are sighted or blind.

But that's just me. What is important for you is what you hear. Hence, I suggest a test ripping to raw PCM. It will be interesting to read about your experience if you try this.

Have fun!

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 
More garbage sources. Are you trolling? Do you understand the importance of controls in listening assessments? Do you understand at all how digital audio works?
 
did you even read ANY of my other posts? accurateRip ONLY TESTS WAV EXTRACTION not the resulting flac file.
So what? FLAC is bitperfect. Convert is to wav and then do the verification. Either way if it says it is accurate then all is good. I don't get what the issue is.
 
So what? FLAC is bitperfect. Convert is to wav and then do the verification. Either way if it says it is accurate then all is good. I don't get what the issue is.
The issue is believing uncontrolled listening tests are in any way valid, and not just an exercise in imagination.
 
your avatar says "addicted to fun and learning" lol.

so now you don't even trust info coming from a doctor?
Dr. Charles Zeilig is a doctor in biology. This doesn't qualify him regarding regarding any engineering topic. This is also called an "argument by authority" and is commonly considered poor style in scientific circles - theories, arguments and measurements should be convincing based on their own qualities, not based on who brought them forward.

like i said try it yourself. rip the same cd with "windows media player" "EAC" and "Foobar200" at stock settings then do an extraction to wav and manual conversion of wav to FLAC level 0 (i use FLAC Frontend) and see which one sounds closest to the wav file. if you're not "open to learning" then just leave it be. once again the tip was for the OP and anyone else that can hear the difference. i gave you multiple articles read as proof of my claim. i'm leaving it at that. have a good day sir.
As explained multiple times already, doing sighted testing of audio stuff in general is a bad idea for a multitude of reasons and does not give you reliable results. If your testing is flawed, your results are flawed - as is the case here. Do the suggested test yourself: Use a WAV, compress it to FLAC level 6 and use the foobar ABX plugin to do a proper level-matched blind test between the two files. Report back with the print out from that.

Also, please don't take this the wrong way, but I know how convincing a couple of seemingly good graphs and some technobabble can be for non-engineers. But please believe me when I tell you that the sources you linked are absolute utter garbage from a scientific point of view. That's not your fault, the authors simply produced rubbish which looks OK at first glance. I'm pretty sure, though, that each and every graph and number they report is simply made up. None of it makes sense if you understand the underlying tech and their way of testing is just nonsense.
 
Hi Barry @d3adf1sh ,

I have had the discussion with our mutual and departed friend Alex Kethel and he was not able to convince me.
The claim was differences in sound even between identical WAV files from different storage media.
Have asked him the same question I am asking now.
What would be the 'mechanism' behind audible differences between identical files ?

You are posting in a forum where some technical explanation or evidence other than 'subjective opinions' are desired.

For those that are not aware Barry is an audio recording and mastering engineer with his own record label.
 
Last edited:
accurateRip ONLY TESTS WAV EXTRACTION not the resulting flac file.
Correct, what else could it do?

Next question: is FLAC really lossless?
Bit embarrassing to address this question as it is 2026.
Around 2010 when FLAC become the format of choice it was debated and of course the audiophiles heard all kind of differences in favor of WAV.

Anyway.
A simple test is convert WAV1 > FLAC > WAV2
Do a binary compare and you will notice that WAV1 and WAV2 are bit identical.
Use any compression level or do only 0 and 8, the result will always be the same, WAV1 and WAV2 are bit identical.
FLAC is lossless compression hence you won't have generation loss.

Another simple test is to use CUETools on WAV2. It will yield the same MD5 from the AccurateRip database as WAV1

BTW: Stereophile's John Atkinson refused to publish the Zeilig paper. Robert Harley wasn't that clever.
 
did you even read ANY of my other posts? accurateRip ONLY TESTS WAV EXTRACTION not the resulting flac file.
Your devotion to this non-point is laughable.

There is no 'dirty little secret' to lossless encoding. There is only audiophile gullibility.
 
Dr. Charles Zeilig is a doctor in biology.

Me too! Therefore what I say about FLAC is at least as true.

Again, I point the moderators to the phrase 'the ol' bum's rush'.

Hi Barry @d3adf1sh ,

I have had the discussion with our mutual and departed friend Alex Kethel and he was not able to convince me.
The claim was differences in sound even between identical WAV files from different storage media.
Have asked him the same question I am asking now.
What would be the 'mechanism' behind audible differences between identical files ?

You are posting in a forum where some technical explanation or evidence other than 'subjective opinions' are desired.

For those that are not aware Barry is an audio recording and mastering engineer with his own record label.
Oh jeez, is it Barry Diament?
 
Oh jeez, is it Barry Diament?
Yes .... apparently no ... just looked that way because @d3adf1sh did not make it clear it was a quote from another forum (full of misguided folks).

But it goes to show that even well seasoned sound/mixing engineers with an impressive track record and own recording label (great quality recordings b.t.w.) can be set on the wrong foot.
 
Last edited:
He's been spouting nonsense about digital for decades. See: Steve Hoffman's forum. I guarantee he has been to this rodeo before.

To the question 'how do engineers who believe silly audio myths manage to make great records?' , the answer is pretty straighforward if you think about it. It the same for audiophiles at home:
The silly rituals you engage in and beliefs you hold do no good but also do no harm to the sound quality; what makes the sound good are the non-silly practices

IOW as long as you are doing effective minimal quality control on gear, acoustics, levels, sourcing...the number of Hallographs in your mastering suite or the height of your cable lifters won't mean a damn thing...except to make you feel good.

1775596311368.png
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom