-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!
New "Science": FLAC vs. WAV
- Thread starter dallasjustice
- Start date
I must always form an association to remember what I want later; so here it is:
WAV file = riding a beautiful, smooth WAVE.
FLAC file = I need a FLACK JACKET to survive.
Not a joke; this will be my memory association.
iridium
WAV file = riding a beautiful, smooth WAVE.
FLAC file = I need a FLACK JACKET to survive.
Not a joke; this will be my memory association.
iridium
Not these guys again. Once again they claim to have done blind tests yet they will not disclose the protocol or the detailed reports. Just a summary with fantastical conclusions like height of the music changing with generations of files, metadata, etc.
I will put forward $5,000 of my money to show that they are complete farce. I will go to where they are, play the same files they say they can detect these differences in, and see if they can get the same outcomes they say they can. I am confident they will lose and will lose big. Let's see if they accept the challenge and how much money they will put forward to defend their beliefs.
They are doing so much damage to the cause of high fidelity sound reproduction. So many believers are going to now strip out album arts, thinking that degrades audio.
I will put forward $5,000 of my money to show that they are complete farce. I will go to where they are, play the same files they say they can detect these differences in, and see if they can get the same outcomes they say they can. I am confident they will lose and will lose big. Let's see if they accept the challenge and how much money they will put forward to defend their beliefs.
They are doing so much damage to the cause of high fidelity sound reproduction. So many believers are going to now strip out album arts, thinking that degrades audio.
Good grief...
Guess they had to do something different since numerous trials show FLAC is, well, lossless, like the "L" implies, and the input and output files are identical after decoding.
Did they compare their tape measure to a NIST standard at the start and end, and verify it did not shift position during the test? What about atmospheric temperature and pressure? Heaven knows their ears and memory are perfect, goes without saying...
<elided off-topic comment, sorry>
(Moderator) I did not have a problem with it
Guess they had to do something different since numerous trials show FLAC is, well, lossless, like the "L" implies, and the input and output files are identical after decoding.
Did they compare their tape measure to a NIST standard at the start and end, and verify it did not shift position during the test? What about atmospheric temperature and pressure? Heaven knows their ears and memory are perfect, goes without saying...
<elided off-topic comment, sorry>
(Moderator) I did not have a problem with it
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's Rev this thread up with cable controversy, funny thing is saying cables make little difference is the thing that's controversial...worlds gone MAD
OP
dallasjustice
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #8
Amir,
You are the one always saying the subjectivists never want to test their findings with blind testing. Now that they have a "study" to prove what they are saying, you want to dismiss it. How open-minded of you! Maybe you never heard of "bit rot."
The velocity of sound is related to temperature and humidity. The frequency response in a room, unless it is completely anechoic and/or perfectly climate-controlled, will change with changes in weather. Wonder if that matters in this sort of study...
Amir,
You are the one always saying the subjectivists never want to test their findings with blind testing. Now that they have a "study" to prove what they are saying, you want to dismiss it. How open-minded of you! Maybe you never heard of "bit rot."
If it's a blind test who is reading the measuring tape?
The only thing I see blind is the supervision of the tests.
Just like all other subjective claims any evidence has to be transparent to all concerned.
Where's the beef?
Just like all other subjective claims any evidence has to be transparent to all concerned.
Where's the beef?
They did a single blind test alright. They kept one eye closed and the other open!
Again, if anyone can reach them, let them know that they can win a $5,000 prize if they can repeat their results in front of me.
Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 642
Does anyone actually know what Dr. Charles Zelig has a doctorate in? I cannot find it a second time, but I believe I saw a reference to something medically related. And, as we know, that makes all the difference when it comes to assessments of audio, especially those done "scientifically" by tape measure and subjective listening. And, he knows how to draw "relevant" graphs to prove his point. That is for sure.
I just love guys who throw their irrelevant doctorates around to seemingly enhance their status in an unrelated field. But, alas, I only have a Master's degree, so I cannot do that. My opinion is obviously worthless and not credible.
I just love guys who throw their irrelevant doctorates around to seemingly enhance their status in an unrelated field. But, alas, I only have a Master's degree, so I cannot do that. My opinion is obviously worthless and not credible.
Blumlein 88
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 22,996
- Likes
- 42,717
Can anyone dowload the link in this summary article to obtain the full report? I get a 404 on it.
They say their methodology is described there as well as in previous TAS articles.
I know I wasted enough time deciphering their bull $hite in the TAS articles. They never actually told you exactly how they did single blind. They constructed a scale numerically with long subjective sighted listening. Then corroborated it with estimates subjectively done (which may have been single blind they never really quite told anyone). Then found the height measure to be more accurate and consistent than their subjectively developed points scale. Then proceeded by listening and estimating heights. Again never saying if it was blind at all and if so how.
It is curious height would pop out as being so hugely obvious (they are talking some large differences) and they surmise it is from very small levels of jitter due to computer activity with the two formats at least until this most recent article. We know height is perceived as a moving notch filter between about 6 khz and 12 khz. The higher notch in response being higher elevation. My guess is they don't know this and have pictured in their mind height represents an expanded enhanced sound field from lower jitter. Such an effect should cause a measurable change in the analog output.
I also note if nothing has changed in all their tests they run the signal thru a processor (BSG qølTM processor) which basically does some matrix manipulation to improve the size of the soundstage. It is essentially a fixed Mid-Side processor to widen the sound of things. It was subject of a thread at WBF forums. It basically does mid-side processing the way the Blumlein shuffler circuit did. You shelf up a few db the frequencies below 700 hz, and ramp down some upper frequencies a bit less. Mix back together with emphasis on the Side or difference channel between the stereo signals.
They say their methodology is described there as well as in previous TAS articles.
I know I wasted enough time deciphering their bull $hite in the TAS articles. They never actually told you exactly how they did single blind. They constructed a scale numerically with long subjective sighted listening. Then corroborated it with estimates subjectively done (which may have been single blind they never really quite told anyone). Then found the height measure to be more accurate and consistent than their subjectively developed points scale. Then proceeded by listening and estimating heights. Again never saying if it was blind at all and if so how.
It is curious height would pop out as being so hugely obvious (they are talking some large differences) and they surmise it is from very small levels of jitter due to computer activity with the two formats at least until this most recent article. We know height is perceived as a moving notch filter between about 6 khz and 12 khz. The higher notch in response being higher elevation. My guess is they don't know this and have pictured in their mind height represents an expanded enhanced sound field from lower jitter. Such an effect should cause a measurable change in the analog output.
I also note if nothing has changed in all their tests they run the signal thru a processor (BSG qølTM processor) which basically does some matrix manipulation to improve the size of the soundstage. It is essentially a fixed Mid-Side processor to widen the sound of things. It was subject of a thread at WBF forums. It basically does mid-side processing the way the Blumlein shuffler circuit did. You shelf up a few db the frequencies below 700 hz, and ramp down some upper frequencies a bit less. Mix back together with emphasis on the Side or difference channel between the stereo signals.
Blumlein 88
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 22,996
- Likes
- 42,717
Physiology and oncology I believe. You can find it on linkedin.
I believe this is the guy.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-zeilig-63635316
I see he has a store, HiFi Doctor.
Last edited:
Keith_W
Major Contributor
The link for me does not work either. But I had, and read multiple times their article in TAS. It says nothing about the methodology, the stats, etc. It is a carbon copy of this one saying it is single blind and that is that.
Mivera
Major Contributor
The worlds top DAC chip engineers also agree Wav is better than FLAC as well. So these guys must be onto something. Sounds better to me ears as well. I suppose the key is know how things actually work. Either that or have the ability to hear.
If one looks at the conclusion to the article, the key point is expressly stated - the processing of the data varies between FLAC and WAV, and imperfect isolation of the analogue side from electrical effects of the variation in digital processing is enough to "do the damage". Yes, competent design should eliminate such impact, but the reality is that nearly all real world circuitry is "not good enough" - hence the result ...
They aren't on to anything. Designing DACs teaches you nothing about proper audio evaluation.
I know how they work and I can assure you that your impressions are wrong.
