New "Science": FLAC vs. WAV

[NorthSky]

Frantz, can you hear the difference between FLAC and WAV?

 

[fas42]

Tim

If you can't hear the differences, it is because your system is not resolving enough. It is a well known fact that people who possess high resolving systems routinely hear differences no instruments can detect.

Unfortunately, that's exactly right!! ... If my system is working at an average level, say, decent normal audio replay, then all the things I worry about has almost no impact on the perceived quality - the closer I get to the standard that I always aim for the more every tiny aspect does have an audible effect - this is a huge pain in the bum, I would be happy to do without this behaviour ... but if you want Ferrari performance, then it means that the steering has to work as well at 180mph as it does in a normal car at 80mph ...

 

[alfe]

If you hear the difference you should be in this list: https://www.thedodo.com/10-animals-with-amazing-hearing-1130711602.html

 

[fas42]

By the measurements, of course.

Published measurements? BTW, rock'n'roll actually needs the highest quality playback standard to give up its treasures, - a system that does classical well can sound a mess with driving R&R, I always use the latter to "stress test" a supposedly quality system ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Frantz, can you hear the difference between FLAC and WAV?

I think Frantz was kidding.

Tim

If you can't hear the differences, it is because your system is not resolving enough. It is a well known fact that people who possess high resolving systems routinely hear differences no instruments can detect.

Unfortunately, that's exactly right!! ... If my system is working at an average level, say, decent normal audio replay, then all the things I worry about has almost no impact on the perceived quality - the closer I get to the standard that I always aim for the more every tiny aspect does have an audible effect - this is a huge pain in the bum, I would be happy to do without this behaviour ... but if you want Ferrari performance, then it means that the steering has to work as well at 180mph as it does in a normal car at 80mph ...

Having read a few hundred of your posts over the years, Frank, I have no reason to believe you've ever had a system that was capable of approaching the fidelity of my humble little active monitors, regardless of how many interconnects you have soldered to their jacks, or how much weight you've piled on top of your speakers. But I could be wrong. The details of your current system were what again?

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Sorry, but for those of us who don't have the same friends he has, "fairly well-accepted" does not constitute "Great info here."This is the same rationale that has been presented for every purpose-hobbled, or purpose-built audio computer. I've never seen any solid evidence backing it up. Have you? That would be useful here.

Tim

No? I didn't think so.

Tim

 

[NorthSky]

Oh, Frantz is a humorist too.

 

[Cosmik]

I see no difference between what is being said here and the very worst so-called 'subjective' forums.

As I said the other day, by starting down the path of regarding all supposedly blind listening tests as science, the audio science fraternity has given gormless people a licence to concoct whatever wild hypotheses they want to fit their own superstitions, and without any other measurements perform idiotic listening tests - always riddled with flaws, but try to prove it.

The entirely predictable consequence of this is claims of digital audio homeopathy i.e. a memory of a file format that lingers after the millionth generation copy, lossless file formats that affect the height of instruments, USB drives that sound better than SD cards and so on. This is the ultimate non-science, but it can't be stopped because every listening test is expensive and time consuming and flawed, so you can never disprove the hundreds of ridiculous 'tests' with ones of your own.

A very beautiful idea - digital audio - has now been trashed by morons, whose 'research' has been given extra weight because "listening tests" are promoted as the Gold Standard of audio science.

 

[fas42]

Having read a few hundred of your posts over the years, Frank, I have no reason to believe you've ever had a system that was capable of approaching the fidelity of my humble little active monitors, regardless of how many interconnects you have soldered to their jacks, or how much weight you've piled on top of your speakers. But I could be wrong. The details of your current system were what again?

Tim

We've been there too many times already, Tim - the system being humble, or staggeringly expensive has nothing to do with it, of course - it's whether it's been optimised in the areas that matter, and since you don't understand when I describe the audible behaviours of such a system it's obvious you haven't experienced such ...

 

[fas42]

A very beautiful idea - digital audio - has now been trashed by morons, whose 'research' has been given extra weight because "listening tests" are supposedly the Gold Standard of audio science.

Digital audio is "beautiful" - I have never used a turntable, or valves in 30 years - but listening does easily demonstrate problems with imperfect implementations, if one knows what to listen for. If the difference is there, there will always be a perfectly rational explanation - the hard part might be the measuring of this behaviour, using standard methods.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I see no difference between what is being said here and the very worst so-called 'subjective' forums.

As I said the other day, by starting down the path of regarding all supposedly blind listening tests as science, the audio science fraternity has given gormless people a licence to concoct whatever wild hypotheses they want to fit their own superstitions, and without any other measurements perform idiotic listening tests - always riddled with flaws, but try to prove it.

The entirely predictable consequence of this is claims of digital audio homeopathy i.e. a memory of a file format that lingers after the millionth generation copy, lossless file formats that affect the height of instruments, USB drives that sound better than SD cards and so on. This is the ultimate non-science, but it can't be stopped because every listening test is expensive and time consuming and flawed, so you can never disprove the hundreds of ridiculous 'tests' with ones of your own.

A very beautiful idea - digital audio - has now been trashed by morons, whose 'research' has been given extra weight because "listening tests" are promoted as the Gold Standard of audio science.

So you are saying we are seeing Gish Gallop style 'supposedly scientific' testing in the subjective audiophool world. I think the articles by Zeilig and Clawson certainly qualify as Gish Gallop testing.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Digital audio is "beautiful" - I have never used a turntable, or valves in 30 years - but listening does easily demonstrate problems with imperfect implementations, if one knows what to listen for. If the difference is there, there will always be a perfectly rational explanation - the hard part might be the measuring of this behaviour, using standard methods.

Which is just another shifty way of saying listening first, got to be a gifted listener and we can't yet measure this stuff though in principle we might. Only standard methods will never show it. So if one isn't you how do you go about putting together a system that works according to your criteria?

 

[NorthSky]

I see no difference between what is being said here and the very worst so-called 'subjective' forums.

As I said the other day, by starting down the path of regarding all supposedly blind listening tests as science, the audio science fraternity has given gormless people a licence to concoct whatever wild hypotheses they want to fit their own superstitions, and without any other measurements perform idiotic listening tests - always riddled with flaws, but try to prove it.

The entirely predictable consequence of this is claims of digital audio homeopathy i.e. a memory of a file format that lingers after the millionth generation copy, lossless file formats that affect the height of instruments, USB drives that sound better than SD cards and so on. This is the ultimate non-science, but it can't be stopped because every listening test is expensive and time consuming and flawed, so you can never disprove the hundreds of ridiculous 'tests' with ones of your own.

A very beautiful idea - digital audio - has now been trashed by morons, whose 'research' has been given extra weight because "listening tests" are promoted as the Gold Standard of audio science.

Best sound:
1. Analog open-reel-tapes.
2. Analog LPs (the good ones, not the bad ones).
3. Some digital mediums, like Crystal discs. ... Haute Resolution Musique Audio Paranormalité

As for objectivists and subjectivists they are 'complementists'...inseparable. ...Like best friends, best long lasting marriage unions.

 

[fas42]

Which is just another shifty way of saying listening first, got to be a gifted listener and we can't yet measure this stuff though in principle we might. Only standard methods will never show it. So if one isn't you how do you go about putting together a system that works according to your criteria?

It's nothing to do with being gifted, merely learning, one way or another, what to listen for - how to shift one's focus to certain aspects of the sound which one might normally ignore. Which also means selecting the right audio material to put on, which will provoke the system to misbehave - to repeat, sibilance from a female singer is an easy one, a poor system will exaggerate and unduly emphasis this characteristic of human vocals, make it sound unnatural; a good system will reproduce it so it comes across as being completely normal, just as it would from a live individual. The standard ways of measuring distortion, etc, as far as I'm aware aren't able to point to one system having this problems, versus another not having it.

I would keen to have all the answers on what to measure, so that I don't have to guess what needs to be improved to get the level of performance I'm after. A combination of experience from what I've done in the past, straight visual observation of the insides of equipment and how they're hooked together, and careful listening with the right source signals are how I diagnose systems - that adds up to making guesses which are mainly useful, get positive results. If I was starting from scratch with new, existing gear I would also use the technique that many here already use, which is to make sure I had lot and lots of headroom in acoustic capability.

 

[TBone]

2. Analog LPs (the good ones, not the bad ones).

ugly ones ...

 

[Blumlein 88]

It's nothing to do with being gifted, merely learning, one way or another, what to listen for - how to shift one's focus to certain aspects of the sound which one might normally ignore. Which also means selecting the right audio material to put on, which will provoke the system to misbehave - to repeat, sibilance from a female singer is an easy one, a poor system will exaggerate and unduly emphasis this characteristic of human vocals, make it sound unnatural; a good system will reproduce it so it comes across as being completely normal, just as it would from a live individual. The standard ways of measuring distortion, etc, as far as I'm aware aren't able to point to one system having this problems, versus another not having it.

I would keen to have all the answers on what to measure, so that I don't have to guess what needs to be improved to get the level of performance I'm after. A combination of experience from what I've done in the past, straight visual observation of the insides of equipment and how they're hooked together, and careful listening with the right source signals are how I diagnose systems - that adds up to making guesses which are mainly useful, get positive results. If I was starting from scratch with new, existing gear I would also use the technique that many here already use, which is to make sure I had lot and lots of headroom in acoustic capability.

There are systems that will make a female voice sound pretty natural. Take that same recording, put on another system, and it is sibilant. Which one is right and how would you know? Yet you could make measurements of the two systems. You could see if one has an FR that accentuates sibilance or if one has an FR that diminishes sibilance.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

A very beautiful idea - digital audio - has now been trashed by morons, whose 'research' has been given extra weight because "listening tests" are promoted as the Gold Standard of audio science.

This should be pinned to the homepage of all audiophile forums.

Tim

 

[Liberal Democracy]

So in fact there is little of any worth in this new 'science' regarding Flac vs Wav.

As far as I can tell no theory of potential difference has been back with data.

But Frank has the answers... Though He is not sharing them?

What Frank could do is take his ' enhanced ' system to audio shows and show it off! Behind a curtain if he is concerned some might prejudge his offering. He is sure to take over the world! All he needs to do is get these inexpensive designs made in China but with his enhancements and sell them under his own brand.." ASA by Frank"

If it's half as good as he claims he will make millions and the world will be a better place, albeit in a small way

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There are systems that will make a female voice sound pretty natural. Take that same recording, put on another system, and it is sibilant. Which one is right and how would you know? Yet you could make measurements of the two systems. You could see if one has an FR that accentuates sibilance or if one has an FR that diminishes sibilance.

...but then, if you know why it was sibilant, why it ceased to be sibilant, the magic disappears.

Tim

 

[fas42]

There are systems that will make a female voice sound pretty natural. Take that same recording, put on another system, and it is sibilant. Which one is right and how would you know? Yet you could make measurements of the two systems. You could see if one has an FR that accentuates sibilance or if one has an FR that diminishes sibilance.

Of course there are. And the one that is right is the one without the objectionable sibilance - FR manipulation is a way of reducing the impact, but the underlying cause of the unpleasantness is distortion - I've never had a sibilance issue on any of my systems once decently tuned up, with any recording. An interesting incident that happened years ago was an audiophile who was unfamiliar with my setup put on a recording of his, said, "Oooh, sibilance ..." but the system was well short of optimum at that moment - the artifact disappeared as full stability was reached.