NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 945
-
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
Chuck Gerlach
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2016
- Messages
- 52
- Likes
- 34
This thread feels a whole lot like the total crap/BS/garbage/arguing/name calling that I read on WBF and the reason I quit posting there. I thought this was a 'science" forum, but apparently not. Very disappointing to say the least. At least AVS limits this kind of nonsense.
Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 634
Fair enough, Chuck. But, do you have any reactions to the Zelig/Clawson paper or to WAV vs. FLAC?
I basically agree, we have allowed ourselves to guide this tech thread way off topic with our joking and teasing each other. Sorry that you found this serious thread so polluted. I for one am going back and deleting my posts that have contributed to this mess.
Cheers
Oh … I just thought we were giving this topic the seriousness it deserves! Lol
If anyone wants to post positive ABX results comparing WAV vs. FLAC, then maybe we'll have something to discuss...
Chuck Gerlach
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2016
- Messages
- 52
- Likes
- 34
You are asking the wrong guy. (1) The guy that built my music server likes WAV files so that it what I listen to. (2) I have long ago quit spending time listening for minute differences (that may or my not exist). If I have to "squint" to hear it, I don't care to try. I used to spend huge amounts of time doing so and in addition to costing me tons of money, it took too much away from the real purpose of the hobby - listening to music stress free. (3) About the same time I implemented (2) above, I also started submitting myself to blind listening tests whenever possible. And that is when I finally decided that if differences existed in as many products that "experts" claimed they did, I could not hear them on a consistent basis. I will not state that differences don't exist, only that I either can't hear when I don't know what I am listening to ..... or don't care.
Specifically as it relates to FLAC vs WAV, I do not hear a difference when listening blind. In fact, I also don't hear a difference (when blind) between well done 16/44 and the 24/192 CD's where I have duplicates. I can easily hear those differences when not blind (I am so very subject to expectation bias) but never when I don't know what I am listening to.
And, for what it's worth, I'm old enough to have far less than great hearing.
While I don't mind the levity (charter of the forum is to have fun and discuss technical topics), we need to distinguish ourselves from the type of name calling that goes on with forum orthodox objectivists. While I don't agree in the slightest that AVS Forum limits that (I spent a lifetime there and it is all name calling when these topics come out), your larger point is made and one that I wanted to point out earlier. So I very much appreciate that.
TBone
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2016
- Messages
- 1,191
- Likes
- 348
same level of seriousness here, but in all seriousness, easy experiment ...
convert any wav file to flac.
Track.1) +metadata, convert to wav.
Track.2) -metadata, convert to wav.
measure the 2 wav files just to check they're identical.
shuffle the 2 wavs/songs and hide any # indicator.
to measure the height of the image; any sewing kit ...
![sewing-tape-measures-60-150cm-dressmaking-[2]-12184-p.jpg](http://www.beyond-fabrics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/ehirschfeld/images/sewing-tape-measures-60-150cm-dressmaking-[2]-12184-p.jpg)
Chuck Gerlach
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2016
- Messages
- 52
- Likes
- 34
While I don't agree in the slightest that AVS Forum limits that (I spent a lifetime there and it is all name calling when these topics come out), your larger point is made and one that I wanted to point out earlier. So I very much appreciate that.
They may not limit it but at least in the threads I visit, I see virtually non. About the only [negative] posts I see are those aimed at the pure subjectivist (and it usually surrounds cables/wire).
I thought something has changed there given your comment but it has not. I glanced at the first topic that triggers such arguments there, the metadata analysis and I see this: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...esolution-audio-perception-meta-analysis.html
"Can't wait [not really] to read what the audiophool press will come up with to try to discredit, or flat out dismiss this report"
That's post 6 with an official member of the forum creating the thread (scott) so reporting would have been easy. But the name calling of the other side remains front and center.
Anyway, as I said, I agree that we should be above such things and not ridicule the other camp. We have a ton in common with them which is the love of music. Professionalism should be front and center here.
NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 945
♦ http://www.audiostream.com/content/its-official-people-can-hear-high-res#pvO4AlzARsBZKcf5.97
♦ And right here, one day before Scott Wilkinson started his thread: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...es-meta-analysis-on-audibility-of-hi-res.604/
• http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296
• http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160717/18296.pdf
____
@Chuck; post more, about movies and music you love, in your systems @ home; what they do to you inside. ...Here @ ASR, @ WBF and @ AVS. ...Forget the rest, do what you have to do to be happy on this planet with the people you get along with.
I value your experience, I value you. We cannot generalize anything, we cannot judge anyone, we cannot rely on anyone but us. But we're much stronger working/sharing as a team in the right directions. ...Be it FLAC or WAV.
♦ And right here, one day before Scott Wilkinson started his thread: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...es-meta-analysis-on-audibility-of-hi-res.604/
• http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296
• http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160717/18296.pdf
____
@Chuck; post more, about movies and music you love, in your systems @ home; what they do to you inside.
...Here @ ASR, @ WBF and @ AVS. ...Forget the rest, do what you have to do to be happy on this planet with the people you get along with. I value your experience, I value you. We cannot generalize anything, we cannot judge anyone, we cannot rely on anyone but us. But we're much stronger working/sharing as a team in the right directions. ...Be it FLAC or WAV.
Last edited:
It truly is stunning to see subjectivist audiophiles suddenly siding with DBT and trumpeting that things have finally been "proven." Such hypocrisy.
And as for the meta analysis, unless I'm misreading it, all we know is that some difference was heard in a small percentage of trials. It would be hypocritical of me to dismiss the results just because they aren't what I expect, but the fact that we're even still having this debate shows that hi-res is nowhere near as audible as audiophiles claim. The great benefits of hi-res nearly always disappear when listeners are subjected to blind testing. That means that there's still a lot of mass delusion going on...probably because the brains of most audiophiles subconsciously scheme to make sure they never fail to hear a difference.
More testing is obviously needed to pin down exactly what caused those positive results. I don't see how we can eliminate the possibility that it's some unintended artifact (IM distortion, a "tell," etc.). The author claims in the press release that the results demonstrate hi-res provides a "small but important" increase in sound quality. Unless someone can explain how the data support that conclusion, it seems like pure conjecture on his part. Did that bias influence the way he weighted and analyzed the various studies? I guess we won't know for sure until someone else attempts more testing.
After all these years of failed ABX tests, I doubt we're going to suddenly start seeing anything different. Although, now that so many audiophiles have embraced controlled testing...
And as for the meta analysis, unless I'm misreading it, all we know is that some difference was heard in a small percentage of trials. It would be hypocritical of me to dismiss the results just because they aren't what I expect, but the fact that we're even still having this debate shows that hi-res is nowhere near as audible as audiophiles claim. The great benefits of hi-res nearly always disappear when listeners are subjected to blind testing. That means that there's still a lot of mass delusion going on...probably because the brains of most audiophiles subconsciously scheme to make sure they never fail to hear a difference.
More testing is obviously needed to pin down exactly what caused those positive results. I don't see how we can eliminate the possibility that it's some unintended artifact (IM distortion, a "tell," etc.). The author claims in the press release that the results demonstrate hi-res provides a "small but important" increase in sound quality. Unless someone can explain how the data support that conclusion, it seems like pure conjecture on his part. Did that bias influence the way he weighted and analyzed the various studies? I guess we won't know for sure until someone else attempts more testing.
After all these years of failed ABX tests, I doubt we're going to suddenly start seeing anything different. Although, now that so many audiophiles have embraced controlled testing...
Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 634
I think it is important to keep a level head and focus on the science and the issues that are being discussed in a particular published paper. This thread is about an obviously, really grossly dubious paper from a science standpoint, which allegedly demonstrates a perceptable difference between FLAC and WAV. There is no comparison between this "pseudoscience" paper and the Reiss paper on the perception of hi rez vs. RBCD, a different topic and a different paper. To believe they are somehow similar is naive and it totally misses the scientific substance of the two papers.
Also, how or on what basis "subjectivist" and "objectivist" audiophiles think or react to each paper sheds little light on the papers themselves, their methods or their conclusions. We know that considerable bias exists in audiophile listening reactions, and it also exists in their reading of and reactions to published papers and studies. Hence, some subjectivists, who normally demonize bias controlled, double blind studies, find themselves cheering for the conclusions of Reiss paper or vice versa.
Your own biases are quite obvious, by the way. The Reiss paper does not at all say that a difference between hi rez and RBCD was heard "in a small number of trials". But, that is a different subject. My suggestion is that we discuss that paper in more detail in the appropriate thread.
Sorry … I was just responding to the link that NorthSky posted. My apologies if it's the wrong thread. I wasn't saying the meta analysis is pseudoscience at all. I don't agree with the author's biased comments at all, but the study may be just fine scientifically.
Of course I am biased! That's why I don't rely on my subjective opinion. I do tend to be biased toward the side of established physics and science, and I won't apologize for that.
So much in the audio game is about some "unintended artifact" - I've been driven crazy over the years, trying to nail what is causing some quality in the sound that I don't believe should be there. The only workable approach, IMO, is to build up a strong understanding within oneself, as to how the sound should come across subjectively - that becomes the "reference", and if what you hear doesn't measure up, then it's faulty, pure and simple. An extremely practical and effective approach, for me at least - it's always allowed me to move in a positive direction in getting optimum sound.
And just such an approach told me straightaway that there was nothing useful in hi res - it's just another technique for getting practical systems to deliver competent sound; and that's all there is to it ...
How dare you, sir.
Alas a few ABX doesn't work for that...too many Type II errors. You'll need thousands of subjects doing thousands of tests in a precise way, to disprove the sincere testimony of online and print audiophiles listening in all sorts of ways, who swear they hear a difference.
And even then, maybe not.
NEXT!
Last edited:
Not just proven. *Official*. Mike Lavorgna of Stereophile says so.
As Dr. Reiss says, "Audio purists and industry should welcome these findings – our study finds high resolution audio has a small but important advantage in its quality of reproduction over standard audio content.”
(I didn't actually see that as conclusion in his paper, but you know, press release, yadda yadda. And yeah, I bet industry will welcome the$e finding$.)
But...even some old white guy with zero social skills could hear it!
