188 replies to this topic

[haraldo]

Do FLAC files sound inferior to WAV files? Or more generally, do lossless compressed file formats (FLAC, ALAC, APE...) sound worse than their uncompressed twins? I've seen the argument that due to the extra processing imposed on your computer by FLAC, for example, during playback, this method is more prone to computer-introduced timing errors

http://www.audiostre...ontent/cut-flac

This is a shocker to me, can this really be the case?

Most players today do have quite big buffers so I reckoned any of these timing issues would be long gone, dead, buried........ but is this really so today?

I don't really want to have my files ripped to .wav anyways because it's really troublesome with storage of metadata, this is fine in flac, but if the lossless compression can cause issues, how to convert from .wav to .flac and using .flac file format without compression at all, if possible.... or is this article just plain rubbish?

I'm lost guys

Edited by haraldo, 08 May 2012 - 05:59 AM.

[LogicprObe]

As I have said before....................I only use wav.
People put too much faith in computers, I'm afraid.

[haraldo]

As I have said before....................I only use wav.
People put too much faith in computers, I'm afraid.

Well, if you use a logitech transporter or squeezebox, then it's not the computer doing decompressing but the transporter and then there's a 15 second memory buffer to cater for dropouts or timing issues, so how can there then be differences between .flac and .wav

Of course we can sit down with some redwine and listen very very close, ion order to find out, which is best for this..... Koonunga Hill or Lindeman Bin 45?

Edited by haraldo, 08 May 2012 - 06:30 AM.

[Robocop]

Do FLAC files sound inferior to WAV files?

I wouldn't say inferior they just don't sound as good as wave. We are not talking a big difference and in some systems hardly noticeable. Personally I only use wave as XXhighend prefers wave. If you only have flac files it converts them to wave anyway for playback. You need to try it yourself.

I do hear a difference on my system and storage is not a problem. Anything that improves the sound I support. The sum of all the small improvements adds up to alot.

Edited by Robocop, 08 May 2012 - 06:36 AM.

[LogicprObe]

Well, if you use a logitech transporter or squeezebox, then it's not the computer doing decompressing but the transporter and then there's a 15 second memory buffer to cater for dropouts or timing issues, so how can there then be differences between .flac and .wav

Of course we can sit down with some redwine and listen very very close, ion order to find out, which is best for this..... Koonunga Hill or Lindeman Bin 45?

Too early for a drink!...........well, today anyway...........I have to go to work now.

But haraldo, please tell more about this decoding thing inside the Logitech products.
Is it mechanical?............is Steampunk real?

[haraldo]

Too early for a drink!...........well, today anyway...........I have to go to work now.

But haraldo, please tell more about this decoding thing inside the Logitech products.
Is it mechanical?............is Steampunk real?

I'm in Kiev, Ukraine at the moment and it's redwine time, cheers

Will see if I can find out more tech info about how flac decoding is done in these products..... or were you being sarcastic?

I wouldn't say inferior they just don't sound as good as wave. We are not talking a big difference and in some systems hardly noticeable. Personally I only use wave as XXhighend prefers wave. If you only have flac files it converts them to wave anyway for playback. You need to try it yourself.

I do hear a difference on my system and storage is not a problem. Anything that improves the sound I support. The sum of all the small improvements adds up to alot.

Then this msut be depending on the H/W you're using, if it makes a difference to you.... doesn't mean it makes a difference to everyone else, but I believe that there may be a difference.....

I could easily discernce differences between .flac ripped by EAC and Winamp......

Edited by haraldo, 08 May 2012 - 06:49 AM.

[bhobba]

Depends on what player you use. I heard a distinct difference with earlier versions of Itunes (and playing from the CD was better again - go figure) but now with Audirvana and Bit Perfect I really cant although I have not done an in depth comparison. The reason is those players decode it into memory before playing so its virtually exactly the same as playing a wave file anyway.

Thanks
Bill

[Boots-n-All]

Hi there,

This raises some questions

- is a cdp superior to a computer?
- a cdp is a computer (optimised, but still a computer)!

_ what are the slowest parts of a computer?
- ethernet / optical drive / hard drive (roughly in order)

- what is the fastest part? - the processor(s)

Typically the processor can decode audio files many times faster than it
can actually get them - so if the file on the hard drive it will get it faster
and if it's compressed, then even faster!

So it can be seen that FLAC (if it is actually bit perfect) may have
advantages over WAV and this has been my rough observation when listening to
streamed music around my house (particularly 96/24).

But I could be wrong.

What do others think on this line?

Boots.

[gainphile]

FLAC is lossless and there is no reasons that it would be inferior or superior to WAV.

Quoting the article:

After a while, over time I began to hear differences. I'm not saying the FLAC version sounded bad or even hugely different but what I did notice was the FLAC version sounded less controlled. Less harmonically right like the microphone(s) were ever so slightly overloaded at times and lost, momentarily mind you, the music's snap, grip and flow.

is not something that's verifyable.

[holdencaulfield2007]

FLAC is lossless and there is no reasons that it would be inferior or superior to WAV.

FLAC reduces the size of the original file by compressing? Can someone please explain how it does this without reducing SQ and still be called lossless?
BTW I have never used FLAC or WAV so I am just asking out of curiosity!

[wolster]

FLAC reduces the size of the original file by compressing? Can someone please explain how it does this without reducing SQ and still be called lossless?
BTW I have never used FLAC or WAV so I am just asking out of curiosity!

HC, it only compresses for storage purposes. It restores to full size when loaded for playing.

[Drizt]

FLAC reduces the size of the original file by compressing? Can someone please explain how it does this without reducing SQ and still be called lossless?
BTW I have never used FLAC or WAV so I am just asking out of curiosity!

Think of a zip file for regular text documents.

It makes the file smaller without any loss. (unzips back to exactly the original file)

Same thing with lossless audio codecs.

[holdencaulfield2007]

Thank you Wolster and Drizt for the explanation on FLAC.

[DoggieHowser]

In a separate discussion, Steve Nugent thought that different versions of Amarra software sounded different.

You'd think Amarra would be the simplest algorithm: load music file into memory. Play bit perfect from memory.

And it does do just that - you can use the bitperfect tests on different SPDIF interfaces to test.

And yet because of the load on the processor, they can still sound different enough for Steve Nugent (designer of the off ramp) to make a call on which version he'd install.

Pure Music also has a similar optimization according to discussions with Rob, the software programmer.

[Jeff65]

All players convert non-PCM formats (FLAC, MP3) to PCM (=WAV) before playing.

[Spearmint]

I've noticed variations between different formats during playback. I now use AIFF for all streaming devices.

[nothing1]

The question i have always had was this, foobar shows the bit rate in the lower left hand corner and it is less than the 1411 kbs of wave, so if it is playing at say 800kbs how is that bit perfect. i mean how can something playing at 800 kbs be the same as 1411 kbs. If someone could explain that then to me all doubt shall be removed

[doobius]

^ The bit rate displayed is the amount of bits per second read, not the bit rate after expansion to PCM.

and here's a reference to further assuage those doubts: http://www.thewellte.../KB/BitRate.htm

Edited by doobius, 08 May 2012 - 12:40 PM.

[gainphile]

In a separate discussion, Steve Nugent thought that different versions of Amarra software sounded different.

You'd think Amarra would be the simplest algorithm: load music file into memory. Play bit perfect from memory.

And it does do just that - you can use the bitperfect tests on different SPDIF interfaces to test.

And yet because of the load on the processor, they can still sound different enough for Steve Nugent (designer of the off ramp) to make a call on which version he'd install.

Pure Music also has a similar optimization according to discussions with Rob, the software programmer.

A very high-resolution flac file, lets say 24/192khz is about 100+MB per song. That's very small compared to today's memory of 4GB+

Claims that these things sound different can't really be questioned nor verified if they are subjective impressions. e.g. I can claim that Linux media player sounds best, but at what basis?

If data is available, then it could be investigated, like http://linkwitzlab.com/links.htm#Sigma Delta

[nothing1]

^ The bit rate displayed is the amount of bits per second read, not the bit rate after expansion to PCM.

and here's a reference to further assuage those doubts: http://www.thewellte.../KB/BitRate.htm

Well that was simple, that was the only concern i had in regards to flac playback, thanks for clarifying that doobius.

[DoggieHowser]

A very high-resolution flac file, lets say 24/192khz is about 100+MB per song. That's very small compared to today's memory of 4GB+

Claims that these things sound different can't really be questioned nor verified if they are subjective impressions. e.g. I can claim that Linux media player sounds best, but at what basis?

If data is available, then it could be investigated, like http://linkwitzlab.com/links.htm#Sigma Delta

I believe Steve spoke to Amarra's designers as well who agreed with his assessment.

[millsy]

We've had this discussion in another thread
http://www.stereo.ne...__fromsearch__1

At the end of the day, some people believe there is a noticeable difference, others believe there are not.

My take on the matter is that bit perfect is bit perfect. If a squeezebox is sent raw decompressed output from the flac/alac/wav file, there won't be one iota of difference between them. Outside of unmeasurable differences people believe they can hear there is certainly no reason there should be any difference.

People over think some aspects of computer audio imho.

[LogicprObe]

Will see if I can find out more tech info about how flac decoding is done in these products..... or were you being sarcastic?

..

Yes..........I was being sarcastic...........sorry...........I was in a bit of a hurry!

What I meant was, ............all of these devices that can pack/unpack - code/decode are basically computers and can all suffer stress under load.

[Dr X]

My "piss ant" Intel i3 2100T processor idles at 2% when playing a flac file and performing digital volume control using JRiver Media Center.

The weather is a bit cloudy today up here for this time of year.

[LogicprObe]

My "piss ant" Intel i3 2100T processor idles at 2% when playing a flac file and performing digital volume control using JRiver Media Center.

The weather is a bit cloudy today up here for this time of year.

Yes...............but that doesn't stop Windows interrupting just waiting to do something else.

[Dr X]

Yes...............but that doesn't stop Windows interrupting just waiting to do something else.

And that doesn't mean it makes one ioata of difference to the final sound quality acheived.
But of course some poeple have "experienced" otherwise.

[LogicprObe]

And that doesn't mean it makes one ioata of difference to the final sound quality acheived.
But of course some poeple have "experienced" otherwise.

Interrupts, buffers, reprocessing, etc...........can all lead to jitter!............or worse!

[millsy]

Yes...............but that doesn't stop Windows interrupting just waiting to do something else.

At the end of the day unless you have a real time operating system that has the potential to be an issue. This is why I would suggest using something like a squeezebox as an inbetween, as you can have foobar or whatever with the song buffered in memory, running in real time, then buffered in the squeezebox which is far closer to a real time OS.
Even if it does switch threads, we're talking a 1000hz or better rate that threads are swapped.

And then we end up at the point of 'what can you actually hear?' Some people may hear other things more, I do not doubt that. But at the end of the day there's issues with any medium, personally I think the potential for a speck of dust on a record is riskier SQ wise than a 1/1000 of a second blip that may or may not exist.

I still can't find a description on what it sounds like that doesn't involve descriptions such as:

When jitter is cured the music becomes peaceful and powerful

Edited by millsy, 08 May 2012 - 04:03 PM.

[Dr X]

Interrupts, buffers, reprocessing, etc...........can all lead to jitter!............or worse!

Yes it can lead to the worst thing a good HIFI enthuist will ever want to experience...PARANOIA!

[datafone]

Or worse still, going in the other direction............ apathy.

Edited by datafone, 08 May 2012 - 04:26 PM.

[haraldo]

Interrupts, buffers, reprocessing, etc...........can all lead to jitter!............or worse!

I do use a quite ols Asus Eee laptop as a music server running Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop, when this is streaming via Squeezebox server software, I never see any CPU usage above 1 - 2 % which means the system is almost idling, it's all connected hardwired via ethernet so there should be no network issues, and I don't think there's any IO issues to talk about.

I do use a squeezebox connected to a Benchmark DAC-1, so the squeezebox is a digital only player... there is a 15 second buffer within the squeezebox so if I stop the server, the squeezebox will still play for a long time.... this setup is quite typical, I reckon....

With this as backgrounder I do have a hard time understanding where there could be timing issues because of the thing that the flac files are slightly compressed.....

I believe jitter issues must be related mainly to the digital interface to the dac then, yes? or no?

If you play diectly from computer, I believe the situation may be different as the computer is not a dedicated music player the same way as the squeezebox and high priority processes may interfere and then lead to these timing issues, perhaps this may be improved by taking away all processes that you don't need (uninstalling and/or stopping services), but this is not necessarily an easy task to do...

Hence playing from a somputer you're susceptible to jitter and situation may vary from music player to music player as architecture is different and processes run with different priorities interfering with S/W and H/W in different ways..... but it's hard to see how the usage of flac should make a difference because the decompressing runs at least 30 times quicker than what's really needed to playback the music file....

Well, we should just sit down and enjoy the music instead

Edited by haraldo, 08 May 2012 - 04:53 PM.

[joz]

Stop trying to be sensible Haraldo.
We wont have it I tell ya!

[LogicprObe]

The whole problem with computers is that they are constantly monitoring things and trying to anticipate what you want to do next.
Our aim is to get them just to concentrate on playing the music and ignore everything else!

The priority of music has always been low on the list of those creating operating systems...........although, I think the Linux ones may be more tweakable in this respect.

[millsy]

Windows +WASAPI + High Priority + SSD + Buffering tracks in ram is about as close to ideal as you'll get for windows, and I doubt linux can offer much more

On a side note, if there's a way I can introduce jitter into my system so I can hear it, I'd be interested to try it.

(As a sidenote, played a 24/192 flac whilst rendering a digital scene, 99-100% CPU usage, didn't hear a difference bar a slightly louder CPU fan)

[haraldo]

Stop trying to be sensible Haraldo.
We wont have it I tell ya!

It's because it's a while now since I been dowunder
every time I see a picture of a Kangaroo or Blue Winged Kookaburra... I miss South Australia a bit

And I agree, Linux is potentially better and you have more control

does anybody know how to convert to flac and not use compression at all, just flac format with all metadata headers and the audio data uncompressed, heard it's possible but haven't found out how to do this...

Edited by haraldo, 08 May 2012 - 07:52 PM.

[emesbee]

It's because it's a while now since I been dowunder
every time I see a picture of a Kangaroo or Blue Winged Kookaburra... I miss South Australia a bit

Never mind, looks like Norway and Australia have more in common than you might think. (Beautiful plumage, the Norwegian Blue. )
http://www.dailymail...ex-parrots.html

[millsy]

It's because it's a while now since I been dowunder
every time I see a picture of a Kangaroo or Blue Winged Kookaburra... I miss South Australia a bit

And I agree, Linux is potentially better and you have more control

does anybody know how to convert to flac and not use compression at all, just flac format with all metadata headers and the audio data uncompressed, heard it's possible but haven't found out how to do this...

As you can choose various compression settings I'd imagine there's a no compression setting. Though I'd have to enquire why you'd do that and not just use wav's?

[GregWormald]

If the computer unpacks the file, stores it in memory, and plays it from memory there **shouldn't** be any difference. (Reality may not agree!)
If the computer unpacks and plays at the same time it **could** affect jitter. (In reality it may not.)

I had a couple of goes using BitPerfect to store the files in a 4GB memory cache and couldn't tell the difference. YMMV.

Greg

[LogicprObe]

As you can choose various compression settings I'd imagine there's a no compression setting. Though I'd have to enquire why you'd do that and not just use wav's?

It's all about the metadata.
Track title and artist does me.

[datafone]

Same here, title & artist is plenty here.

If It's Flac, it will always have to be converted (decompressed) to WAV for playback, regardless of compression level.

[Jason Sangwin]

Think of a zip file for regular text documents.

It makes the file smaller without any loss. (unzips back to exactly the original file)

Same thing with lossless audio codecs.

+1 spot on, people should read this.

If the computer unpacks and plays at the same time it **could** affect jitter. (In reality it may not.)
Greg

Then we have to see if people can actually hear jitter in the first place

Edited by Jason Sangwin, 08 May 2012 - 09:29 PM.

[Drizt]

Jason is on the money.

[millsy]

I'm hoping for someone to describe what jitter sounds like with real words... One day

Or everyone has me on block

[GregWormald]

Jason is on the money.

I though it looked like he was on the booze!

Greg

Edited by GregWormald, 08 May 2012 - 09:39 PM.

[Jason Sangwin]

I'm trying to be as 'gangsta' as I can, while typing on a forum and programming an arduino.

That's why I drink the wine straight from the bottle