Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jul 15, 2016 10:46:56 GMT
If anyone is interested, this article has appeared concerning sound degradation when converting back and forth. It's quite extensive but makes you wonder what is going on ........ www.hificritic.com/flac-wav-sound-quality-research.htmlTo sum up what we have found so far:
1) there is something in FLAC files that degrades SQ; 2) it is cumulative and increases with increasing file conversion steps; 3) this degrading effect is carried over to files converted to WAV which is readily audible in the absence of appropriate pre-buffering; and 4) this WAV degradation can be partially reversed by PB buffer size and by making available more computer memory by rebooting.
What on earth is going on?
|
|
|
Post by hifidez on Jul 15, 2016 11:07:56 GMT
Yes, got my copy of HiFiCritic only yesterday; it contained a shortened version of that piece on WAV/FLAC. Now I have never noticed anything untoward with playing back FLACs. Maybe I have just decided not to sign up to this philosphy! Could be too painful and time consuming?
Just when you think you are satisfied you have a hi-resolution system playing back hi-res files, your ducks nicely in a row, along comes some 'duck shuffler' and says, 'ah, well... you are STILL a sandwich short of a picnic my friend. You thought you'd made it, but NO CIGAR buddy. You see, your FLACS contain pictures. What WERE you thinking? !!'
People in the 'other forum' were on about this FLAC/WAV phenomenon ages back. I never subscribed to that cult. I have just one unanswered concern. If the transcribing of WAV to FLAC degrades the sound then repeated translataions from one to t'other and back again should, eventually, throw up data that is all but unplayable. But, mysteriously, the degradadtion sort-of flattens out after a few iterations. Hmmmm. Maybe should re-watch that TV program on quantum physics.
If it's obvious from what I have written here that I don't understand the issue, then maybe that's because I dont.
<puts hands over ears and hums loudly>
No wonder people stick with vinyl. You know where you are with clicks, pops and mis-tracking. Warps and all.
ps... will try and wade through full version of paper later today. Should print it out I think. Can't absorb it properly from the screen.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jul 15, 2016 11:20:02 GMT
It does seem to hover around tiny minutia of sound reproduction, Derek. I also saw that the article hints at the poor practise of some studios issuing lower res music in high res!! It might be of more concern to streaming and downloading services. I'm quite open to things myself and let the argument roll on quite peacefully. Let's face it, most people are downloading ITunes stuff which makes this argument kind of 'space technology' in the marketing of digital music. It might have more relevance to the recording industry and how they make the original available perhaps. What I hate about these things is the wars that it seems to create. When I first heard some DSD files, I felt that the sound was definitely more 'solid' but not sure exactly why. It also got me wondering whether the same masters were being used so really, I was hearing the results of a slightly different mix. Whatever it was, I felt that they sounded damned good on the whole. Especially dynamic range. Then you have some who don't hear any difference at all. I'm a bit 'finger in ear' as well myself though because of the 5 a side football match that can ensue.
|
|
Javier
Administrator
Digital bytes
Posts: 987
|
Post by Javier on Jul 15, 2016 15:14:46 GMT
Oh dear...
For those with at least a half working neuron, FLAC is a lossless form of audio file compression, ie. unlike MP3, a WAV file converted to FLAC and back to WAV produces a bit for bit identical clone, there are no magical "audiotrons" added or lost in the process that would alter the content of the file.
There are many ludicrous jokes like this one circulating on the web but hey! many also many, including reputed/highly respected actors, are scientologists who believe they'll be saved by extra-terrestrials!
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jul 15, 2016 16:16:45 GMT
I do wonder what the agenda is with this kind of thing by pros. Or at least people in the Hifi industry in whatever aspect they work in. Is it really a love of music or a love of the minutia if it is even there just to make a point? I really don't know.
With Hifi people, it always starts a football match. Personally, I'm past caring. I'm more interested in the content not the format.
What I find a bit snobby is how some take the mick basically if you listen to anything less than 320kbs MP3. It's kind of snobbish. I came across this snobbery when MP3 appeared on the scene and the first players. The two guys I asked about a player in a Hifi shop looked at me as though I was some kind of nutcase. I hope that they didn't go on to sell modern DAP's because they obviously didn't see the future.
As for ultra hi definition ...... It's not of great importance to me, but why are places like Hi Fi Critic so focused on it and putting out something that appears like a reference paper on a subject that can cause WWW3 and for my ears, pretty academic. They aren't selling anything other than the mag but they push ideas like this pretty hard.
This has been rolling along for years now and the arguments that it causes are horrendous. On the whole, does anyone REALLY care? I hate the fact that if I want a high resolution copy of an album, I have to pay quite a premium price for that copy and in many cases, I have an MP3 copy as well. Comparisons show me that it really isn't easy to spot differences even between them, so going on from say FLAC to ultra definition seems pretty academic to me. I still struggle because of the practise of issuing a low res in hi res making out that it's better, when in fact, it's not!!
I also worry that we can get so hung up about the format rather than the music. Also, can we really improve the sound from a CD since the data must be on the CD if the copy is superior. For a copy to 'improve' on the original, the information must reside on the CD in the first place. In that case, there must be something wrong with the playback of CD.
It'll be funny if something totally new appears and all this stuff becomes vinyl like and virtually defunct. I'm sure that someone will then be looking for the flaws and inventing a fix .......
Lachlan has taken a more light hearted view of hi res music (which is different to ripping music; technically a bit naughty anyway - these technical things should be the realm of studios in order to release 'superior' files, not amateurs with a point to prove.) Looking on his YouTube site, he recently put out some interesting info on how many people can tell the difference before being 'educated' and after being 'educated'. Surisingly low number of people can tell the difference, so that is already making the argument for amateur listeners useless. If studios adopt a hi res format because of research, whatever, then I can see the point because they are selling a product, but if we are mostly unable to tell, then they wouldn't' be wasting their time, which they don't.
For the majority, the whole discussion is kind of academic really.
The fixes seem minutia to me though, and a bit suspect.
I'll keep looking for aliens then ........
|
|
Javier
Administrator
Digital bytes
Posts: 987
|
Post by Javier on Jul 15, 2016 16:57:15 GMT
Even though some refuse to aknowledge it, human hearing has limits and these become lower as we age.
High resolution or ultra high resolution are indeed better from a technical point of view as they capture more information and are more accurate but doesn't mean that extra information has any real value as it just can't be heard.
I'm all for the best technology can give us and top engineering, even if it is only for the sake of "being better" but I don't fool myself.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jul 15, 2016 17:21:25 GMT
The 'human hearing' thing came up in Lachlan's video. He said that testers were saying that in order to hear higher frequencies, the whole body needed to be hit with sound waves, not just the ears. That makes headphones useless in hearing much higher than 22 kHz according to these scientists. (Similar to bass?)
In any case, it might be more in the interests of the companies selling music to offer proper hi resolution and develop it with the intention of not only raising quality of music files but also finding out whether people are really that bothered about it because they can't actually hear it.
The answer of course is that companies selling hi resolution music are a very minority market, so either the recordings are too expensive or not many are bothered or can hear it!!
Amongst the listeners, it becomes almost an ego thing as to whether you can hear the differences and all kinds of theories fly around.
I wonder what the next medium will be .........
Holographic sound?
|
|
Crispy
very active
Madrigal music is playing - Voices can faintly be heard, "Please leave this patient undisturbed."
Posts: 776
|
Post by Crispy on Jul 15, 2016 19:51:01 GMT
Even though some refuse to acknowledge it, human hearing has limits and these become lower as we age. High resolution or ultra high resolution are indeed better from a technical point of view as they capture more information and are more accurate but doesn't mean that extra information has any real value as it just can't be heard. I'm all for the best technology can give us and top engineering, even if it is only for the sake of "being better" but I don't fool myself. That's just what I think as well Javier
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jul 15, 2016 20:00:16 GMT
It's a bit AA. Academic and anal really. It seems that most can't tell anyway .......
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,881
|
Post by solderdude on Jul 22, 2016 21:21:04 GMT
The article is kind-of funny to me.
1: They describe the test very well so nothing can be said to be 'wrong' with any of the equipment nor ears. 2: They use nice plots and graphs of 'subjectively found' differences (KNOWING waht is playing) making it LOOK really scientific. 3: NO objective tests to support any of the claims. 4: Assumptions made pass as reality. 5: DBT and ALL 'objebctive test methods' are flawed and have to be discredited by 'reasoning how flawed they are' 6: Their (and those of many others) playback equipment sound quality obviously suffers from album art in FLAC files. 7: Album art ensures worsening of 'audio quality' after more generations (WHO re-encodes FLAC while caring about cumulative degradation IF it was real).
Its funny to see how they feel a recording can be near perfect and playback can be near perfect but do not use an excellent recorder to 'record', and objectively verify the 'audible yet inmeasurable ?, differences while the ADC and DACs seem perfectly capable of reproducing minutia. By nulling that is which actually is another flawed method when NOT done properly.
I think the whole 'audio'-industry BENEFITS from all this talk of 'found differences' in a huge way (financially that is) so don't think any industry insider will EVER try to lay this to rest and discredit all efforts that 'deny' differences. The audio industry SELLS more because A is found better than B by selling the same music all over again in a more expensive 'container' and because many 'trusted' reviewers/ears definitely hear equipment C to be better than D and after some time device E may be even better yet. If cable X or Y can also bring bliss to the table... so be it.
... AA to me as well but obviously not to some others.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jul 23, 2016 10:05:46 GMT
The whole issue will just continue to divide people and those that 'hear' differences won't budge and those that don't also won't budge. So it's a no win situation and simply becomes a battle of wills and ego.
For that reason, I bowed out of any opinion a while back since if you hear something, you're wrong and if you don't hear something, you're also wrong.
Best to just wait for proper proof of something rather than rely on hearsay and subjective views.
My only doubt about it is that if the differences are being heard, then why can't any differences heard be properly measured and then confirmed? And why use pseudo science to confuse the issue?
So it is perhaps working in favour for the industry since I still personally have a problem over pricing of high res files. The recordings have already been made digitally as raw data nowadays and I can't see the expense of making a different resolution file from the very same master. It costs the same to make an MP3 copy at 128kps as it does a FLAC surely? There might be a difference in the amount of time it takes computers to make a file perhaps?
Doesn't really justify the high prices being asked for high res copies.
For that reason, I rarely buy anything high res. There are some places like Bad Elephant Music who offer FLAC, MP3, whatever........ All at the same cost of £5. Dave who runs the label says that format makes no difference to cost.
I get more differences by changing a headphone in any case!!
|
|