Candid interview with Amir from Audiosciencereview

Socrates is the first philosopher to have dealt with the moral philosophy of ethics. His most famous student was Plato. Plato's dialogues are among the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity, from which Socrates has become renowned for his contributions to the fields of rationalism and ethics. Subjectivists suffer from Socratic ignorance. Now how do you teach subjectivists to be rational? Obviously they will not tolerate Socrates because he is one of the earliest known philosopher to tell his students to be rational and not blindly believe in falsity. He had to be killed by the subjectivists for corrupting the minds of the young in becoming objectivists.
Bravo.

Well played Google!
 
Let me state a simple example. Science will say that a uncompressed flac file is exactly same as its original wav file. Mr Amir also believes flac files and wav files sound same and is ready to even bet. Yet lots of people find that wav files sound better than flacs on a good system. So are all these people being deceived by brain.
But logically it is possible that a wav may sound better than flac. Playing flac involves decompression on the fly when playing music. This will definitely involve CPU power. If you CPU is under powered, it can introduce jitter. Mostly likely this will happen on a under powered device or something running a monster known as Windows which sucks out most of the CPU anyways.

Bravo.

Well played Google!
Such a subjective comment. It was DuckDuckGo actually using a tor browser :)
 
Soon objectivists may decide to venture into cooking and tell us what food we should eat and not, what flavor we should like and not, they may also tell us what the original recipe is and how food that does not conform should be thrown out. Before you know it we will be following everything objectivists tell us to do, what's the word for that? It slips my mind :)
Lmao.


R…..E…..C…..I….P…..E…..S


An inappropriate example - Coca Cola formula . As a company it would be next to impossible to have a ‘same taste’ of the drink to sell across the world without an objective process.


Religion vs Science ;):):):)
 
But logically it is possible that a wav may sound better than flac. Playing flac involves decompression on the fly when playing music. This will definitely involve CPU power. If you CPU is under powered, it can introduce jitter. Mostly likely this will happen on a under powered device or something running a monster known as Windows which sucks out most of the CPU anyways.

so if it’s so easy, why can’t this be measured and established that wav is better than flac. Why do we have to rely on ears to listen to this difference. If this I an area where we trust ears, why can’t we trust our ears on other areas.
 
Honestly, I can't find a difference. Best is to do a double blind test. I have done the same with cables, my various dacs, speakers and amplifiers. Differentiating an amp and speaker is no brainer. No matter how many layers of cloth you put over your eyes, you will always be able to make out the difference between different speaker and amps. Even the position of the speaker makes a difference. But very difficult to make to make the diff between flac, wav, cables, power cords. None of the 3 members of my family can distinguish them. in addition to that, to my parents, everything sounds the same.

imo and experience short term blind tests are stressful to our brain and do not lead to good judgement. Many people including me will fail even the mp3 vs wav comparison tests online. but they will still prefer wav over mp3 for listening at home. This may be due to the fact our brain sort of panics under pressure in short term blind tests. But if you give it some time, listen for long time under relaxed conditions, you will find that wav files are better than mp3s, it’s contradictory but our brain needs some time to get used to a particular taste to judge it better. You will see many times even the best sounding equipment at first will sound normal after few weeks and people go on to look for upgrades, why? I feel because initial excitement is gone and our brain took all the time to adjust to the sound and can now identify little flaws. infact the whole problem is brain here. It’s so immature in remembering audio tones that if I do not listen to my system for few weeks and listen to something else, and then turn it on after few weeks it will sound like some new unfamiliar system to me. You can try at home, Yes our brain deceives us, but we are nothing without it, so whom is the brain deceiving.
 
Lmao.


R…..E…..C…..I….P…..E…..S


An inappropriate example - Coca Cola formula . As a company it would be next to impossible to have a ‘same taste’ of the drink to sell across the world without an objective process.


Religion vs Science ;):):):)
You may have missed the point. :)

Science is also a religion for the fanatics.
 
Flac or any compressed audio file for that matter can sound different depending on the decoder used.
One fallible way to check is to output rendered data to file. Then compare decoded file with the source wav. Even that will prove just the decoding part.
The way renderers are coded to handle files also play a huge part.
There are just way too many variables at play here. Way too many to go into. It's to do with the surrounding infrastructure rather than the file format itself. But at the very heart of it - yes lossless compressed files can sound different. Not better mind you. Different! Not true to the original. But you'd need golden ears to discern the differences unless there is something that's horribly wrong somewhere.
 
Stereophile also publishes measurements.
Amir don't be seem to agree with the order of the review which is subjective first and then objective measured results. He does exact opposite and try to prove and explain why he does that way.
 
Flac or any compressed audio file for that matter can sound different depending on the decoder used.
One fallible way to check is to output rendered data to file. Then compare decoded file with the source wav. Even that will prove just the decoding part.
The way renderers are coded to handle files also play a huge part.
There are just way too many variables at play here. Way too many to go into. It's to do with the surrounding infrastructure rather than the file format itself. But at the very heart of it - yes lossless compressed files can sound different. Not better mind you. Different! Not true to the original. But you'd need golden ears to discern the differences unless there is something that's horribly wrong somewhere.

If the decoded file is different from original file depending on the decoder used, this means something is lost, then why is it called lossless?
 
If the decoded file is different from original file depending on the decoder used, this means something is lost, then why is it called lossless?
It depends upon what settings are used for the decode. Of course it is entirely possible to get the original back - again depends on settings for the decode. Unfortunately most rendering software will almost never expose/disclose what they use for the decode. Eg. JRiver has the option where SoX can be used as the decoder. SoX has tons of options for the decode but what options are used is not disclosed, last I checked. It's most often than not, a blackbox.
 
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Walnut finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
Back
Top