CD vs FLAC. Which is better?

[Hassan Khani]

I have been using Esoteric K05 for playing AUDIO CD and a computer based audio connected to the same Esoteric K05 through USB cable (uses Esoteric DAC section). Cannot really hear difference between the two. The same CD is ripped using "abcde" linux command line CD ripper in FLAC format. The computer based audio system is an old AM2+ system running Voyage MPD linux and it just sound really good.

My thought is the most important part of CD player is timing (not only accuracy of data being read from the disk, which any CD drive will do, but at what time the data is read) of the data being read. Hence the turntable as well as clock of the CD player is very important. However in the computer audio since most of the data is being read asynchronously the timing doesn't matter.

 

[square_wave]

I agree with Dr Bass, that this file playback ( i hate calling it computer playback ) badly some needs standards to be set up. I have personally experienced differences in sound quality due to multiple (sometimes silly) factors that go into the computer playback chain. Asynchronous technology was a great balancing factor bringing a great change for home playback setups. Studios have been using other elaborate methods all along. This means that really high end sound is possible if you know what you are doing with the file playback system.

Even if we balance things out by bringing in standards, it is a far more complex problem with no clear answers that will work for everyone. What one likes completely depends upon what one seeks and what one seeks is very much influenced by where they come from.

Lets say, you are someone who owns most of the music you want to listen to in the cd format already and own a cd playback system. And then you try and rip all those cds and try playing back on a computer. Depending upon how high end your original cd playback system was and also your personal sound preferences, your liking can actually go either ways. There are couple of important points to note here :

- An esoteric vrds ( or any really high transport ) will be extracting the absolute best it can do from practically any cd in this case, your expectations has been influenced by this experience. A less than stellar pc file playback may sound slightly inferior. Pinnacle standards VS random device.

- A mediocre / mid fi cd player would have been doing an ok job with your cds all the time. Your expectations has been influenced by this experience. A less than stellar pc file playback system will easily kill it and you might want to climb a mountain a cry yourself hoarse that this is the greatest and best thing since sliced bread. Midfi VS technological advance that guarantees minimum base quality that can impress !

Theoretically, is file playback better than physical cd spinning ? I think it is. But how do you remove all variables and do this test ?

Scenario 1:

If you rip a cd and compare the playback quality using a purpose build file playback system vs a high end transport, how fair is the comparison ? Isnt the file second generation the cd being the master ?

Sceanrio 2 :

Lets go back to the recording studio :

Lets say, you had made a digital master in the studio ( either from an analogue tape for older music or a first generation one ). Sitting in the studio, you press play and you hear the amazing quality of this parent master. Please remember in this case, the master is heard via file playback . Now, where do you go from here ?

a. Manufacture cds from this and sell
b. Sell studio master downloads

In this case which one will sound better ? The cd or the master download played via a stellar file playback system ?

 

[Dr.Bass]

Good points square_wave.

My observation is, studio masters will only be sold if there is a standard playback system available commercially for it. Till that time it is only a boutique game.

 

[sound_cycle]

Scenario 1:
If you rip a cd and compare the playback quality using a purpose build file playback system vs a high end transport, how fair is the comparison ? Isnt the file second generation the cd being the master ?

I am following this thread with a lot of interest

Data is recorded onto media. You can make a a copy from the 1,00,000th copy and it will still be exactly the same.

This can be verified.

Why i music different from other types of data that do not change and become somehow different (with copying from the copy of a copy of a master)

Could you please help me understand where I am getting it wrong.

It is not a analog process, the exactness of the copy can be verified, the media is digital. Therefore a copy will be a perfect unaltered copy.

Thanks and regards
gr

 

[reignofchaos]

- An esoteric vrds ( or any really high transport ) will be extracting the absolute best it can do from practically any cd in this case, your expectations has been influenced by this experience. A less than stellar pc file playback may sound slightly inferior. Pinnacle standards VS random device.

- A mediocre / mid fi cd player would have been doing an ok job with your cds all the time. Your expectations has been influenced by this experience. A less than stellar pc file playback system will easily kill it and you might want to climb a mountain a cry yourself hoarse that this is the greatest and best thing since sliced bread. Midfi VS technological advance that guarantees minimum base quality that can impress !

Extremely valid point - everything we hear is relative. It all depends upon what our reference system is. If our reference system is a marantz or a nad cd player, an unoptimized computer will beat it hollow. However if our reference is esoteric or philips cdm pro, that may not be the case.

In this case which one will sound better ? The cd or the master download played via a stellar file playback system ?

All the rest remaining equal, the master download should sound significantly better - primarily because it will have more information. If the master is stored as DXD, it will have 352k sampling rate with 24 bits of information.

However all things remaining equal and if the cd is ripped bitperfect with 100% confidence, the file player should sound as good as cd or at least close. Unfortunately from our experiments, it appears that there is still remains a significant void over there. Maybe purpose built streamers might do better - I'm not sure! Would be awesome if you could get your naim over to settle it :lol:.

 

[reignofchaos]

I am following this thread with a lot of interest

Data is recorded onto media. You can make a a copy from the 1,00,000th copy and it will still be exactly the same.

This can be verified.

Why i music different from other types of data that do not change and become somehow different (with copying from the copy of a copy of a master)

Could you please help me understand where I am getting it wrong.

It is not a analog process, the exactness of the copy can be verified, the media is digital. Therefore a copy will be a perfect unaltered copy.

Thanks and regards
gr

Not true for CD - please read about Reed Solomon encoding. There is no guarantee that the CD rip will be exact. This is the reason why EAC also gives a confidence measure at the end of a rip. If the confidence is 100%, then it is an exact rip. Otherwise there is no guarantee it is exact.

 

[sound_cycle]

Not true for CD - please read about Reed Solomon encoding. There is no guarantee that the CD rip will be exact. This is the reason why EAC also gives a confidence measure at the end of a rip. If the confidence is 100%, then it is an exact rip. Otherwise there is no guarantee it is exact.

If you cannot copy a computer program (a digital file) EXACTLY or your financial records (another digital file) EXACTLY the world would come to a grinding halt.

There are tools to verify that the copy is exact, as you have pointed out.

A digital copy is an exact copy that is no different from the original, else it is not a copy, there is no heisenberg's principle type thing (that the act of copying would somehow alter the original) that applies to the best of my knowledget

Therefore I asked why is digital music on a CD (or digital media) any different from any (other) kind of data

Thanks and regards
gr

 

[asliarun]

Not true for CD - please read about Reed Solomon encoding. There is no guarantee that the CD rip will be exact. This is the reason why EAC also gives a confidence measure at the end of a rip. If the confidence is 100%, then it is an exact rip. Otherwise there is no guarantee it is exact.

Truth be told, computer CDs should also face the same data corruption issues. And it is surprising that computer CDs are able to replay terabytes of binary data.. Reliably.. Even when played multiple times.. And on bog standard el cheapo transports.. Definitely nowhere close to high end Esoteric vrds megabuck transports.

Not making a comment on whether high end audio transport is worth it or not.. Just making a logical observation.

At the end of the day, I find it surprising that a data transport device that can reliably transfer terabytes of bit perfect binary and text data should suddenly develop all sorts of jitters and errors and timing issues when it comes to audio bits encoded in the data. If it was an image or a document instead of an audio file, one would probably see distorted colors in the image, or a completely garbled image, or a corrupt document. Instead, that hardly ever happens.

 

[reignofchaos]

Truth be told, computer CDs should also face the same data corruption issues. And it is surprising that computer CDs are able to replay terabytes of binary data.. Reliably.. Even when played multiple times.. And on bog standard el cheapo transports.. Definitely nowhere close to high end Esoteric vrds megabuck transports.

Not making a comment on whether high end audio transport is worth it or not.. Just making a logical observation.

At the end of the day, I find it surprising that a data transport device that can reliably transfer terabytes of bit perfect binary and text data should suddenly develop all sorts of jitters and errors and timing issues when it comes to audio bits encoded in the data. If it was an image or a document instead of an audio file, one would probably see distorted colors in the image, or a completely garbled image, or a corrupt document. Instead, that hardly ever happens.

I had mentioned this earlier in some other thread as well.

The difference is the same as that between a real-time and non real-time system. Also the formats are different between data cd and audio cd.

Computer CDs use CDROM(yellow book) and when reading, the same sector can be read multiple times to make sure a bit is correct. Also there is no timing issues to be worried about.

Audio CDs are based red book format which employs a really primitive form of data encoding called reed solomon. Audio cd transports also do not have the luxury of multiple reads when playing the cd.

They must read and play in real time, reclocking the data read in an input buffer. Timing issues can come in because of this real-time nature of data read and play. If a sample is delayed, the output audio quality suffers.

 

[arj]

Truth be told, computer CDs should also face the same data corruption issues. And it is surprising that computer CDs are able to replay terabytes of binary data.. Reliably.. Even when played multiple times.. And on bog standard el cheapo transports.. Definitely nowhere close to high end Esoteric vrds megabuck transports.

Not making a comment on whether high end audio transport is worth it or not.. Just making a logical observation.

At the end of the day, I find it surprising that a data transport device that can reliably transfer terabytes of bit perfect binary and text data should suddenly develop all sorts of jitters and errors and timing issues when it comes to audio bits encoded in the data. If it was an image or a document instead of an audio file, one would probably see distorted colors in the image, or a completely garbled image, or a corrupt document. Instead, that hardly ever happens.

Completely agree with you. since the read from a disc is not really bit by bit and also impacted by movement variations (impacting laser reflection) . and finally the read data goes through a heuristic error correction all on the fly the chances for error are very high (reduced considerably in the VRDS though several means)

Technically reading from a Computer file is the best way and definitely the future.

Interestingly came across this Generation loss whch seems to affect Lossy compressed files only ( So FLACs/Wavs should be ok)
multi copies seem to result in an iterative degenerated file !!

this is shown well as Videos are more easy to "Visualise"
here


so better to keep all your Music in FLAC than Mp3

As usual there is a lot of debate technically on this. but if there is a doubt i guess its better to err in the side of caution ! thats why i retain all the RAW images of my photographs...hoping there is no HDD Crash !! (and of course take backups)

but again..even physical media degenerates..and not to mention our own hearing so i guess we are $cr3@#*) anyway !!

 

[sound_cycle]

The difference is the same as that between a real-time and non real-time system. Also the formats are different between data cd and audio cd.

The first does not matter, for the purpose of copying a file. Let it take forever, will it be an exact copy or not ?

And could you please help me understand what is the DIGITAL difference between a data and an audio cd. They are EXACTLY the same, and audio is simply another file with 1 and 0.

Audio CDs are based red book format which employs a really primitive form of data encoding called reed solomon.

AFAIK a) it is not a form of data encoding and b) not exactly primitive IEEE Xplore Abstract - Reed-Solomon Codes for Satellite Communications

They must read and play in real time, reclocking the data read in an input buffer. Timing issues can come in because of this real-time nature of data read and play. If a sample is delayed, the output audio quality suffers.

What is the connection between copying or reading a file and re clocking. If you are thinking of jitter, it matters ONLY when there is a conversion from digital to audio or vice versa. There is not jitter/ timing error introduced in copying a file

Could you tell me why a computer file is different from any other, ie, why is a music file in some way special. non real time, different format, timing errors and Reed Solomon have nothing by way of any significance in helping improve understanding

Or do you, in fact, mean they are no different.

Just for the sake of discussion, in terms of copying a file.

Thanks and regards.
gr

 

[arj]

Very interesting thread on building the "ideal" computer source
http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/82802-Building--the-ideal(ish)-Music-Server

 

[asliarun]

I had mentioned this earlier in some other thread as well.

The difference is the same as that between a real-time and non real-time system. Also the formats are different between data cd and audio cd.

Computer CDs use CDROM(yellow book) and when reading, the same sector can be read multiple times to make sure a bit is correct. Also there is no timing issues to be worried about.

Audio CDs are based red book format which employs a really primitive form of data encoding called reed solomon. Audio cd transports also do not have the luxury of multiple reads when playing the cd.

They must read and play in real time, reclocking the data read in an input buffer. Timing issues can come in because of this real-time nature of data read and play. If a sample is delayed, the output audio quality suffers.

Oh, I totally agree with you. My only point was that an expensive CD transport is so unnecessary for precisely this reason. With the baseline expectation that every digital file can be played back by a computer bit perfect, fully buffered in main memory or ram, audio files should always be stored and played back by a computer. A CD player is quite archaic.

So if the original thread is CD vs flac, there is no question : it should be flac.

As a technologist, I view a CD disc as I view a floppy disc.

 

[Dr.Bass]

So if the original thread is CD vs flac, there is no question : it should be flac.

As a technologist, I view a CD disc as I view a floppy disc.

Debate is not about storage. A flash memory storage is probably superior to HDD also. The debate is about having a clean playback system for the most demanding crowd (audiophiles). CD playback systems have matured and is at its all time high in terms of playback quality. Computer playback is just beginning. It has got a good start but is still long way from maturing IMO.

 

[sound_cycle]

My only point was that an expensive CD transport is so unnecessary for precisely this reason. With the baseline expectation that every digital file can be played back by a computer bit perfect, fully buffered in main memory or ram, audio files should always be stored and played back by a computer

Thanks, that ends my interest in this thread.

As far as I am concerned I will get a better DAC than what I have currently in the eternal quest for something better.

A link and a few extracted sentences below

Myths And Misconceptions About CD Players And DACs Article By Liudas Motekaitis

1. Digital audio data is 'just' 0's and 1's.
   
2. There may be many formats (.wav, .aif, CD-audio) but the information is still digital.
   
3. There is no loss during format conversion, provided the formats don't utilize compression.
   
4. Copying CD's (if they aren't damaged physically) is a lossless procedure. You can extract CD-audio with your computer and generate a file on your hard disk.
   
5. Jitter only means that the data (the 1's and the 0's) is not perfectly time-aligned
   
6. As is the standard case in any pro-audio studio, it is always the playing device, the DAC, which is the Master Clock. The clock is located right next to the converter chips. That way, no line induced Jitter can appear.
   [*]

Ergo, the rest is just transport, a means to get the 1 and 0 to the DAC. As far as I am concerned I will get a better DAC than what I have in the quest for improvement.

ciao
gr

 

[saibala]

Basic is : CD = 700 MB
An Audio CD contains 15 to 20 songs depending on length of the songs. In other way, 40 minutes of audio.
We can have several hundred's of MP3 songs in a CD.
Less bit rate = more songs = less quality.
There will be a loss of quality in all compression formats including FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec).
Only way to feel/find the difference is to listen ACD in one ear & other format in the other ear.
In FLAC the loss is minimal or it won't be noticeable.
My opinion is quality loss in FLAC is better than a hole in the pocket.

 

[sound_cycle]

There will be a loss of quality in all compression formats including FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec).
Only way to feel/find the difference is to listen ACD in one ear & other format in the other ear.
In FLAC the loss is minimal or it won't be noticeable.
My opinion is quality loss in FLAC is better than a hole in the pocket.

A novel very interesting, non standard testing method, wonder why it did not catch on hyeah:. Jokes apart,

a) FLAC (/?flk/; Free Lossless Audio Codec) is an audio coding format for lossless compression of digital audio, and is also the name of the reference codec implementation. (FLAC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

b) Lossless data compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the original data to be perfectly reconstructed from the compressed data. (Lossless compression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) (http://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05...es-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/

Therefore there need be no quality loss.

c) No matter how many times you copy it (well, in the relative sense), generation after generation, the source audio remains virtually unaltered.

d) and No, FLAC cannot sound better (or worse) than the (CD) source it was created from. If you think it does the reason lies elsewhere

ciao
gr

 

[arj]

Basic is : CD = 700 MB
An Audio CD contains 15 to 20 songs depending on length of the songs. In other way, 40 minutes of audio.
We can have several hundred's of MP3 songs in a CD.
Less bit rate = more songs = less quality.
There will be a loss of quality in all compression formats including FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec).
Only way to feel/find the difference is to listen ACD in one ear & other format in the other ear.
In FLAC the loss is minimal or it won't be noticeable.
My opinion is quality loss in FLAC is better than a hole in the pocket.

You cannot compare a CD's size with a size of a Flac. they are 2 different formats . try writing a list of 128kbps file as a Audio CD and it will again be 700MB

 

[rajudhs]

all the gyan about
- timing issues
- spend hefty amount on good transport

is all snake oil

Its all theoretical, practically due to real-time nature of CD Audio playback. even if there is timing issue, it should not last for more than few seconds. not for entire song.

even if that happens, it should be a problem that can be identified and fixed.

All modern computers and media players, do a very large amount of buffering, before sending stream to amp/dac

so good dac with its master clock, should be good enough.

 

[Dr.Bass]

Thanks, that ends my interest in this thread.

As far as I am concerned I will get a better DAC than what I have currently in the eternal quest for something better.

A link and a few extracted sentences below

Myths And Misconceptions About CD Players And DACs Article By Liudas Motekaitis

1. Digital audio data is 'just' 0's and 1's.
   
2. There may be many formats (.wav, .aif, CD-audio) but the information is still digital.
   
3. There is no loss during format conversion, provided the formats don't utilize compression.
   
4. Copying CD's (if they aren't damaged physically) is a lossless procedure. You can extract CD-audio with your computer and generate a file on your hard disk.
   
5. Jitter only means that the data (the 1's and the 0's) is not perfectly time-aligned
   
6. As is the standard case in any pro-audio studio, it is always the playing device, the DAC, which is the Master Clock. The clock is located right next to the converter chips. That way, no line induced Jitter can appear.
   [*]

Ergo, the rest is just transport, a means to get the 1 and 0 to the DAC. As far as I am concerned I will get a better DAC than what I have in the quest for improvement.

ciao
gr

If I start a cable thread I will get many more links like these to prove that cables do not/cannot impact the sound of a system and that if there is any audible effect due to a cable it is only a placebo. And then there are even more number of articles on how even the effect of amplifiers are not audible in a double blind test....and so on. One can take these theories and build a whole set of perception around it. It is actually easy because it is free, it is less time consuming and hardly requires any effort. Just shove anything and everything in the name of technology and theory. Such theories always prove CDs to be superior to LPs, solid state amps to be superior to valves and even horn based speakers to be most distorted. Take them on face value and relax, one may still get some good sound which is good enough to listen to music.

But then there is also a camp who would only rest after the "ears" have confirmed a certain finding. Theory is only a supporting document which may or may not exist for every phenomena we come across in this hobby. After all, the kind of research that goes into photography, automobile or even AV these days is much higher than what goes into pure music domain. E.g the concept of jitter only came to be known in the 90s whereas its ill effects had been there since the first CD player ever made. I have heard many examples of .wav files sounding better than a flac (even though both are lossless), but it has never been the other way round. I had some very fine DACs in my system in the last 10 years of my hobby. I could never get it to sound right until when I fed it with a well designed transport and a purpose built digital cable. Going by your assumptions, any dvd player with a digital out should have done a good job but IME it sounded horrible. To get digital to sound natural and fluid is not easy, a good DAC is only a beginning IMO.