CD vs FLAC. Which is better?

[Dr.Bass]

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.

Then why do different USB cables sound different ?

 

[alpha1]

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

Perhaps you are not including the effects of the discrete quantum states of electrons and how the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dictates that a wave/particle (electron in this case) cannot have precisely determined position and momentum simultaneously, coupled with the knowledge about de Broglie's wavelength of the electron that can cause constructive as well as destructive interference (and therefore presence of electron where least expected), we may come across a situation that not all bits transferred are equal. Then there are cosmic radiation that may cause corruption of bits, and perhaps gravity interactions of charged particles with the WIMPs ... blah blah ... that corrupts the intended state ... yada yada.

 

[hydra]

I'd like to introduce the concept of Data Degradation or Data Rot (frequently referred to, mistakenly, as Bit Rot) here. I don't understand a lot about it myself, and there's not a whole lot of information out there about it either.

Data degradation can also be used to describe the phenomenon of storage media gradually decaying over the duration of many years. The cause of data decay varies depending on the medium:

Solid-state media, such as EPROMs, flash memory and other solid-state drives, stores data using electrical charges, which can slowly leak away due to imperfect insulation. The chip itself is not affected by this, so reprogramming it once per decade or so will prevent data decay. The biggest problem can be finding a clean copy of the master data from which the chip may be reprogrammed; frequently, by the time the user discovers the data decay, the master data may be lost.[citation needed]
Magnetic media, such as hard disk drives, floppy disks and magnetic tapes, may experience data decay as bits lose their magnetic orientation. Periodic refreshing by rewriting the data can alleviate this problem. Also, in warm and humid conditions these media, especially the ones poorly protected against aggressive air conditions, are prone to the decomposition of the very material they are fabricated from.
Optical media, such as CD-R, DVD-R and BD-R, may experience data decay from the breakdown of the material onto which the data is stored. This can be mitigated by storing discs in a dark, cool location with low humidity. "Archival quality" discs are also available, but do not necessarily provide a permanent solution to the onset of data decay or other types of data corruption beyond a certain amount of time.[citation needed] Some media (such as M-DISC) are designed to improve longevity over DVD-R and BD-R.
Paper media, such as punched cards and punched tape, may also experience literal rotting. Mylar punched tape is available for use in such situations.

Source: Data degradation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Yes, that' a Wikipedia page, but I couldn't find another place where the concept and all the sub-concepts are laid out in one single place)

Another article (they refer to Data Rot as Bit Rot): Bitrot and atomic COWs: Inside next-gen filesystems | Ars Technica

Now, if Data Rot were a real thing (I don't know enough yet to say one way or another myself), would that not mean that copying data from one media to another a 100 times (over years) need not result in a bit-perfect copy of the originally copied data?

Also, does it not mean that a CD that read one way last year, does not necessary have to read the same way this year? And continuing that line of thought, does that not also mean that a rip of that CD made last year could sound different from a rip of the CD made this year? And would that also not apply to the CD itself? And extending this argument, would that also not mean that the "reading" and "playing" capability of different equipment (CD Players or Computers) can differ?

I do realise that I'm making many leaps from a single concept here, and discussion would be welcome.

 

[hydra]

About the CDP vs. Computer aspect, I personally prefer my Music PC (in my room and setup) to all the CDPs that have been compared with it (in my room and setup) side-by-side so far. Granted, there have not been many uber-expensive CDPs that have compared with it. The best (in terms of sticker price, and in terms of how it sounded) CDP that was compared with my Computer+DAC combination was an Ayon CD2S. The owner of the CD2S (and I) were both in agreement that the computer+DAC combo sounded better. In my book, the Ayon CD2S is a really expensive CDP, one that I would never be able to afford here in India, guilt-free.

I'm not categorically saying that CDPs cannot sound better, or that computers sound better. I think that the cost-to-benefit ratio leans heavily towards a computer, even in the case of a fairly expensive CDP.

I don't think we can make a categoric statement about the superiority of either type of transport. I think the answer would be that "it depends": On the exact CDP and the Computer, on the software material used (music/media/format), and on the rest of the system.

I do lament the complete lack of standardization of the computer transport. It is indeed not an easy thing to build a computer transport that sounds its best at first go. But it is fairly easy to buy off-the-shelf a CD Player that will sound like it is expected to. Some off the shelf computers do sound good, but I'm sure that swapping in better components can make them sound better.

 

[sound_cycle]

discrete quantum states of electrons and how the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dictates that a wave/particle (electron in this case) cannot have precisely determined position and momentum

my ears are 1/1024 Au ie common or garden cotton/ Hi ten steel variety and I cannot hear things where such uncertainty is intolerable. In the interest of academics and thoroughness I have covered heisenberg in post 207.

All I know in my current state is that I am not putting my money into buying something else to get bits to the DAC, but will save up and get a better dac than the cirrus logic I have - thinking of a Schiit Bifrost, someday

ciao
gr

 

[Dr.Bass]

About the CDP vs. Computer aspect, I personally prefer my Music PC (in my room and setup) to all the CDPs that have been compared with it (in my room and setup) side-by-side so far. Granted, there have not been many uber-expensive CDPs that have compared with it. The best (in terms of sticker price, and in terms of how it sounded) CDP that was compared with my Computer+DAC combination was an Ayon CD2S. The owner of the CD2S (and I) were both in agreement that the computer+DAC combo sounded better. In my book, the Ayon CD2S is a really expensive CDP, one that I would never be able to afford here in India, guilt-free.

I'm not categorically saying that CDPs cannot sound better, or that computers sound better. I think that the cost-to-benefit ratio leans heavily towards a computer, even in the case of a fairly expensive CDP.

I don't think we can make a categoric statement about the superiority of either type of transport. I think the answer would be that "it depends": On the exact CDP and the Computer, on the software material used (music/media/format), and on the rest of the system.

I do lament the complete lack of standardization of the computer transport. It is indeed not an easy thing to build a computer transport that sounds its best at first go. But it is fairly easy to buy off-the-shelf a CD Player that will sound like it is expected to. Some off the shelf computers do sound good, but I'm sure that swapping in better components can make them sound better.

I guess you used a Rega DAC when you did this comparison ? Did you try the digital output of the CD2S into your Rega DAC ?

 

[hydra]

I guess you used a Rega DAC when you did this comparison ? Did you try the digital output of the CD2S into your Rega DAC ?

Dr. Bass, the comparison I made was a source to source comparison:
PC --> iFi iLink --> Rega DAC --> Rethm Gaanam (Amp)
Vs.
Ayon CD2S --> Rethm Gaanam (Amp)

I didn't try what you've highlighted (digital output of the CD2S into the Rega DAC).

It does make sense that if it were the transports that were being compared, I should have compared PC --> iFi iLink --> Rega DAC with Ayon CD2S (digital out) --> Rega DAC! I do get your point.

 

[rajudhs]

Better USB cable cannot make audio sound better

In contrary a analog audio cable ex rca to rca, which is of good quality can sound better than a bad one

The above is logical, in digital domain all decent cables should be same.

 

[Dr.Bass]

Better USB cable cannot make audio sound better

In contrary a analog audio cable ex rca to rca, which is of good quality can sound better than a bad one

The above is logical, in digital domain all decent cables should be same.

Theoretically, you are right. But practically different USB cables sound different. This is where I was coming from, theory doesnt say everything. In fact it only states the obvious.

 

[rajudhs]

Ok

i will do this test over the weekend and get back.

1: a un-branded USB cable
- i dont even know its 99% copper, guage or anything
- its a cable i got free for a Rs300 HDD casing in a roadside shop

2: a bandridge USB cable which i use currently.

PC(JRiver playing a Audio CD)--> USB Cable --> NAD D3020-->Dali Zensor 7

I will see, if i can spot any difference, by playing same songs on both USB cables.

 

[reignofchaos]

Ok

i will do this test over the weekend and get back.

1: a un-branded USB cable
- i dont even know its 99% copper, guage or anything
- its a cable i got free for a Rs300 HDD casing in a roadside shop

2: a bandridge USB cable which i use currently.

PC(JRiver playing a Audio CD)--> USB Cable --> NAD D3020-->Dali Zensor 7

I will see, if i can spot any difference, by playing same songs on both USB cables.

There will be virtually no difference between a cheapo bainridge and an unbranded cable. If you buy something decent like

Accessory Gemini

You'll definitely notice a difference between USB cables. Also the component doing the D->A conversion at the end and the rest of the chain has to be resolving enough to be able to tell between cables.

 

[golu sipahi]

I like the feel of holding a CD in my hands especially with the original artworks and covers. Buying/downloading flac takes that feeling away.

I enjoy CDs more than even hd flac files at times, because of the above reason. Somehow seeing the album cover on my ipad doesn't feel as good as going through the artworks of CD (or LP).

very well said bro.

 

[sound_cycle]

You'll definitely notice a difference between USB cables. Also the component doing the D->A conversion at the end and the rest of the chain has to be resolving enough to be able to tell between cables.

I guess the USB thing does not affect me - S/PDIF.

While I am not particularly interested in listening to differences, do you think a schiit bifrost will be good enough ?

Thanks

ciao
gr

 

[square_wave]

A good read :

Gordon Rankin Says I'm Wrong About USB Cable Sound!

Gordon Rankin of Wavelength audio

 

[sidvee]

Gordon Rankin of Wavelength audio

Very informative Square. Grodon Rankin is definitely a heavyweight on USB protocol, specifically for audio.
However I bet a lot of our experts on the forum who work on applications other than strictly audio sound quality reproduction will scoff at this.
http://www.hifivision.com/audio-video-cables/20540-usb-cable-type-ab-recommendation.html
I personally have dabbled in usb cables upto $200 and have found subtle differences. To me external power makes a noticeable improvement, so dual headed cables as referred by RoC or cables with power lead disconnected - when external power is available - make the most of SQ. Anyways to all other readers - especially those who work with computers for a living - just my humble opinion based on hours of listening, I am no expert, so excuse me if I sound ignorant (which I probably am).
Cheers,
Sid

 

[Dr.Bass]

Good one square_wave, thats another good example of things not yet ready for consumption.

Anyway, since some people always compare digital audio to digital data, I wonder how come normal digital files get smoothly transferred over these flawed USB cables without data loss ? Bits are bits right ? If bits are dropped during transfer via USB then a doc file should lose some of its charactershyeah:.

 

[rajudhs]

Good one square_wave, thats another good example of things not yet ready for consumption.

Anyway, since some people always compare digital audio to digital data, I wonder how come normal digital files get smoothly transferred over these flawed USB cables without data loss ? Bits are bits right ? If bits are dropped during transfer via USB then a doc file should lose some of its charactershyeah:.

you may know answer to your question, and it may be just pun at folks.

- data files when copied over a bad USB cable that can drop bits in between, wont result in holes/missing data in word doc, is due to the data not being real time in nature.

so delays are accepted, computer can delay your file copy by few seconds. So its priority is data consistency and not time. so it does error correction, i.e compare the transferred data with original and re-transmit in case of errors, untill it gets correct data.

not an issue doing above, as if all, a user will notice a few seconds more time to copy a file.

But there is no luxury of doing this error detection and correction for audio stream, as its real time in nature and timing is important, if not the music wont play gap-less.


so coming to original topic.
- its 100% true, that a BAD USB cable can drop bits, which may not be issue with data files, due to above auto-correction, but definitely a problem for audio/video due to absense of correction.

- for digital video cable, i expect to find some pixelization ocassionally, if cable has dropped packets or even a screen blank for a sec or more.

- for audio digital cable, if bits are dropped i.e jitter, then we should hear skips or tip sounds, while hearing a song.

what i fail to understand or agree, is how can the bits that are lost over the wire, are only in mid range or low frequency etc.???

as i hear folks says, i hear better mid range or low frequency etc in a super expensive USB/Digital cable.

There is no logic in that, as bits if dropped are dropped randomly by a bad cable. it doesnt have an Aritifical Intelligency to drop certain music data only

and make its less musical or more musical.

 

[sidvee]

- for audio digital cable, if bits are dropped i.e jitter, then we should hear skips or tip sounds, while hearing a song.

.

AFAIK Jitter is not manifested as skips or drop outs, rather a high frequency hash that is infused on the music track leading to change in tonality and other anomalies, for me specifically leading to listening fatigue.
One can listen to how it sounds on track 26 of this CD. Believe me it is very unpleasant.
<I>Stereophile</I>'s Test CD 2 Tracks 20-26 | Stereophile.com
Cheers,
Sid

 

[sidvee]

what i fail to understand or agree, is how can the bits that are lost over the wire, are only in mid range or low frequency etc.???

as i hear folks says, i hear better mid range or low frequency etc in a super expensive USB/Digital cable.

And in addition to my previous post it is a well known fact that when one section of the frequency spectrum is cleaned up it effects the perception of the rest of the frequency as well, for instance boomy bass will mask lower midrange etc. So in this case perhaps as jitter is minimized lower treble and higher midrange is perceived more clearly leading to as you put it "better mid range" etc. However I always try to listen to any claims myself to hear the benefits, rather than dismiss something entirely as theoretically not possible.
Cheers,
Sid

 

[rajudhs]

AFAIK Jitter is not manifested as skips or drop outs, rather a high frequency hash that is infused on the music track leading to change in tonality and other anomalies, for me specifically leading to listening fatigue.
One can listen to how it sounds on track 26 of this CD. Believe me it is very unpleasant.
<I>Stereophile</I>'s Test CD 2 Tracks 20-26 | Stereophile.com
Cheers,
Sid

10ns jitter of 4kHz tone (00:22), 11kHz pure (00:37)

so a test tone with 4Khz and 11Khz high frequency with jitter will be harsh.

yes, it a good for demonstration, as its easy to demonstrate a jitter at that high frequency. than at low frequency.

But in reality while i listen to music, what? and how much portion of music is 4Khz or 11Khz?

in practical listening, someone wont even able to notice it to large extent.


again here, the basic assumption we are assuming is a low cost 500rs cable does a extremely bad job and causes severe/horrible jitter all the time.

the above assumption itself is not right. As decent quality cable will not produce such levels of high distortion.