Now that is what I call a key information. Will try this out for sure.
CD vs FLAC. Which is better?
- Thread starter Rupam
- Start date
Now that is what I call a key information. Will try this out for sure.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
It's not "purist," so much as personal preferences and a time pass.
Search the net for the classic document on how to set up a Windows XP music machine. Actually one could do worse that follow that recipe today, but it really is not necessary. All the stuff was partly because it really was necessary to get rid of some of the Windows crud working, but machines were seriously less.
Those days have left me with a permanent preference for minimal, non-graphical (I mean not displaying art, effects, etc: I'm not such a purist as to go for a CLI player :lol
, music player interfaces --- because the question was why waste processing power on graphics?
(Except indexing perhaps. There was a time (was in W95? W98?) when that gave you hard time even to do word processing, let alone anything else.)
But that is not to say that a PC is an ideal music environment: it is not. It is not real time, but music is. However, most PCs have more than enough power, perhaps ten times too much. If problems start hapenning with interupts, on the other hand... sheesh, give me a CD player
One can tinker, with PCs. A lot. Nothing wrong with that, it's fun, and sometimes some of the tinkerings, some of the theories, get a good result. Mostly though... Your PC either plays music properly, or you'll drive yourself so mad trying to fix it that you might as well buy another one. Been there,, got the worn-out t-shirt
Search the net for the classic document on how to set up a Windows XP music machine. Actually one could do worse that follow that recipe today, but it really is not necessary. All the stuff was partly because it really was necessary to get rid of some of the Windows crud working, but machines were seriously less.
Those days have left me with a permanent preference for minimal, non-graphical (I mean not displaying art, effects, etc: I'm not such a purist as to go for a CLI player :lol
, music player interfaces --- because the question was why waste processing power on graphics?Ahh, maybe you you should upgrade to a 286! If you are actually using a recent generation of computer there is not even any need to make it a music-only machine. You can calculate primes, if you want: your music won't suffer.
20 grams is the appropriate analogy.
Well, I do remain basically suspicious of Windows ... which is partly why I don't use it any longer.
Well, maybe Windows is a proper operating system, maybe it is not. Operating systems should be in charge of hardware, not programs, even if those programs are able to run at high priority.
Frankly, it was debatable even in ten years ago when I was doing that stuff with Windows XP and a sound card that was better than my quite-expensive CD player. Yes, my ears could tell the difference between different sound cards, different sources, etc etc. Could they really tell the difference it made turning off a Windows service or two? Almost certainly not.
(Except indexing perhaps. There was a time (was in W95? W98?) when that gave you hard time even to do word processing, let alone anything else.)
It can't. Not possibly.
But that is not to say that a PC is an ideal music environment: it is not. It is not real time, but music is. However, most PCs have more than enough power, perhaps ten times too much. If problems start hapenning with interupts, on the other hand... sheesh, give me a CD player
One can tinker, with PCs. A lot. Nothing wrong with that, it's fun, and sometimes some of the tinkerings, some of the theories, get a good result. Mostly though... Your PC either plays music properly, or you'll drive yourself so mad trying to fix it that you might as well buy another one. Been there,, got the worn-out t-shirt
I just downloaded JPLAY thinking that its a music player (which apparently is) and it played a track through what seems like a 'notepad' interface, least expected in my 10 years of 'download, install and open' experience. However I can confirm that I was running all nonsense programs in Windows 8 as usual and I do not see any symptoms of my programs pushed low on priority or windows refused to open due to the player. For that matter, Far Cry 3 which is supposed to extract enough juice from my graphic card and choke the CPU to a good extent also loaded swiftly to the 'Resume Play' screen with Jmini still playing music in the background (except for one second silence inserted in trial version). Donno what I am missing here?
In the olympics, swimmers even shave the hair from their bodies to maximize performance and minimize drag.
Audiophiles too do their best to Max performance.
I am not trying to provoke inane debates but present a purist view point, in the hope that it will promote thinking by open minds regarding the efforts and measures already being taken world wide by those who want to push the ultimate performance envelope. Some trickle down may be good ....
People color the stones with saffron and worship it as god. But that does not make the stone a god. By trickle down you mean spreading a religion. Because audiophile ways are nothing but a belief.
Zipping is just the term I used. Just like zip doesn't change the quality or contents ofnfile but still compress it, same way FLAC compress the WAV but audio is lossless.
A CD is 16bit and converting it into FLAC with 24 bit depth doesn't make any sense. If the source is SACD or DVD-A which is converted to WAV with 24bit depth, then it can be converted to FLAC with 24bit.
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
Uncompressed data means more data needs to be fetched from the disk/network which is attached to the same PCI bus as the sound card/usb dac. In other words, the disk controller would need and have lot more exclusive control over the PCI bus, which is orders slower compared to CPU-memory bus, which means outbound data to sound card/dac will suffer more. Also, encoding is CPU intensive, decoding is not. Just my 2 paise.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
When considering these things, put it in the context that a PC will play music from it's CD player. If we look at what is happening there, I guess it is a very clunky-slow process compared to anything other than, perhaps, an old floppy disk. Lots of calls for data, lots of buffering --- but it works. Of course, most people, for many reasons, rip their CDs, but there are also one-off-play situations for most of us where we do just stick a CD in the drive (or did, until I got my new CDP ).
Yes, I think you're right about encoding and decoding. And, by the way, I can certainly listen to music while running system backups with compression.
Whilst I am aware of recommendations to turn it off for recording work, my PC uses on-demand CPU utilisation, and the indicators seldom leave the 25% mark. Except for converting video: that really ramps up everything to full. Other than that, my CPU is barely used, let alone strained. But we all have our weaknesses, and I could not resist the lure of 3.2Ghz, even though my common sense was shouting, "What for? All it will do is produce heat!" Sometimes we listen to ourselves ...sometimes we don't
).Yes, I think you're right about encoding and decoding. And, by the way, I can certainly listen to music while running system backups with compression.
Whilst I am aware of recommendations to turn it off for recording work, my PC uses on-demand CPU utilisation, and the indicators seldom leave the 25% mark. Except for converting video: that really ramps up everything to full. Other than that, my CPU is barely used, let alone strained. But we all have our weaknesses, and I could not resist the lure of 3.2Ghz, even though my common sense was shouting, "What for? All it will do is produce heat!" Sometimes we listen to ourselves ...sometimes we don't
Setting aside the established lossless issue, I think the discussion in the thread has gone along the lines that FLAC and WAV are two different codecs, although one may be compressed (most times) or optionally not [in the case of FLAC options available in dbPowerAmp ], and one uncompressed [WAV].....your statement seems to contradict that, although it does establish that FLAC can compress a WAV file of course, which is one conversion option.
Last edited:
Let me add to the confusion. WAV files can store compressed audio as well, even an mp3!
WAV files are basically a container file format, and can store various types of encoded digital audio as tagged chunks of data. You can use the WAV container to store a large number of (100+) coded audio formats. In fact, the mp3 codec is explicitly supported in the WAV specification.
(mpeg layer 3 - Codec ID in the IANA Namespace: audio/vnd.wave;codec=55 [hex code: 0x0055])
If you specify the codec above, you are telling the player that you are playing a WAV file container that contains data chunks inside it that are mp3 encoded.
------
Having said that, WAV files mostly contain (and are conventionally expected to contain) raw PCM data chunks, the same as the red book CD format. If you ignore the container and metadata, there is actually no difference between a WAV file containing PCM data and a red book audio CD.
Edit: I should have been more specific and said LPCM or Linear Pulse Code Modulation. Although PCM conventionally means LPCM (red book and conventional WAV), there are many other variations of PCM as well.
Last edited:
Metadata tagging is not part of Microsoft's definition of .wav file format.
What dBPowerAmp has done is most likely a proprietary modification or extension. And I speculate further that they will work only within dBPowerAmp or other players that accept and implement this extension.
reignofchaos
Well-Known Member
While I do believe that in case of streaming formats where data is stored in frames, maintaining exact timing is crucial for accurate reproduction, reading a wave or flac file from disk and then playing it back has none of those related issues if your cpu is more powerful than an atom.
As for jplay, I could not find any difference between properly setup foobar with wasapi and jplay in audio quality - absolutely none. Folks on foobar forums including the authors of foobar consider jplay to be an audiophile scam. If you hear a difference in sound between jplay and foobar, maybe your foobar setup is not configured correctly.
As for jplay, I could not find any difference between properly setup foobar with wasapi and jplay in audio quality - absolutely none. Folks on foobar forums including the authors of foobar consider jplay to be an audiophile scam. If you hear a difference in sound between jplay and foobar, maybe your foobar setup is not configured correctly.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
I can no longer comment on Windows media players, because I don't use Windows, and intend to avoid it as far as possible in the future. My chosen player, Aqualung, is cross-platform, so Windows people might like to give it a try. Actually, it is not a media player, it is an audio player and does not handle video at all. It fulfills my [no-longer really necessary] requirement of having a simple interface that just plays music without any pretence to be crossed with a browser, or light-show display. I originally used it because, a couple of years ago, it was really hard to find a truely gapless player for Linux. Even the famous VLC is not (nor is it in Windows, actually).
If you want to change your music, there are endless possibilities as it uses LADSPA plugins. Shock/horror? No! These days I do want to change my music: I need to compensate for HF hearing loss --- and those that are lucky enough to retain good hearing about 16khz, let alone up to 20khz, as age takes its toll, are probably a minority.
However, my theory about players is that, given that they actually work properly and do not degrade the sound in any way, they should be pretty-much identical, leaving the what-matters to the hardware interface. I suspect that players that sound deeper, fuller, warmer, wider, etc, are throwing a touch of DSP into their code. I stress theory and suspect --- because I don't know. I've heard of the J-river-etc-is-scam theory, took a quick look once, and forgot the details. Maybe I'll check it out again.
If one wants fuller-deeper-wider-warmer (and everyone is entitled to the sound they like: there should be no fundamentalist dogma about how we must listen to music) then the free players either have EQ available, or can use one of the standards of plugins.
There is so much information in music. To take it all in every time would be like taking in every face in a crowd every time. A practical example of this is the last time I ABed 48 and 96 khz. I was certain I heard more detail --- but, going back to the 48, and there it was, the same detail; but it had been a face in the crowd I didn't see the first time. I do suspect that this sort of thing is responsible for a lot of the "differences" that people "hear." Yes: trust your ears ---but treat your mind with a healthy suspicion
If you want to change your music, there are endless possibilities as it uses LADSPA plugins. Shock/horror? No! These days I do want to change my music: I need to compensate for HF hearing loss --- and those that are lucky enough to retain good hearing about 16khz, let alone up to 20khz, as age takes its toll, are probably a minority.
However, my theory about players is that, given that they actually work properly and do not degrade the sound in any way, they should be pretty-much identical, leaving the what-matters to the hardware interface. I suspect that players that sound deeper, fuller, warmer, wider, etc, are throwing a touch of DSP into their code. I stress theory and suspect --- because I don't know. I've heard of the J-river-etc-is-scam theory, took a quick look once, and forgot the details. Maybe I'll check it out again.
If one wants fuller-deeper-wider-warmer (and everyone is entitled to the sound they like: there should be no fundamentalist dogma about how we must listen to music) then the free players either have EQ available, or can use one of the standards of plugins.
I hear a difference almost every time I change anything. OK, of course sometimes its true. Often, though, it is my mind playing games or the simple fact that, when changing or tweaking, I am listening more attentively and become aware of things I hadn't noticed in ordinary listening.
There is so much information in music. To take it all in every time would be like taking in every face in a crowd every time. A practical example of this is the last time I ABed 48 and 96 khz. I was certain I heard more detail --- but, going back to the 48, and there it was, the same detail; but it had been a face in the crowd I didn't see the first time. I do suspect that this sort of thing is responsible for a lot of the "differences" that people "hear." Yes: trust your ears ---but treat your mind with a healthy suspicion
square_wave
Well-Known Member
There are many folks take decisions based on perceptible differences. And based on how these experiences affect their persuasion. Such folks are usually branded as subjectivists . Folks who seek explanations before they try out something N-E-W, blindly brand such folks as foolish. I think most sensible subjectivists are folks who do not W-A-I-T for some committee to publish verifiable evidences. They just proceed and let the committees take their sweet time to figure it all out.
There are folks who assemble mega priced music systems which a committee of the worlds greatest sound engineers might laugh at. Does it make any difference?
There are folks who assemble mega priced music systems which a committee of the worlds greatest sound engineers might laugh at. Does it make any difference?
IndianEars
Well-Known Member
Well Said, Square Wave :clapping:
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Not at all sure who you are answering, because nobody said anything like that. We buy what we like. We enjoy listening to what works for us, whether it works for someone else or not. Like I said, there should be no dogma about how people "must" listen to music.
However, talking about what happens, for instance, inside a PC, and getting it wrong, is not subjective or objective. It's just wrong. Wrong is something most of us are often: best to try to find out what's right, rather than making stuff up. Go ask a PC engineer, even a music-hating one, the PC won't work any differently for him than for us.
However, talking about what happens, for instance, inside a PC, and getting it wrong, is not subjective or objective. It's just wrong. Wrong is something most of us are often: best to try to find out what's right, rather than making stuff up. Go ask a PC engineer, even a music-hating one, the PC won't work any differently for him than for us.
square_wave
Well-Known Member
I once tried helping a PC engineer colleague to assemble a music system. I suggested something that I know from my experience and his music preferences will work for him. He then went about evaluating music systems on the web like how he would evaluate a graphics card or a router. It is a long story but i guess you get the drift
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Sure, but that is not the same as what happens and what does not happen within the hardware.
I was thinking about this while (since my last post) I was having my shoulders cooked (physiotherapy) --- there is a long tradition of anthropomorphism among techies which is completely embedded in the jargon that we use and the way we speak. We talk about programs looking for stuff, trying to do stuff, all that sort of thing and much much more. It's quite healthy and, in a way, (especially with sofware) it is also a way of seeing through the machine to the humans who designed/wrote the stuff, and where it is right and where it is wrong. But we should be aware of just how much we project onto that machine, which is a machine. We should be aware that playing music is not really anything special for it (even though it's basic design would seem to deny that) and does not require any special spec, at least up to the DAC point in the chain.
Which is not to say that just any old cheap stuff thrown together in a box will work. A cheap and nasty power supply is going to be cheap and nasty --- and probably as bad for word processing as it is for music! There has to be a certain bare minimum level of quality and reliability.
I was thinking about this while (since my last post) I was having my shoulders cooked (physiotherapy) --- there is a long tradition of anthropomorphism among techies which is completely embedded in the jargon that we use and the way we speak. We talk about programs looking for stuff, trying to do stuff, all that sort of thing and much much more. It's quite healthy and, in a way, (especially with sofware) it is also a way of seeing through the machine to the humans who designed/wrote the stuff, and where it is right and where it is wrong. But we should be aware of just how much we project onto that machine, which is a machine. We should be aware that playing music is not really anything special for it (even though it's basic design would seem to deny that) and does not require any special spec, at least up to the DAC point in the chain.
Which is not to say that just any old cheap stuff thrown together in a box will work. A cheap and nasty power supply is going to be cheap and nasty --- and probably as bad for word processing as it is for music! There has to be a certain bare minimum level of quality and reliability.
square_wave
Well-Known Member
I guess you are correct but the point is that he was extremely incompetent in judging what is right for him although he was trying to prove very hard (and believed) that he knows much better than folks in the hobby since it is all e-l-e-c-t-r-o-n-c-s. A lesson learned the hard way for me
In my opinion, you cannot measure a router and music creation equipment the same way.
Well, I guess we need to stick to the original discussion. Veering too far out.
For the OP:
-The software and settings make a difference to the created flac
-It is easy to screw up playback of flac if you dont take care of various things like hardware/s, how you setup the whole thing, player settings.
-CD playback hard to screw up if you play using a good cd player
Last edited:
Rupam
Well-Known Member
I have tested several Original CD and their FLAC files.
Result > CDs sound much fuller, deep, dynamic than FLAC,
software used : dbpoweramp
CDs used :
How did you play the CD?
Join WhatsApp Channel to get HiFiMART.com Offers & Deals delivered to your smartphone!
