CD vs FLAC. Which is better?
- Thread starter Rupam
- Start date
hyeah:reignofchaos
Well-Known Member
.Computer audio apparently has progressed to levels that even serious audiophiles are now using it as their primary source. Popular hifi shows are exhibiting many rooms with computer audio played through high end systems. Since I am in the market for a digital player I have been contemplating to go the flac/hard-disk/computer way too. It will keep me "future proof" and play music at least as good as a good CD player. Moreover I can download high resolution files and play much higher quality music than is possible on a CD.
With this in mind I went on to audition a very well done up computer audio setup at one of our forum member's place. Since I know him for years I have seen his computer audio setup growing from strength to strength. He has been using computer as the primary digital source for almost a decade or so his experience in this domain is much more realistic. Anyway, his DAC is an AMR DP-777 which is one of the most accomplished DACs I have heard around. It has asynchronous USB inputs, so that makes it a very complete partner for a good computer based playback. In his system he also has a CD transport built by Acoustic Portrait. It is known to be a well made CD transport based on Philips CD Pro2m. When I asked him earlier this year why he needed a CD transport when he had a great computer based playback system, he said it is going cheap and anyway he has CDs so sometimes he may feel like listening to CDs directly so in a way for completeness he got the transport.
When I went in he had the CD transport connected. We played some familiar music, typical Fleetwood Mac and Dire straits albums. I have been listening to the very same albums in my system but on LPs. Hence my reference for these albums are based on good quality analog reproduction. I thought the CD transport + AMR sounded very nice. It had the analog liquidity that kept me engaged. I did not analyze more because I was there to hear a good computer setup. So we switched over the the computer. The same albums were played again. First impression was very positive. My past experiences with computer based playback were not very encouraging. They always sounded dull compared to CD. But this was different. It sounded just as energetic, as dynamic and as full scale as the CD. The bass was a bit stronger on the computer. As the opening notes gave way to the lead voices I noticed something that I could not describe exactly. Something was going on that I did not hear while playing the CD transport. I asked my friend to play the same CD on the CD transport simultaneously. Since the CD transport was connected via SPDIF and computer via USB, we could actually switch between them while playing them real time with the AMR remote control. It was a really nice way of doing the A-B between two very good sources/transports. I guess not many get such an opportunity. The moment I switched back to the CD transport it was a striking observation. I will just list it out in the same order that I figured things:
1. CD transport was tonally more accurate analog, more real. Voice was more human, guitar was more organic.
2. CD transport had a fluidity which reminded me of analog playback. Computer was not doing it. It was something more discrete. It did not allow me to lock on to the flow of the music the way the CD transport did.
3. Low level resolution was clearly superior on the CD transport. The instrumentation going on at the background which actually fills up the stage was clearly resolved with a holographic quality on the CD transport. You will not be searching for it. It is just there with its role in the band clearly defined. With the computer the same background instruments were hazed out, it was there but only if I tried to search for it. Even when I located it, it was more like 2 dimensional entity with a relatively less defined character. It actually felt somewhat stressful to focus on these micro details because it was like locating something in a low light condition.
4. The CD transport was more transparent and the images had very clear, well defined boundaries. The separation was very clear, the space between the images were distinctly blacker on the CD transport. The computer on the other hand did not have the solid boundaries of the images, they more bleeding across each other, the space between them was relatively grainy. It did not allow the listener to relax the way the CD transport did. One is constantly trying to look and read a picture through a relatively hazed out window. Even LPs can be grainy and muddy if not very well done but music still sounds great. Here on the computer the grain is something like a "digital haze". The brain doesnt understand it, it cannot ignore it naturally as noise. Hence it is constantly trying to make sense of it and failing, hence the experience is not very relaxing. It is a relative thing, so it may not be as apparent if one has not done a comparison.
5. The front to back layering of instruments on a CD transport was clearly articulated. The background voices and instruments clearly had a perception of "how much" depth. It was a naturally holographic step by step layering of instruments and voices on the CD transport. This helped in a very effortless localization of instruments in the soundstage. Given that the instruments themselves had clear boundaries and 3 dimensional quality, the whole soundstage was very well articulated and see-through on the CD transport. Isnt it what a good high end system is supposed to do ? The computer sounded like a entry level NAD cd player in this respect (soundstage layering). It was there but it was too smeared and diffused in both front to back and side to side for someone to get engrossed into it. We were comparing simple 16bit 44.1khz CD resolution music.
If one would hear the computer playing from a distance or in a passive mode he/she would not find any difference between the computer and the CD transport. It just sounds very similar in intensity and frequency response. But sit on the sweet spot and take it all in, take every bit of information into the brain and then make sense of it, the higher distortion of the digital domain even in a well done computer based transport is not ignorable. It is rather glaring because it affects those areas of music reproduction which we audiophiles actually savour and cherish, which we try to attain the most, the natural organic liquid presentation with a great soundstage and low distortion. Computer/Hard-disk/FlacNetwork based playback system is unfortunately not there as yet IMO.
With this in mind I went on to audition a very well done up computer audio setup at one of our forum member's place. Since I know him for years I have seen his computer audio setup growing from strength to strength. He has been using computer as the primary digital source for almost a decade or so his experience in this domain is much more realistic. Anyway, his DAC is an AMR DP-777 which is one of the most accomplished DACs I have heard around. It has asynchronous USB inputs, so that makes it a very complete partner for a good computer based playback. In his system he also has a CD transport built by Acoustic Portrait. It is known to be a well made CD transport based on Philips CD Pro2m. When I asked him earlier this year why he needed a CD transport when he had a great computer based playback system, he said it is going cheap and anyway he has CDs so sometimes he may feel like listening to CDs directly so in a way for completeness he got the transport.
When I went in he had the CD transport connected. We played some familiar music, typical Fleetwood Mac and Dire straits albums. I have been listening to the very same albums in my system but on LPs. Hence my reference for these albums are based on good quality analog reproduction. I thought the CD transport + AMR sounded very nice. It had the analog liquidity that kept me engaged. I did not analyze more because I was there to hear a good computer setup. So we switched over the the computer. The same albums were played again. First impression was very positive. My past experiences with computer based playback were not very encouraging. They always sounded dull compared to CD. But this was different. It sounded just as energetic, as dynamic and as full scale as the CD. The bass was a bit stronger on the computer. As the opening notes gave way to the lead voices I noticed something that I could not describe exactly. Something was going on that I did not hear while playing the CD transport. I asked my friend to play the same CD on the CD transport simultaneously. Since the CD transport was connected via SPDIF and computer via USB, we could actually switch between them while playing them real time with the AMR remote control. It was a really nice way of doing the A-B between two very good sources/transports. I guess not many get such an opportunity. The moment I switched back to the CD transport it was a striking observation. I will just list it out in the same order that I figured things:
1. CD transport was tonally more accurate analog, more real. Voice was more human, guitar was more organic.
2. CD transport had a fluidity which reminded me of analog playback. Computer was not doing it. It was something more discrete. It did not allow me to lock on to the flow of the music the way the CD transport did.
3. Low level resolution was clearly superior on the CD transport. The instrumentation going on at the background which actually fills up the stage was clearly resolved with a holographic quality on the CD transport. You will not be searching for it. It is just there with its role in the band clearly defined. With the computer the same background instruments were hazed out, it was there but only if I tried to search for it. Even when I located it, it was more like 2 dimensional entity with a relatively less defined character. It actually felt somewhat stressful to focus on these micro details because it was like locating something in a low light condition.
4. The CD transport was more transparent and the images had very clear, well defined boundaries. The separation was very clear, the space between the images were distinctly blacker on the CD transport. The computer on the other hand did not have the solid boundaries of the images, they more bleeding across each other, the space between them was relatively grainy. It did not allow the listener to relax the way the CD transport did. One is constantly trying to look and read a picture through a relatively hazed out window. Even LPs can be grainy and muddy if not very well done but music still sounds great. Here on the computer the grain is something like a "digital haze". The brain doesnt understand it, it cannot ignore it naturally as noise. Hence it is constantly trying to make sense of it and failing, hence the experience is not very relaxing. It is a relative thing, so it may not be as apparent if one has not done a comparison.
5. The front to back layering of instruments on a CD transport was clearly articulated. The background voices and instruments clearly had a perception of "how much" depth. It was a naturally holographic step by step layering of instruments and voices on the CD transport. This helped in a very effortless localization of instruments in the soundstage. Given that the instruments themselves had clear boundaries and 3 dimensional quality, the whole soundstage was very well articulated and see-through on the CD transport. Isnt it what a good high end system is supposed to do ? The computer sounded like a entry level NAD cd player in this respect (soundstage layering). It was there but it was too smeared and diffused in both front to back and side to side for someone to get engrossed into it. We were comparing simple 16bit 44.1khz CD resolution music.
If one would hear the computer playing from a distance or in a passive mode he/she would not find any difference between the computer and the CD transport. It just sounds very similar in intensity and frequency response. But sit on the sweet spot and take it all in, take every bit of information into the brain and then make sense of it, the higher distortion of the digital domain even in a well done computer based transport is not ignorable. It is rather glaring because it affects those areas of music reproduction which we audiophiles actually savour and cherish, which we try to attain the most, the natural organic liquid presentation with a great soundstage and low distortion. Computer/Hard-disk/FlacNetwork based playback system is unfortunately not there as yet IMO.
ROBIN LANDANSON
Active Member
In my opinion Punch CD's sound more relevant , FLAC is uncompressed but I listened several times back to back (CD & FLAC). I felt CD's sound are more dynamic and natural than flac format. FLAC is theoretically lossless but I believe it is lossy in some areas esp..high frequency.
I tend to disagree Dr. Bass. I did my own comparison albeit with different equipment - ie. Ayon Cd2s player as transport/DAC and computer transport into 3 chassis external usb/spdif converter (m2tec evo). Using the internal DAC of the Ayon Cd2s, I found no appreciable difference between these 2 transports. And when I used higher resolution files I found computer playback better than 16/44.1 discs. Now I use a skylla II DAC and I am convinced that the with my computer setup I am significantly ahead of Cd playback. I am now contemplating DSD playback and researching DSD capable DAC's - shortlisted right now to Playback MPD3/5, Bricasti M1. In short at-least for me the Cd is history.
Cheers,
Sid
Last edited:
Sid, the CD2s has only a basic Sony transport mechanism which costs less than $100 in the after market. Compare that to the amount you have spent on your computer playback system including the M2tech etc, it should be at least 20 times as expensive. Yet, by your own observation the computer and the cd transport sounded similar. Now consider that, that sony mechanism is right at the bottom of the chain when it comes to good CD transports
. How much better will CDs sound with a VRDS Neo or CDPro2m or a 47 Labs Pie tracer!30 years of R&D by giants of the audio industry has got the CD playback to this level of maturity. Computer playback is just beginning.
I agree Dr. Bass in my case the equipment was average though the Ayon Cd2s has a retail of $6500. Also the transport has many other features rather than just mechanism - chassis, lid, suspension, power supply etc which will have impact on SQ - in fact the power supply is an expensive component also - so saying that it is a less than $100 transport is oversimplification imo (these ancillary components in the Ayon CD2s are comparable to many $20 k players and is the same as their $12k Ayon Cd5s, which by some is considered one of the best Cd players. So their cost also has to be added if one considers overall SQ of any transport). Now consider, as you mentioned earlier, why in audio shows around the world the Cd transport has disappeared to be replaced by the computer as a source. These companies who are displaying their best equipment can afford to use CD transports costing $50k to sky is the limit. I guess simply because it is better. They also use Vinyl (but that is a different discussion). Other day I downloaded a Chesky Binuaral recording in 24/192 AIFF. Wow! I can tell you that I have not heard any CD based system regardless of cost(Some of my friends in the Detroit Audio Society - including founders of Audiokarma.org have/had TOTL transports costing significant amounts - I remember 1 guy had the TOTL CEC transport the CEC-TL0-x) that is anywhere close. Also if I felt that CD based systems can even rival todays computer based source/DAC's I wouldn't hesitate to spend $10k or more on a transport - but unfortunately it is pointless. The other day I heard that sony has stopped manufacturing SACD discs - while it will continue on with DSD releases. So at-least for me the war between CD's and computer based file playback is over (please note I say computer files and not specifically FLAC's because that is another variable that merits another discussion).
Cheers,
Sid
Last edited:
I would side with Dr Bass's views to a large extent here. IMHO the biggest Variable and bottle neck in computer audio is still the computer- depending on the player, power supply , OS, processor& system config, kind of I/O connectivity to media and dac (USB/Firewire/TCPIP/SPDIF) , Ancillary devices connected and so many more .
For those who have come to the conclusion and fixed the rest of the components , it makes sense to try and experiment. But to an evolving system this is simply too much !
I do feel Computer audio is the future but still think we are too much of evolution for the present. many folks like Bhagwag/Sid and ROC may have got it right but so many are still unsure and not able to decide even after evaluating
Personally would prefer not having a computer and have a dac which can read a NAS disk via TCPIP at least ot standardise the variables into 1 irrespective of the sound quality..but thats just IMHO
For those who have come to the conclusion and fixed the rest of the components , it makes sense to try and experiment. But to an evolving system this is simply too much !
I do feel Computer audio is the future but still think we are too much of evolution for the present. many folks like Bhagwag/Sid and ROC may have got it right but so many are still unsure and not able to decide even after evaluating
Personally would prefer not having a computer and have a dac which can read a NAS disk via TCPIP at least ot standardise the variables into 1 irrespective of the sound quality..but thats just IMHO
Last edited:
Yes I agree that getting the computer as a high end source working itself does take some effort and also it has not matured to the point where one can just buy an unit off the shelf like a cd transport. However that being said once the effort has been made, i.e getting the proper components then it cannot be equalled.
Another plus for computer audio is that it does not have to be expensive unlike a disc transport. One can get a decent laptop with an external usb/ spdif converter and reasonable priced DAC which will easily match many similary or higher priced cd players. So many swear by apple products which are also quite simple to adapt and claimed to be superior to windows based machines. So while it is tweaky computer audio is not that hard, especially now. Anyways ultimately it will boil down to personal preference but IMO sound quality is no longer the reason why one should choose one over the other.
cheers,
Sid
Last edited:
Couple of points Sid,
1. Comparing 24/192 files to CD (16/44.1) is not correct IMHO. Less than 0.00001% music is available on 24/192 format. Till now there is no standard or guidelines laid out on when, how and if 24/192 will be actually distributed to the end user. The software is not ready by a long shot. Just having few downloadable files at HD Tracks and such is not even a beginning. Most of the real music that we all have are in CD ripped format which is 16/44.1, so that is what I would use as the baseline.
2. Even if the industry can get hi-res files ready for distribution, they must be thinking long and hard about piracy. They will need standards and encrypting mechanism for files to be prevented from piracy. Those standards will of course have to embraced by the hardware industry so that they have proper mechanism to decrypt/decode these files before playing. All this is not happening soon.
3. As you mentioned about SACD being phased out. This is exactly my point. SACD was a far superior medium for sound quality but its no where today. The distribution just somehow failed. Today DSD is the new kid, if it doesnt click it may also be phased out next year and something new may introduced. It will go on till the industry (both software and hardware) reaches a stage of maturity where they really know how to do digital file playback. Till then it is a roller coaster whose next move is unknown. Some like it that way, but I do not think really serious audio can happen in such an environment.
4. Regarding the transport inside CD2s, I agree that there are other ancillaries apart from the transport itself which helps improve performance but by their own admission Ayon went for Philips CDpro2m when they had to build their reference CD5s. That is only to affirm that all those ancillaries will do their thing on higher grade of CD transports too but one has to really listen to them.
5. Finally, why the hifi shows are using computer as a transport ?? Definitely not because it sounds better (on a 16/44.1) but rather to be able to play those few high-definition files during the show and create an illusion that it is the amplifier and speakers which has improved
. I am just pointing to the most obvious thing, when the hardware and software reaches a certain standard of quality, quantity, availability and consistency, going for this ball game makes sense. Else it is like buying an electric car today
.
Last edited:
Couple of points Sid,
1. Comparing 24/192 files to CD (16/44.1) is not correct IMHO.
I am just pointing to the most obvious thing, when the hardware and software reaches a certain standard of quality, quantity, availability and consistency, going for this ball game makes sense. Else it is like buying an electric car today
To adress your point 1., even ripped 16/44.1 files sound similar or better than the physical disc playback to my ears. So that point is moot. The hi-rez playback is just a bonus, something no cd player will ever do and therein lies a hint of the capability of computer audio.
Ok availabilty etc is different, though in India even physical disc availability is a problem so that is not a point of contention.
Ultimately Sound Quality is what matters and we are already there is what I am alluding to. Anyways these are my views evidently other will have a different take on this.
Cheers,
Sid
Last edited:
I think it all boils down to what music one listens and which medium is mastered the best. I am mostly into old Indian stuff. Obviously vinyl scores here. But have also heard well mastered cds of these old songs and to be honest its not too far from vinyl. I would be happy with either. Quality downloads of old Indian music is pretty much not available. So computer audio may not be a great option for Indian music.
My suggestion is its better to find out first whether the music one listens to is available in the new formats or not and then take a call
My suggestion is its better to find out first whether the music one listens to is available in the new formats or not and then take a call
In that case Prem, one can still rip the contents of a well mastered CD into an uncompressed format and enjoy them on a computer playback system. Ofcourse it is extra work but ultimately it is simple and doable and on a proper (not necessarily expensive) computer playback setup those files will be indistinguishable from the CD and perhaps better and as a bonus will last a lifetime with similar sound quality as when 1st ripped provided one has adequate backup. Atleast that has been my experience with ripped CDs as I tested on my Ayon Cd2s.
Cheers,
Sid
Last edited:
I agree Prem - ultimately it is an indvidual's choice on the matter of which playback format they want to choose, I was just trying to illustrate that there is nothing black and white anymore. Instead it is a grey area. I expressed my point of view is all.
Cheers,
Sid
Cheers,
Sid
ROBIN LANDANSON
Active Member
FLAC is the ripped data of physical CD... How can you say flac format sound is similar or better?
reignofchaos
Well-Known Member
Respectfully disagree here Sid. Any random laptop can't be converted into a high quality source. I have 3-4 laptops at home (new ones and old ones) and none of them are remotely close to an optimized music PC even when running off battery power - there is way too much digital noise that I end up hearing even when using an async USB DAC. Also laptops have fans which generate EMI interference.
The ideal machine should be fanless, diskless with a designed for audio USB card with accurate clocks, a linear power supply & a good USB cable. I have all of those other than a dedicated USB card. I plan to try and get one soon. I've been on the computer audio bandwagon for way too long - 2005 onwards when no one even considered a computer to be a high end source. I've seen computer audio improve. However for purest possible 16/44 playback, I'd still lean towards CDs.
I've tried macs as well - a friend is a big mac fan. He got over his mac mini and mac book pro to test one evening. We installed both amarra and puremusic on it. Unfortunately neither of them performed in the same ball park as my cheap atom based PC with foobar. However I did not get the time to extensively tweak it. Maybe it might do better that way but the noise of whirring fans which I find really annoying will still be there. However I really doubt audio on macos can be improved much as apple broke integer mode (bog standard in any player in windows) again with the latest mac os update.
Even players sound a bit different on PC. I've tried jplay and unfortunately it doesn't work well for me - at first listen it sounds better but on extended listening, it sounds more hifi and not smooth and analog. I do not like JRiver's UI or responsiveness. Sound quality of jriver is similar to foobar.
In the end, it is best to have both a cd transport and a computer. The price I paid for my cd transport was peanuts for the quality of audio reproduction I get from it and I'm not one bit disappointed in holding on to it for as long as I can. Sure it has a few rough edges like an error that pops up occasionally which requires restarting the player but none of that matters. After meeting Dr Bass the other day, I had a long listen later during the night and realized that the CD transport has become significantly better than the computer with burn in. My last point of comparison from a few months ago is no longer valid.
Last edited:
Buy from India's official online dealer!
