From my experience, I have seen some can hear the difference while some can't.
This goes with much of audio. Some can hear the minutest nuances, some can't.
This goes with much of audio. Some can hear the minutest nuances, some can't.
Which software is best DBPOWER AMP OR EAC FOR RIPPING
- Thread starter ApSai
- Start date
spirovious
Well-Known Member
Yes, I have found same.WAV sounds better and fuller.Ripping in flac need proper settings.In EAC, one need to set proper bitrate to get best result.
I guess you have a lot of confidence in the software you use. May I ask which one it is? Also, given your confidence in the flac codec, any idea why it's frequency of updates is so poor?
surfatwork
Well-Known Member
Personally, I use LMS and squeezelite. Squeezelite uses libflac, the reference decoder library from Xiph.
It's not about confidence in what "I" use. I am finding it hard to logically agree with what you are saying. No disrespect. I find zero difference playing back the original WAV, playing back flac or in playing back a wav->flac->WAV file. This is LMS/squeezelite via i2s into a soekris 1021 into ussa-5 monoblocks, on Martin logan ESLs.
It's not about confidence in what "I" use. I am finding it hard to logically agree with what you are saying. No disrespect. I find zero difference playing back the original WAV, playing back flac or in playing back a wav->flac->WAV file. This is LMS/squeezelite via i2s into a soekris 1021 into ussa-5 monoblocks, on Martin logan ESLs.
In this hobby people believe in different things. Like I mentioned earlier I dont have a current view on whether Flac vs WAV matters. For you, you dont notice a difference so dont care. Someone might have a different approach. Think of this as an extension of the cable debate.
Just because someone disagrees with you on this, please dont accuse them of having a mental illness (I refer to your usage of the word psychosomatic).
surfatwork
Well-Known Member
Psychosomatic doesn't allude to mental illness.
"The term psychosomatic refers to real physical symptoms that arise from the mind and are influenced by emotions"
Regardless, I am sorry if my use of that term upset anyone.
"The term psychosomatic refers to real physical symptoms that arise from the mind and are influenced by emotions"
Regardless, I am sorry if my use of that term upset anyone.
mpasanthosh
Active Member
I have never found or heard the difference between FLAC and WAV as well.
The main advantage of using FLAC is that I could embed the metadata, artist information in the tracks.
By this I can easily view track and artist information, you have options to sort tracks by artist, album artist or even album based on the software you use.
The challenge in ripping WAV format is that, you do not preserve artist and metadata information, since ripping is a one time job I rip all files as FLAC.
If you need WAV just decompress the FLAC files and use.
But I think this is not the case anymore, there appears to be few softwares that could embedd metadata to WAV, but i have never tried them.
The main advantage of using FLAC is that I could embed the metadata, artist information in the tracks.
By this I can easily view track and artist information, you have options to sort tracks by artist, album artist or even album based on the software you use.
The challenge in ripping WAV format is that, you do not preserve artist and metadata information, since ripping is a one time job I rip all files as FLAC.
If you need WAV just decompress the FLAC files and use.
But I think this is not the case anymore, there appears to be few softwares that could embedd metadata to WAV, but i have never tried them.
That could also mean that music itself is Psychosomatic, so why worry about the content.
sandeepsasi
Well-Known Member
Hi,
As many have already said in this thread, in theory, during playback, we must be able to reproduce the same samples from FLAC, after decompression, as from WAV. Also, as many have said, they find that WAV sounds better. I have come across the same opinion in other forums as well. I have tried both and I am not gifted enough to notice differences. Also, my entire chain and room has several limitations, which would be shadowing these differences by a tall order. Anyway, I've tried to find a logical explanation for the reason behind the differences heard by people. Only reasons I could think of are:
1. WAV playback requires less CPU/Hardware effort compared to FLAC playback, as no decompression is involved in extracting samples from WAV. Hardware can therefore run slower and at lower voltages, due to lower processing demands - most of the processors these days, even entry level embedded ones, support dynamic voltage-frequency scaling - DVFS, which is again software controlled. This translates to less switching activity in the digital circuitry which in turn reduces power supply noise, noise in interfaces between components and cross talk between digital and analog.
2. Many commercial products originally provided only WAV support and FLAC support was added later as a software update (or afterthought). Manufacturers only choose modest CPUs in their products, during development, to cut down cost. To this end, companies extensively profile their embedded software on various processors and pick ones which minimize cost, barely meet the known processing requirements and leave some headroom for future S/W upgrades, which they foresee at that time. When a requirement like FLAC playback comes up later, companies try to support this feature by a software update, and they will then have to use raw CPU horsepower to handle FLAC decompression, on-the-fly. An increase in the CPU activity would increase the noise in the system. This point mainly applies to dedicated media centers with embedded DSPs and not general purpose computers, like PCs and laptops and even Raspberry Pies.
In later generation of products, companies may choose better CPUs as FLAC playback capability would have then become standard and they would have learnt the limitations of older CPUs while profiling new S/W as well as from the customer outcry on their tech-support forums. These newer CPUs may come with H/W accelerators, which are peripherals optimized to carry out certain operations faster and at the same time, by consuming less power, compared to the case when raw CPU horsepower is used for these. If FLAC playback can benefit from those peripherals, then CPUs need not be run as fast, and all this will reduce the digital switching noise greatly in newer generation products.
With regards,
Sandeep Sasi
As many have already said in this thread, in theory, during playback, we must be able to reproduce the same samples from FLAC, after decompression, as from WAV. Also, as many have said, they find that WAV sounds better. I have come across the same opinion in other forums as well. I have tried both and I am not gifted enough to notice differences. Also, my entire chain and room has several limitations, which would be shadowing these differences by a tall order. Anyway, I've tried to find a logical explanation for the reason behind the differences heard by people. Only reasons I could think of are:
1. WAV playback requires less CPU/Hardware effort compared to FLAC playback, as no decompression is involved in extracting samples from WAV. Hardware can therefore run slower and at lower voltages, due to lower processing demands - most of the processors these days, even entry level embedded ones, support dynamic voltage-frequency scaling - DVFS, which is again software controlled. This translates to less switching activity in the digital circuitry which in turn reduces power supply noise, noise in interfaces between components and cross talk between digital and analog.
2. Many commercial products originally provided only WAV support and FLAC support was added later as a software update (or afterthought). Manufacturers only choose modest CPUs in their products, during development, to cut down cost. To this end, companies extensively profile their embedded software on various processors and pick ones which minimize cost, barely meet the known processing requirements and leave some headroom for future S/W upgrades, which they foresee at that time. When a requirement like FLAC playback comes up later, companies try to support this feature by a software update, and they will then have to use raw CPU horsepower to handle FLAC decompression, on-the-fly. An increase in the CPU activity would increase the noise in the system. This point mainly applies to dedicated media centers with embedded DSPs and not general purpose computers, like PCs and laptops and even Raspberry Pies.
In later generation of products, companies may choose better CPUs as FLAC playback capability would have then become standard and they would have learnt the limitations of older CPUs while profiling new S/W as well as from the customer outcry on their tech-support forums. These newer CPUs may come with H/W accelerators, which are peripherals optimized to carry out certain operations faster and at the same time, by consuming less power, compared to the case when raw CPU horsepower is used for these. If FLAC playback can benefit from those peripherals, then CPUs need not be run as fast, and all this will reduce the digital switching noise greatly in newer generation products.
With regards,
Sandeep Sasi
Last edited:
Sean de Silva
Well-Known Member
Not sure whether to start a new thread as this issue is specific to PerfectTUNES. This might easily be the stupidest question asked but I would like to know if it is okay to have multiple copies of the same song (wav file) saved under different folders(specific to each ripped album). The reason I'm asking is because I have read horror stories on forums about PerfectTUNES freezing, not detecting dupes correctly/ erroneously deleting entire albums and crashing. Tried it out myself and unfortunately the result was not what I'd anticipated. i.e. it didn't detect dupes after "listening" to all albums despite there being multiple copies of quite a few songs, then it hung and auto shut down. Even after clearing the cache the result was no different. Would it be an issue in terms of data corruption to store multiple copies of a song on an internal /external hdd and not use PerfectTUNES or is it merely a case of data just occupying more disk space? FMs please advise. TIA
kvijay.svg
Active Member
Exact copy is good.
anirban420
Well-Known Member
Have anyone compared the sonic property of WAV RIP done in EAC compared to dbp? Bit-perfect-ism is not a matter of concern here.
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
Yes, I have.
Can you explain what you mean by this? Why would it not be a concern?
anirban420
Well-Known Member
Because audio files are meant to "listen" regardless of what is going under the hood. Therefore I only coined the term "sonic property"
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
If I didn't hear the "original" and heard a "copy" that is claimed as the "original" then for me, in my ignorance, the "copy" is the "original". I will and should be happy in that ignorance. BUT, if a copy is bit perfect (and how the copy was made doesn't matter) to the original, then there is no way it can sound different from the original - everything else remaining equal!
Last edited:
Passive_audio_enthusiast
Well-Known Member
I too found the same after ripping with EAC. Not sure if it’s because the player I used (foobar) sounds better when there is no process of flac container opening
flac Sounds somehow more digital and wav sounds more natural (to me). But also could be placebo. Anyway I had disk space so I have most of my library now in wav. may be on a different system and different player they may sound identical. I understand with flac you are not loosing anything over wav
anirban420
Well-Known Member
@keith_correa , I just wanted to know is there any audible difference in rips done in EAC & dbp. Difference of SQ of a rip with the mother CD is seperate issue.
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
This should answer that - irrespective of rips done from mother/father/sibling files. I've done the evaluation.
spirovious
Well-Known Member
I have found the same when its CD rip.But if l want to extract ytube audio, somehow flac sounds better than wav if ripped with Dbp.
superczar
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 830
- Points
- 93
Tongue-in-cheek question - Did you really do an evaluation?
I am not sure if i get the point of this thread at all... If one were to truly wonder if their ”copy” of the original recording is true to form then the only way to answer that question would be to buy every CD of the recording on the market and select the best one out of them
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Walnut finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.