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.
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.Hi,
If you are interested in Quality reproduction of music you should rip your CDs in WAV format. Playing FLAC files through a software and comparing them with a WAV file of the same song i find WAV sounds better.
Cheers.
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?And decoding flac is very very fast. Even the most inefficient playback software wouldn't get it wrong.
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.
That could also mean that music itself is Psychosomatic, so why worry about the content.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.
Yes, I have.Have anyone compared the sonic property of WAV RIP done in EAC compared to dbp?
Can you explain what you mean by this? Why would it not be a concern?Bit-perfect-ism is not a matter of concern here.
Because audio files are meant to "listen" regardless of what is going under the hood. Therefore I only coined the term "sonic property"Yes, I have.
Can you explain what you mean by this? Why would it not be a concern?
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!Because audio files are meant to "listen" regardless of what is going under the hood. Therefore I only coined the term "sonic property"
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.Hi,
If you are interested in Quality reproduction of music you should rip your CDs in WAV format. Playing FLAC files through a software and comparing them with a WAV file of the same song i find WAV sounds better.
Cheers.
This should answer that - irrespective of rips done from mother/father/sibling files. I've done the evaluation.@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.
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!
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.flac Sounds somehow more digital and wav sounds more natural (to me).
Tongue-in-cheek question - Did you really do an evaluation?This should answer that - irrespective of rips done from mother/father/sibling files. I've done the evaluation.