In Reply to: RE: Delusion is cheap posted by Audio Bling on October 14, 2008 at 18:37:16:
If you encode a WAV file with lossless compression, then decode it, the result is the exact same as the file you started with. If not, then by definition it's not lossless compression.
There are two playback stages:
- Get the bits to the DAC
- Convert to analog, get analog to your ears.
By definition the bits-to-the-DAC are identical.
So if anything affects the analog result or the experience of it, then something's wrong. There might be something in the coupling of the decode process with the DAC's clock, for example, that would induce signal-related jitter. But if that's the case then you should separate the decode process from the DAC clock by the greatest possible amount. But that coupling, in any halfway-sensibly engineered system, should be so small as to be completely undetectable - and certainly minuscule in comparison with other parts of the system where you're in much more control, such as for example the position of loudspeakers in your room. If it's detectable then there's something wrong with your system and you should probably try find a system which doesn't suffer from that problem. After all, if you think A sounds different from B when A and B are mathematically identical, then what chance do you have of telling whether A or B is really *better*?
So I feel that agonizing over one lossless compression format versus another is a fool's errand.
I'm not saying you shouldn't believe that WAV sounds better than FLAC, or FLAC than AIFF, or whatever, on your system. Feel free. But is it an interesting question? Relative to anything of any importance at all, is it worth an ounce of effort? Especially if the result is partially to confuse those who don't understand the starting point -- that lossless compression systems, by definition, don't make any change in the digital audio signal itself -- then, I think, no.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Delusion is cheap - inguz 21:31:45 10/14/08 (10)
- Can be Very Cheap - Tony Lauck 11:04:30 10/15/08 (0)
- RE: Delusion is cheap - Audio Bling 23:44:31 10/14/08 (8)
- RE: Delusion is cheap - racerxnet 06:34:25 10/15/08 (7)
- RE: Delusion is cheap - Audio Bling 21:44:39 10/16/08 (0)
- Do you really expect serious responces to questions like that? - carcass93 10:37:44 10/15/08 (5)
- RE: Do you really expect serious responces to questions like that? - benie 05:04:27 10/16/08 (4)
- RE: Do you really expect serious responces to questions like that? - racerxnet2000@yahoo.com 06:13:58 10/16/08 (2)
- RE: Do you really expect serious responces to questions like that? - jpaik 20:13:31 10/21/08 (1)
- Wow-that's bizarre. If 'racer...' needs to plagiarize other's work on a lousy audio blog in order to - powermatic 17:08:20 10/22/08 (0)
- My point exactly - I'll never be able to understand how they're going to apply that... - carcass93 05:45:55 10/16/08 (0)