 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.229.221.128
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.
Follow Ups:
Something is indeed wrong. People who hear differences have an imperfect DAC. But who has a perfect DAC? As you have stated, the way to improve the sound of compressed files is to increase the isolation of the DAC. But how?
One expensive and potentially imperfect way is to spend big bucks on a super high quality DAC, reclocker, power isolator, etc. An inexpensive way is to expand lossless compressed files back to their original form before the music starts playing. One can do this by storing them that way on the hard drive as some people are doing (which costs a tiny amount for extra hard drive space) or by decoding them into RAM (which costs a small time delay when starting playback with a memory player). There are pros and cons of all these approaches. IMO, it's best to take a practical approach and not a theoretical/religious approach.
There are real arguments between the various lossless formats. Mostly they have to do with platform support (O/S and applications), features (e.g. 24 bit samples), bugs, and trust (in supplier). Perhaps there are differences in CPU resource consumption and indirectly in sound quality on many systems, but reports of this type are rare. Mostly, people compare sound quality of lossless compression vs. uncompressed PCM (WAV or AIFF).
There is also the possibility that some of the people who hear the differences are deluded. These people can choose fancy hardware or simple software changes, according to their budget/ego.
Tony Lauck
"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar
If two groups report two different results then perhaps you need to look at your argument. It might be that your premise is wrong or that you are overlooking some factor that is relevant to the experience in question.
Believe me, I do not “agonise” over this issue. Rather I am amused when someone claims to be in possession of certainty and is so dismissive of others that do not support their POV. A group of people (within this thread) record that they have an experience that goes counter to the claim that A is identical to B. Most, I think, are not arguing about “mathematical identity” but are saying that A sounds different to B. My thought is that you may challenge their justifications but not their experience. Experience has just as much value and relevance to the question as your proposition about “mathematical identity”.
Bling,
"If two groups report two different results then perhaps you need to look at your argument. It might be that your premise is wrong or that you are overlooking some factor that is relevant to the experience in question."
And yet none of the posters provide any scientific data to prove the existence of audible differences.. Is that to much to ask of anyone here claiming to have golden ears?? When I posted about DBT all I get is foolish responses that do not address the specific questions asked. Would any of the posters believing they can hear the differences in cables, IC's, or power cords please prove or disprove their position with factual scientific data!
The majority of responses become defensive and immature when asking these important questions.
MAK
Racer,I did not know this thread was about factual scientific methodologies. I thought it was, amongst other things, a place where audiophiles came to share their opinions and experience.. With respect, I am amused that you want to make this a discussion about the “scientific method” or similar. OK, you be the first; set out your proposition(s) using the following (scientific) outline and we can proceed:
i. Question.
ii. Observation.
iii. Induction.
iv. Theory.
v. Verification.My point to inguz is that theory alone is not enough if you want a proposition to be accepted as “knowledge”. In relation to his particular proposition re: “mathematical identity”, my point is that there is anecdotal evidence that runs counter to the outcome his “theory” predicts and this (perhaps) is significant. Inguz seems to want to account for this by saying that I am “delusional” and/or my system is deficient. Well, pardon me if I do not accept this on his (or your) say so! It is also possible that his theory overlooks other factors. In fact, I would go further; my observation, given that it is supported by a number of other people, suggests strongly that there are other factors.
Bling,
Edits: 10/16/08 10/16/08
To me, question is meaningless. If, after assembling a decent system, cleaning out the ears (if necessary), and getting all preconcieved notions out of your head, you sit, take a listen and don't hear any differences ... that means there are none - FOR YOU. No scientific evidence is going to change that.
It doesn't affect in any way the simple fact that they are there - FOR ME.
Yea really, like if it was proven with scientific data, would he then be able to hear it. I don't think so!! If you can't hear, you can't hear it!!
It's clear that the fundamental knowledgebase of electronics, built on for many years and which provides the foundation of the hobby, is of no interest to some people, and is discredited by other people. Those who offer their expertise are dismissed as over-analytical objectivists.
So the dominant modality becomes: "my opinion is as valuable and credible as fact-based knowledge"; "measurements are useless - - no one hears measurements"...and so on.
Intelligent people, who in their everyday lives accept the role of science and engineering, make intense arguments against the relevance of knowing electronics in their pursuit of the audio hobby. They cannot accept the idea that this knowledge is empowering and will assist in making informed choices among the critical components (like speakers). Rather, the ear is to be the trusted informant.
These are the same people who rely on science and engineering every day. The people who don't think twice about riding an elevator, driving across a bridge, working in a hazardous occupation, seeking medical help, etc. These are the same people who take a medication whose availability is completely tied to its safety and efficacy (through double-blind tests, trials, peer-reviewed studies, etc.), but believe that DBT has no relevance to audio.
So, it's possible to step out of superstitions and folk wisdom of the audio medieval times that many hobbyists want to live in... and step into the 21st. century. For starters, the next time your dealer tells you to buy the $250 interconnects because they're "better" than the $50 pair, ask him to prove it.
racerxnet2000, glad you liked my post on AVS Forum enough to quote it almost verbatim here on AA! How about some attribution the next time.
post on another lousy, yet different, audio blog, I'll assume he knows absolutely nothing, has no fresh or new ideas of his own worth posting, and is unable to string words together in a manner befitting a complete sentence. Yep, I think I'll pretty much ignore any more of his postings.
Others are free to follow my lead....
"Dammit..."
"scientific evidence" to their particular listening situation. Would they magically start to hear the differences, or (holding my breath) will just stop posting about DBT nonsence?
My guess is - neither...
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
