|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: I think you'll find... posted by rlw on April 12, 2007 at 07:08:31:
...and boy were we surprised!
Follow Ups:
That when you listen to a FLAC file natively, you are listening to the re-construction of the WAV file on-the-fly. Therefore, you are at the mercy of the software being used to play back the FLAC file. The real benefit of FLAC is to allow for the storage of more files on the hard disk. If you want to listen to the WAV file in all its original glory, you'd need to convert the FLAC to WAV.Clark, are you and your friends willing to submit your FLAC hearing acumen to a DBT?
I didn't think so....
"Clark, are you and your friends willing to submit your FLAC hearing acumen to a DBT?"I only speak for myself, but if you read the thread, this is *exactly* what I plan on doing. (I guess "ABX" is a subset of "DBT", but the intention is the same.)
I think there is an audible difference. The test will be in the form of an "ABX" test on CD, where I listen to the uncompressed and "compressed/restored" tracks as "A" and "B", and will have to determine which version "X" is. On an 80-minute CD-R, I should be able to get 25 or more trials burned onto one disc. (I might do two CD-Rs.) I will log whether "A" or "B" is "X", and then compare what I hear with what "X" actually was for those trials after listening is finished.
The tracks will span classical, jazz, rock, and other genres. But no pitch-corrected vocals (that eliminates a *lot* of artists), no tracks devoid of acoustic instruments, no phase-inverted tracks (I might flip the polarity if need be), no "mixed polarity" tracks, and no tracks whose original resolution is lower than CD-quality. For the sake of playback compatibility, no HDCD or pre-emphasized tracks will be used. The intention is to use the best fidelity possible, where any compromise in resolution could also compromise the listening experience.
This will be done on a PC with 2.8 GHz Pentium 4, Windows XP Service Pack 2, FLAC 1.1.4 compression algorithm, MS PCM for the non-compressed conversion, dBpowerAmp for the ripping software, Plextor 708 CD/DVD RW drive with the latest firmware, Prassi ONES burn software, and Mitsui Gold Audio (1x-12x) CD-Rs. Burn speed will be at 4x. Some of the software or media might change when the test is actually conducted.
I expect to conduct the test within a couple months. Several copies of the "ABX" CDs will be available free of charge to the those quickest to respond. I might request others to conduct the test. (I will not post results of anybody's individual findings without their permission.) My results, good, bad, or ugly, will be posted here.
x
nt
I notice it with Apple Lossless, FLAC, Monkeys Audio, LAME, and Ogg Vorbis. (I will also try WavPac.) The flavors are different, but all lose that absolute resolution that is so difficult to attain to begin with.If I was forced to choose a lossless algorithm, I think FLAC does the least damage. Monkeys is almost comparable. At least I don't hear some wacky artifacts like I do with Apple Lossless or LAME.
I can go back and look at my notes, if you'd like.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: