PDA

View Full Version : FLAC to WAV Conversion



Audiocom AV
01-01-2009, 16:10
Hello All
This topic may have already been covered but I could not find a thread on the subject.

I am currently streaming FLAC & WAV files to a Squeezebox Classic [standard version 3 using basic wall-wart] with the digital out to a Sony DAS-R1. The best sounding files have been those extracted from CD to WAV using Exact Audio Copy. Although FLAC files should be equal in sound quality to WAV, the FLAC version of the same extract has poorer quality than the WAV; despite the lossless compression. If I take a FLAC file from a downloaded source and convert back to WAV using foobar2000, the WAV file again sounds better than FLAC.

Has anybody else had similar experiences, or can comment on why the WAV files sound superior?

Thanks and Happy New Year :)

Best Wishes
Mark Bartlett

sastusbulbas
01-01-2009, 16:19
I reported such findings a few years ago, and all I got was slagged and the piss taken for suggesting anything such, it was one of the reasons why I gave up on computer audio, as I found many of the claims to be no more than biased opinion, with no answers to the old problems or such ( a bit is a bit, Flac is the same once decoded bit for bit as Wav, etc etc).

I stupidly suggested that due to the amount of data discrepancy (in KBPS) with flac versus wav, that maybe something does get lost, or that maybe the processing required to use flac and output it is detrimental, but never got anywhere.

Suffice to say I put Mac and PC audio as background music with all sorts of variable files, my preference being WAV.

Audiocom AV
01-01-2009, 16:29
I stupidly suggested that due to the amount of data discrepancy (in KBPS) with flac versus wav, that maybe something does get lost, or that maybe the processing required to use flac and output it is detrimental, but never got anywhere.


Hi

IMO, your suggestion of the differing rate of KBPS between WAV & FLAC does make sense since one would expect the higher the resolution the higher the data stream rate. Similarly, any additional processing required for FLAC is likely to have negative effects.

I have found that the difference in sound between WAV & FLAC with a simple Squeezebox set up, laptop, SB Classic + wall-wart + DAC, is easily discernable, WAV sounding closer to CD & High quality transport.

Thanks for your input.

Best Wishes
Mark Bartlett

Mr. C
01-01-2009, 16:52
Are both of you using Kernel streaming?

Audiocom AV
01-01-2009, 17:04
Are both of you using Kernel streaming?

I am using the Slimserver/Squeezecentre, is there a better alternative which works with the Classic & Transporter?

sastusbulbas
01-01-2009, 17:16
Hi Mr C,

I have used just about every type of player, Mediamonkey and VLC at one point being my choice, Itunes chucked, and back to Windows 11 (convenience) with K-lite codec packs to allow me to play back 24/192 Flac and such via a single interface.

I now use my media player for everything from 128mp3 to wav and Flac 24/192, I now output that at 48khz regardless.

Where are you going with the Kernel streaming?

Gazjam
01-01-2009, 19:06
The Kernel streaming rings a bell with me, before going down the Squeezebox route I was looking at USB feeding my DAC rather than Ethernet.

Windows can f*&k up the sound bitstream if its "filtered" through the windows Kernel before it gets to the media player.

Compatible soundcards can run ASIO drivers (or ASIO4ALL if they cant) which frees the Bitstream from Windows messing with it.

It can make a big difference to sound quality.

Guess thats maybe ballpark what he meant?



Gaz.

NRG
01-01-2009, 22:18
I've been playing music through a SlimServer and SB setups for over two years starting out with WAV format and now everything in FLAC. I can say I've never detected any difference whatsoever between the two formats. The different bit rate is a red herring IMHO, at some point the FLAC file has to be converted back into the original data either in the SB itself or by the the PC itself. However, there are reports that different SB f/w levels sound different and that SqueezeCenter has an effect on the sound. I stuck to SlimServer 6.5.4 and have not experienced these effects.

Audiocom AV
01-01-2009, 23:09
I've been playing music through a SlimServer and SB setups for over two years starting out with WAV format and now everything in FLAC. I can say I've never detected any difference whatsoever between the two formats.

Hi

What SB setup are you using, what amplification, etc, is it partnered with?

Best Wishes
Mark Bartlett

sastusbulbas
01-01-2009, 23:28
The Kernel streaming rings a bell with me, before going down the Squeezebox route I was looking at USB feeding my DAC rather than Ethernet.

Windows can f*&k up the sound bitstream if its "filtered" through the windows Kernel before it gets to the media player.

Compatible soundcards can run ASIO drivers (or ASIO4ALL if they cant) which frees the Bitstream from Windows messing with it.

It can make a big difference to sound quality.

Guess that's maybe ballpark what he meant?

Gaz.

Seems to me much of the Kernal issue is more hype than fact? I know people do not like WMP and this is due more to being tied to M/Soft for some reason, the Kernel Issue seems to have grown as a problem since it was discussed on a forum with no huge idea given as to why and where kernel and K-Mixer may be required.

How much Windows messes with the bitstream is questionable, as K-Mixer has been mentioned to do nothing unless required, and when many computer forums and such are asked about it, the response is rather bland, or audiophiles "I heard he said".

As a side line Windows media player Pro does not throw out data above 20khz where codecs like AAC or OGG I have been told do, Foobar has problems with WMA-Pro 24/96 file decoding according to some.

More Microsoft,
Policy for Sample Rate Conversion of Audio Streams
This section describes the policy that the KMixer system driver follows for sample-rate conversion (SRC).
KMixer does SRC on audio streams only if it must do so to match the sample rate of more than one stream. Most applications that use more than one audio stream use the same sample rate for each stream. However, KMixer uses the following client-based policy to match sampling rates: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms790051.aspx

Benchmark also writes,
Windows XP features dynamic output sample-rates and word-lengths. That is, it will automatically stream audio at the sample-rate of the audio file being played. This is important when you have audio files with different sample-rates. This avoids sample-rate conversion to a fixed sample rate set within the operating system, as sample-rate conversion often causes severe distortion.
Windows XP will transmit up to 96kHz, 24-bit audio bit-transparently (perfectly, bit-for-bit), when the media player, device, and OS settings are configured correctly.

To be honest I think much of the stuff is no more than hearsay, I have read pro users state that Mac sounds softer than Windows for Audio, that Windows can damage tweeters and many other claims that seem to have no factual evidence?

Is it all wives tales?, urban myths? prejudice? Some people report hearing no difference, others subtle, most seem to defend what they own and have spent money on.

On a side note, regarding the DCS Scarlatti review in HiFi News Feb 09, it gives a warning against using Vista and Apple OSX according to DCS? Insinuating problems with both formats, and with only XP getting what seems a clean bill of health?

As I said myself I have went back to WM player, with K-lite audio codecs for playback. I am not running the player in Pro mode as I do not want to output 24 bit, instead running 16bit at 48khz for playback of all media files inc flac and MP3.
At the moment my digital output is spdif direct from the motherboard, into a digital lens to remove jitter, re-clock and up from 16bit to 20bit at 48khz. Though good, (I prefer it to my Mac) it to my ears dose not perform as well as my Transports. This should not be if all digital is the same, but the PC is clearly giving poorer bass performance, rougher treble, and a lack of depth mostly noticeable with complex music over simpler stuff which sounds reasonable.

I may go back to trying bit perfect with Mediamonkey just to compare again CD with direct WAV copies on this PC via the Didital Lens.

Still seems to be no hard fact as to how well a Mac or computer really outputs digital, just opinion and myth, and peoples preference to an OS.

Steve

NRG
02-01-2009, 08:46
Hi

What SB setup are you using, what amplification, etc, is it partnered with?

Best Wishes
Mark Bartlett

I have a modified SB MKI, MKII and standard MKIII, all are hardwired to an XP based PC when in the main system. I use wireless if using them around the house. Not sure what amplification has to do with it but I uses valve amplification and have a choice of 300B PP, 2A3, 6550 or 5881 amplifiers and two ss amplifiers a MF and Linn.

Gazjam
02-01-2009, 10:29
Hey Steve,

The best I've heard is Foobar 2K running bit-perfect through ASIO drivers.

You tried that?

leo
02-01-2009, 11:14
Hello All
This topic may have already been covered but I could not find a thread on the subject.

I am currently streaming FLAC & WAV files to a Squeezebox Classic [standard version 3 using basic wall-wart] with the digital out to a Sony DAS-R1. The best sounding files have been those extracted from CD to WAV using Exact Audio Copy. Although FLAC files should be equal in sound quality to WAV, the FLAC version of the same extract has poorer quality than the WAV; despite the lossless compression. If I take a FLAC file from a downloaded source and convert back to WAV using foobar2000, the WAV file again sounds better than FLAC.

Has anybody else had similar experiences, or can comment on why the WAV files sound superior?

Thanks and Happy New Year :)

Best Wishes
Mark Bartlett


I hear a big difference with Flac and WAV if using say the pc sound card or a USB dac/ USB to SPDIF .
The difference with the Squeezebox is much smaller but I still hear a difference, to me WAV seems a little louder, a bit more open than Flac.

The firmwares do seem to make some audible difference, I recently updated the firmware from 48 to 55 on my Duet receiver, 55 sounds more brighter and metalic than 48:confused: this difference is heard using either of my external dacs

I decided to try this firmware selector which worked fine with my OS (Vista) http://mike.galusha.googlepages.com/squeezeboxfirmwareselector
changing back to 48 I heard a difference straight away

I'm still hearing a difference between WAV and Flac , Ape seems to be closer to WAV in sound than Flac:scratch:

Tony Moore
02-01-2009, 11:25
Hi All,

I have to say that when I first heard that people were suggesting that there was a difference between FLAC and WAV format I did do a comparison and as Neal said, I couldn't hear any difference whatsoever. That was with the SB3, Slimserver 6.2.1 and a much earlier firmware revision. I have kept that firmware revision ever since. I did once allow the Slimserver upgrade to also upgrade the firmware in my SB3 but I noticed a difference in sound right away and opted to go back to the earlier one. (You just bung the firmware file in the right directory and edit the config file to point to it - or use the firmware selector which does the same thing)

I have to say that I've not done comparisons with SqueezeCentre and Duet firmware revisions - that's a job for another day. :)

To be honest, when I changed from Windows to Suse Linux to run the SqueezeCentre I thought I heard an improvement in sound quality but when I mentioned it on SD forum I was told I was imagining it. :doh:So I guess they told _me_! ;)

Interesting thread!

& Happy New Year! :cool:

Cheers,
Tony

leo
02-01-2009, 11:34
Its one of the reasons I don't bother mentioning it Tony, folks seem to think :mental:

48 seems to be ok for me with the Duet, tbh I don't mind the small differences between WAV and Flac, its far less noticeable with the Squeezebox's than with say USB

sastusbulbas
02-01-2009, 11:49
Hey Steve,

The best I've heard is Foobar 2K running bit-perfect through ASIO drivers.

You tried that?

Hi Gaz,

Yes I preferred Mediamonkey to Foobar, but to be honest the differences were small, and the WMA interface much preferred but due to the amount of varied video/audio types I use went back to K-Lite codecs with WMA instead.

How big a difference did you find?

I have to say by comparison I have found Windows Media capable, both WMA with K-Lite codecs, and Mediamonkey can play more types of file inc high resolution audio, than the others such as Foobar, and Itunes. Though I have sort of went back to just MP3 and standard WAV as I only have limited high res downloads which I like.

To be honest if I was "only" using WAV or FLAC I would run stripped Windows with Mediamonkey, I have done this before (may be doing it again, maybe with a stipped Linux Distro) when I first started complaining about computer sound, but as I have a load of different family members from 5 year old's to the wife using varied files, and much open source stuff coming and going, having a modified WMA player which plays 99% of all known files with 90% + of the claimed audio quality of Free Media Players seems the better option.

Steve

Audiocom AV
02-01-2009, 12:15
I hear a big difference with Flac and WAV if using say the pc sound card or a USB dac/ USB to SPDIF .
The difference with the Squeezebox is much smaller but I still hear a difference, to me WAV seems a little louder, a bit more open than Flac.

The firmwares do seem to make some audible difference, I recently updated the firmware from 48 to 55 on my Duet receiver, 55 sounds more brighter and metalic than 48:confused: this difference is heard using either of my external dacs

Hi Leo

Thanks for the information to the firmware selector. It is now running with the option to select one version only. Is there a source to downloads older versions, I could not find the older versions at the Logitech site.

I expect there are other contributors to what we are each perceiving between the quality of WAV versus FLAC. In our system, WAV sounds closer to the CD transport whereas FLAC sounds like better mp3.

Have you listened to the Duet with a linear supply? I have a Paul Hynes SR1 here which I have yet to try. There are two set-ups I am keen to test;

SB CLASSIC + PH SR1 SUPPLY w/ DIGITAL OUT TO SONY DAS-R1 >
SB TRANSPORTER w/ DIGITAL OUT TO SONY DAS-R1 >

I have had several customers give up CD players for the SB Transporter including owners of Teac Esoteric products.

Best Wishes
Mark Bartlett

sastusbulbas
02-01-2009, 12:29
Could running older tech dacs be a contributing factor?

Would a "make all digital input sound the same with off the shelf DSP plug n solutions" dac produce less noticeable differences than an old "Legacy" dac which "must be rubbish if you can hear a difference cause all digital is the same if you use a competent dac" dac?

Steve

Audiocom AV
02-01-2009, 12:46
Could running older tech dacs be a contributing factor?

Would a "make all digital input sound the same with off the shelf DSP plug n solutions" dac produce less noticeable differences than an old "Legacy" dac which "must be rubbish if you can hear a difference cause all digital is the same if you use a competent dac" dac?

Steve

Hi Steve

An interesting point, I get the similar results when using a Benchmark DAC1 instead of the Sony DAS-R1. I have yet to try the Transporter via its own analogue outputs.

Whatever the reasons are, they are there and should be explainable, and I can clearly hear it.

All the best
Mark

NRG
02-01-2009, 13:02
It seems people have been reporting differences between f/w levels for some years, it would seem any noted sound differences between WAV and FLAC on the SB is more down to the f/w than the file format. I've not changed from v40 on the SB1 and v81 on the SB2 but may experiment with the SB2...danger though is to loose features that I find useful like Internet radio...

leo
02-01-2009, 13:16
Hi Leo

Thanks for the information to the firmware selector. It is now running with the option to select one version only. Is there a source to downloads older versions, I could not find the older versions at the Logitech site.

I expect there are other contributors to what we are each perceiving between the quality of WAV versus FLAC. In our system, WAV sounds closer to the CD transport whereas FLAC sounds like better mp3.

Have you listened to the Duet with a linear supply? I have a Paul Hynes SR1 here which I have yet to try. There are two set-ups I am keen to test;

SB CLASSIC + PH SR1 SUPPLY w/ DIGITAL OUT TO SONY DAS-R1 >
SB TRANSPORTER w/ DIGITAL OUT TO SONY DAS-R1 >

I have had several customers give up CD players for the SB Transporter including owners of Teac Esoteric products.

Best Wishes
Mark Bartlett


Hi Mark,

Here you go http://update.slimdevices.com/update/firmware/
I've only tried FW48 and FW55 with the Receiver now using SC 7.3.1, I'm not sure if the older versions would cause any issues, it maybe fine but just as a precaution:)

The Paul Hynes regs are superb! I was very impressed with the improvements they brought to my Sabre dac, these replaced well filtered LM317/337 for the output stage and fixed LDO types for the dac run from a linear psu.
I'd imagine his SR1 would be a huge leap over the SMPS:smoking:

As you know the receiver also uses internal switchers for the 3v3/1v2 supplies and a standard 5v LDO for the internal dac, there should be lots of gains to be had with some mods to the receiver and I'm looking forward to having a play with it

Cheers,
Leo

Audiocom AV
02-01-2009, 13:23
It seems people have been reporting differences between f/w levels for some years, it would seem any noted sound differences between WAV and FLAC on the SB is more down to the f/w than the file format.

Hi

If different f/w sounds better/worse, then one would expect that any changes noted in quality between WAV & FLAC would close or widen depending on the choice of f/w.

Not experimented with f/w yet, but if the current performance gap heard between WAV & FLAC can be changed with f/w it would be interesting. My guess, as already pointed out by somebody previously in the thread, that the differing KBPS rate and processing between WAV & FLAC are key reasons they sound different. Only time
will tell.

Best Wishes
Mark

Audiocom AV
02-01-2009, 13:33
Hi Mark,

Here you go http://update.slimdevices.com/update/firmware/
I've only tried FW48 and FW55 with the Receiver now using SC 7.3.1, I'm not sure if the older versions would cause any issues, it maybe fine but just as a precaution:)

The Paul Hynes regs are superb! I was very impressed with the improvements they brought to my Sabre dac, these replaced well filtered LM317/337 for the output stage and fixed LDO types for the dac run from a linear psu.
I'd imagine his SR1 would be a huge leap over the SMPS:smoking:

As you know the receiver also uses internal switchers for the 3v3/1v2 supplies and a standard 5v LDO for the internal dac, there should be lots of gains to be had with some mods to the receiver and I'm looking forward to having a play with it

Cheers,
Leo

Hello Leo

Thanks for that, I will take a look.

Yes, adding the PH SR1 is a no brainer, the crude SMPS = NOISE.

I have not yet looked at upgrading the switchers in the DUET, the wireless card ideally should come out to gain good access, and commercially this has limited viability. If you are using it for digital out only then I suggest a Bybee Slipstream purifier on the DC input, replace the input bypass cap with OS-CON, add a Bybee Slipstream for digital out, as a start; performance gains are impressive.

Best Wishes
Mark

NRG
02-01-2009, 13:33
Tony, do you have f/w v83...or v86 and v88 available....I'd like to give them a try.

Mark, I don't think the data rate has anything to do with it, certainly for the SB. FLAC data has to be converted back into it's original form at some point either prior to sending or by the SB itself.....however, interesting to note I've set the decoding to be done on the server and not by the SB...I wonder....

Tony Moore
02-01-2009, 13:44
I'm on Version 47 on the SB Receiver and 81 on my SB3.

SC7.2 -22900

Cheers,
Tony

leo
02-01-2009, 13:46
Hello Leo

Thanks for that, I will take a look.

Yes, adding the PH SR1 is a no brainer, the crude SMPS = NOISE.

I have not yet looked at upgrading the switchers in the DUET, the wireless card ideally should come out to gain good access, and commercially this has limited viability. If you are using it for digital out only then I suggest a Bybee Slipstream purifier on the DC input, replace the input bypass cap with OS-CON, add a Bybee Slipstream for digital out, as a start; performance gains are impressive.

Best Wishes
Mark

Hi Mark,

Thank you, I'm hoping to start a new thread in the diy section soon on modding the Receiver, it should prove interesting, lots to try:)

Cheers,
Leo

leo
02-01-2009, 13:48
Tony, do you have f/w v83...or v86 and v88 available....I'd like to give them a try.

Mark, I don't think the data rate has anything to do with it, certainly for the SB. FLAC data has to be converted back into it's original form at some point either prior to sending or by the SB itself.....however, interesting to note I've set the decoding to be done on the server and not by the SB...I wonder....

I've got V83 and V84 saved somewhere on my HD if you want them

V88 can be found here http://update.slimdevices.com/update/firmware/7.0.2/

Tony Moore
02-01-2009, 13:48
Hi Neal,

Sorry, no, I only have SB2/3 versions 15,25,48,55,64 and 81! :)

Which version of SC do the versions you want to try come from? I do have some previous versions of SC.

Cheers,
Tony
ps ok seems like you're sorted!

NRG
02-01-2009, 14:46
Thanks Tony...

Leo, thanks for the link...do you still have my email address, if so I'd appreciate it if you send them over.

Cheers!

leo
02-01-2009, 15:11
Thanks Tony...

Leo, thanks for the link...do you still have my email address, if so I'd appreciate it if you send them over.

Cheers!

Hi Neal,

I lost most of my emails and links when the HD went down so if you PM or mail me I'll send them ASAP

At least the FW selector makes things easy so if you hear no difference or if others sound worse than what your using its easy to change back

Cheers,
Leo

Mr. C
02-01-2009, 15:16
Sas,
We do not use a slim-server or squeeze box, hence these issues do not arise.
In our reference system, we use only a hi rez server, we can not detect any difference between flac and wav.
The sound is far superior in 176.4khz or 96khz ONLY IF it is it's native recorded format file resolution/sample frequency, no matter how much polish you provide,
Perhaps the big issue is NOT to have anything in way (Like a squeeze box etc.).
Once instance for you, the Eagles latest double album, play the CD it reads 1.411mps (media monkey or Foo bar), download the flac file from the official website, the bit rate varies from 820kps to 1024kps, yet it sounds, far more natural, open, lower noise floor, and REAL compared to the genuine CD played through a quality dedicated transport (£10K) feeding the same dac/cabling/mains.
Depense with SB's etc, run the data raw into the dac, or for those that feel re-clocking and SRC is necessary place an up-sampler on route.

StanleyB
02-01-2009, 15:33
or for those that feel re-clocking and SRC is necessary place an up-sampler on route.
Or get one of my TC-7510:). Re-clocking included in the price:).

NRG
02-01-2009, 15:49
Hi Neal,

I lost most of my emails and links when the HD went down so if you PM or mail me I'll send them ASAP

At least the FW selector makes things easy so if you hear no difference or if others sound worse than what your using its easy to change back

Cheers,
Leo


Thanks Leo, I'll PM you.

Just had a quick listen of FLAC decoding on the SB2 vs on the fly with SlimServer, I'm not 100% convinced but it does appear decode on the fly is a little better in the treble...decoding on the SB seems to introduce what I can only describe as MP3'esq treble quality....hmmmm...I need more time and without family interruptions to be really convinced it's any different.

Also compared one track in both WAV and FLAC formats, decoding on the fly and I really can't tell them apart, comparing the WAV to the FLAC but decoding on the SB I got a similar inconclusive result as above...

Will try the f/w next...

leo
02-01-2009, 17:04
I think Squeezebox's are so popular because of the convenience on the cheap

I've not actually tried slimserver without the SB, infact my pc does not have SPDIF etc out so need to look into it

The Sabre accepts SPDIF,I2S,PCM/DSD inputs

sastusbulbas
02-01-2009, 17:23
Sas,
We do not use a slim-server or squeeze box, hence these issues do not arise.
In our reference system, we use only a hi rez server, we can not detect any difference between flac and wav.
The sound is far superior in 176.4khz or 96khz ONLY IF it is it's native recorded format file resolution/sample frequency, no matter how much polish you provide,
Perhaps the big issue is NOT to have anything in way (Like a squeeze box etc.).
Once instance for you, the Eagles latest double album, play the CD it reads 1.411mps (media monkey or Foo bar), download the flac file from the official website, the bit rate varies from 820kps to 1024kps, yet it sounds, far more natural, open, lower noise floor, and REAL compared to the genuine CD played through a quality dedicated transport (£10K) feeding the same dac/cabling/mains.
Depense with SB's etc, run the data raw into the dac, or for those that feel re-clocking and SRC is necessary place an up-sampler on route.


Hi Mr C, not sure if that was a go at me or whatever?

Anyway thankyou for that. I still would not mind details of the unit you are using, it's component parts (what soundcard for instance?) and OS/Mediaplayer description and overall cost?

Your impression on file resolution and turd polishing seems to indicate you do not believe up-sampling 16bit 44.4 as worthwhile?

I assume you are in this case finding the server far superior than the £10k transport regardless of data resolution? Care to elaborate on the equipment and ancillaries used?

As I myself have said subtle differences in my view, and at that those between flac and WAV may or may not be imagined (even though others here have confirmed what I had heard?), which led me back to choosing convenience with the windows interface.

I am interested in building or getting a better computer solution myself, but have been trying cost free solutions for a little while on and off without what I feel conclusive or successful results, I did mention before that care and effort may reward a careful build but have only been met with "Macs are better than PC and bits are bits" responses.

One thing is for sure with my current basic (cheap) project, running a spdif direct from a motherboard with various media players is not giving me better performance, regardless of Flac or Wav compared to the CD direct from a reasonable CD transport. I may be able to change this with a bit more work, I may even compare a couple of other variations if I get time.
Whether it makes a difference or not I find the clock inaccuracy of the PC questionable?

Cheers,
Steve

leo
02-01-2009, 17:48
I've been into diy for a while, building dacs,pre-amps, amps etc, faffed about modding CDP's and various bits but have to admit I'm new to PC based audio

Some details on the whats and how it should be tried would be helpful;)
The problem for some is that we can't use say I2S direct from pc to dac because of the limited distance from the source so we have to make do with SPDIF

sastusbulbas
02-01-2009, 17:59
And there are various sound cards, all pro audio and expensive, or gamer related and inexpensive with more features than we require, yet we are told some are better with no technical data showing why or standard audio comparison to compare to.

There is also the opinion that spdif direct from the mobo would be better, if used as a direct comparison, yet to technical data given on much of this. (Or smps interference?)

I truly think it is early days and much of the claims are no more than opinion, personal preference, even pro market guys have mentioned different sound from different OS's and variable performances with various Media players, yet both DCS and Benchmark state XP is fine. Many seem to be unaware audio via computer was attempted with much vigour in the early days and interest waned due to performance inconsistencies and variations, many audio magazines had articles on such a decade or more ago)

Macs may be better/simpler as there is less variation so better consistency, whereas PC's have so many variables with component selection, software and such. Maybe it is a bit like comparing many CD players from one brand against all the other CD players from many brands.

Tony Moore
02-01-2009, 18:07
I have just spent a while trying to get my head around the file types setup page in SC7. :doh:

I can find sparse comments on it on the web and no documentation at all. :scratch:

Anyway, I did find mention if this:


The order of preference for a SB2/3/Receiver(Duet)/Boom is: wma ogg flc aif wav mp3. Transcoding will be used if available - that is native formats do not automatically take precedence over transcoded ones.

So, in answer to the specific questions, wav is by default converted to flac before streaming to the player because flc is preferred over wav and there exists a suitable transcoder in the default configuration.

So I guess my previous tests were null and void since I thought I was sending WAV to the SB3 but in fact it was being transcoded to FLAC by the server. So ok, I can disable the WAV -> FLAC conversion by setting the FLAC listbox on the WAV entry to disabled....BUT how do I get the server to ALWAYS transcode FLAC files to WAV before sending to the SB3? :scratch:

It's all a bit confusing!

Cheers,
Tony

leo
02-01-2009, 18:14
It's all a bit confusing!

Cheers,
Tony


Bit of an understatement Tone:lolsign: wish I'd just stuck with that out of date thing called a transport:lol:

Ok, time for some more faffing about:doh:

sastusbulbas
02-01-2009, 18:19
I have just spent a while trying to get my head around the file types setup page in SC7. :doh:

I can find sparse comments on it on the web and no documentation at all. :scratch:

Anyway, I did find mention if this:

Quote:
The order of preference for a SB2/3/Receiver(Duet)/Boom is: wma ogg flc aif wav mp3.

So I guess my previous tests were null and void since I thought I was sending WAV to the SB3 but in fact it was being transcoded to FLAC by the server. So ok, I can disable the WAV -> FLAC conversion by setting the FLAC listbox on the WAV entry to disabled....BUT how do I get the server to ALWAYS transcode FLAC files to WAV before sending to the SB3? :scratch:

It's all a bit confusing!

Cheers,
Tony

So does that mean that WMA (Windows media) is the first preference even though WAV is behind AIFF, if so what WMA media quality is preferred?

Is this preference in favour of file size or audio quality? It does seem to indicate that the manufacturer sees no reason for larger WAV files over Flac?

leo
02-01-2009, 18:33
....BUT how do I get the server to ALWAYS transcode FLAC files to WAV before sending to the SB3? :scratch:

It's all a bit confusing!

Cheers,
Tony

Just having a look in Advanced-file types:scratch:

Tony Moore
02-01-2009, 18:34
Good luck! :lolsign:

Tony Moore
02-01-2009, 18:38
It does seem to indicate that the manufacturer sees no reason for larger WAV files over Flac?

Yes, they obviously feel that there's no quality hit using FLAC decoding in the SB. Others seem to disagree though...

If I can get my head around what's going on in the SC with this transcoding business then I'll do some more listening tests with FLAC vs WAV.

Cheers,
Tony

leo
02-01-2009, 18:55
Kin thing :punch:

Maybe a few of us could try it if we know how to

Audiocom AV
02-01-2009, 19:12
And there are various sound cards, all pro audio and expensive, or gamer related and inexpensive with more features than we require, yet we are told some are better with no technical data showing why or standard audio comparison to compare to.

There is also the opinion that spdif direct from the mobo would be better, if used as a direct comparison, yet to technical data given on much of this. (Or smps interference?)

I truly think it is early days and much of the claims are no more than opinion, personal preference, even pro market guys have mentioned different sound from different OS's and variable performances with various Media players, yet both DCS and Benchmark state XP is fine. Many seem to be unaware audio via computer was attempted with much vigour in the early days and interest waned due to performance inconsistencies and variations, many audio magazines had articles on such a decade or more ago)

Macs may be better/simpler as there is less variation so better consistency, whereas PC's have so many variables with component selection, software and such. Maybe it is a bit like comparing many CD players from one brand against all the other CD players from many brands.

Hi Steve

Early days indeed, and with so much variation on 'computer audio' it's hardly any wonder that the sound quality is going to equally be different depending on set-up, software, etc. Indeed, the fact that so many possibilities exist could well discourage a new user who may stumble on a 'magic' combination or pursue variation combinations and get mediocre results.

IMO, the Squeezebox products may not be the optimum approach, but a PC or MAC, SB Classic + good quality external DAC is a very good introduction. Within this there is plenty to upgrade and experiment without getting bogged down with numbers and figures.

Best Wishes
Mark

leo
02-01-2009, 20:22
Is this how to send WAV to the Receiver in the settings?



File Type Stream Format Decoder
FLAC FLAC Disabled
MP3 Disabled
WAV flac

WAV FLAC Disabled
MP3 Disabled
WAV Native

Tony Moore
02-01-2009, 20:42
That's what I was thinking too...but who knows? :scratch:

Worth a try!

I guess you have to restart SC7 for it to take effect?

Cheers,
Tony

Mr. C
03-01-2009, 09:25
Stan,

You dac does reclocking nice touch, however it is not capable of more than 48Khz is that correct?
Not going to give to much away here
Guys actually think of signal purely as a data stream itself, why use use any aes/spdif/adat/toslink/I2S.
real time run data lines upto 60 meters with a latency of a max 3ppm without reclocking is a reality.
I am not prepared to give too away too much here, we have a 2009 product launch in the not too distant furture.
Think, a minimum of 250Mps virtually jitter free, 8 channels of 192/24bit instantainous, sound quality which is quite breath taking. Forget Vinyl/CD arguements, just immerse yourself in 'pure music'
Think outside the box (squeeze lol) be lateral.

Gazjam
03-01-2009, 10:39
Is this how to send WAV to the Receiver in the settings?



File Type Stream Format Decoder
FLAC FLAC Disabled
MP3 Disabled
WAV flac

WAV FLAC Disabled
MP3 Disabled
WAV Native


I noticed a difference playing FLAC with these settings. The VU meters showed a greater range for some reason, more "swing" of the needles.
Improvement in sound I heard could be down to placebo effect. The VU meters DID show a difference somehow.

I had to set MP3 to native though, as I have some MP3 in my library.

Gazjam
03-01-2009, 10:40
Stan,

You dac does reclocking nice touch, however it is not capable of more than 48Khz is that correct?
Not going to give to much away here
Guys actually think of signal purely as a data stream itself, why use use any aes/spdif/adat/toslink/I2S.
real time run data lines upto 60 meters with a latency of a max 3ppm without reclocking is a reality.
I am not prepared to give too away too much here, we have a 2009 product launch in the not too distant furture.
Think, a minimum of 250Mps virtually jitter free, 8 channels of 192/24bit instantainous, sound quality which is quite breath taking. Forget Vinyl/CD arguements, just immerse yourself in 'pure music'
Think outside the box (squeeze lol) be lateral.

I think the latest 6/4 variant goes higher to 96Khz? Not sure how that works though.

Beechwoods
03-01-2009, 10:54
Gazjam - who is it in your avatar? It's been bugging me for months!

leo
03-01-2009, 10:56
Stan,

You dac does reclocking nice touch, however it is not capable of more than 48Khz is that correct?
Not going to give to much away here
Guys actually think of signal purely as a data stream itself, why use use any aes/spdif/adat/toslink/I2S.
.

Only really leaves PCM,DSD and DXD

I think the receiver and dac chip in Stans dac can do up to 96khz

Gazjam
03-01-2009, 11:29
Gazjam - who is it in your avatar? It's been bugging me for months!

Its Warren Zevon, American singer Songwriter.


:)

leo
03-01-2009, 11:44
That's what I was thinking too...but who knows? :scratch:

Worth a try!

I guess you have to restart SC7 for it to take effect?

Cheers,
Tony


I restarted mine anyway just incase.
access time seemed a little slower but not enough to annoy, you tried it yet;)

Tony Moore
03-01-2009, 12:13
I made the changes to the settings and the server has been restarted but I've not had chance to do any listening tests as yet as my wife is listening to internet radio. :gig:

I may get a chance later.

Cheers,
Tony

Gazjam
03-01-2009, 15:26
sounds a bit more effortless to these ears.
As I said, could be placebo effect.

Beechwoods
03-01-2009, 16:02
Its Warren Zevon, American singer Songwriter :)

Ah ha! Thank you. I'm only familiar with him via some session work Dave Gilmour of PF did on one of his albums. He's one of those 'forgotten genius' types who'se sucess never went mainstream - and died too young :(

Ali Tait
03-01-2009, 16:46
Werewolves of London-One of the best tracks ever!

Gazjam
03-01-2009, 17:58
Zevons the Man!

The album David Gilmour appeared on "Transverse City" was great.
He's a "musicians musician" and the list of big stars that have played with him would shock you.
Bob Dylan, Neil Young, REM, Stevie Nicks, Ry Cooder, the Eagles you name it.

Been into his stuff since the early 80s.
Dark, humerous, twisted stories of Losers, junkies to mercenaries, famous murderers and failed Sportsmen.

Writes the most heart touching love songs this side of Burt Bacharach.

Recorded his last album knowing he was suffering from terminal cancer - not long to live. The list of collaborators on that album reads like a who's who of American music. They were saying goodby - honestly, what an album. He was saying "f**k you" to Death, total Rock n Roll animal.
The sadder songs 'll break your heart though.

Great musician, check him out.

for instance, this song lyric:

He was born in Big Beaver by the borderline
He started playing hockey by the time he was nine
His dad took the hose and froze the back yard
And Little Buddy dreamed he was Rocket Richard

He grew up big and he grew up tough
He saw himself scoring for the Wings or Canucks
But he wasn't that good with a puck
Buddy's real talent was beating people up
His heart wasn't in it but the crowd ate it up
Through pee-wee's and juniors, midgets and mites
He must have racked up more than six hundred fights
A scout from the flames came down from Saskatoon
Said, "There's always room on our team for a goon
Son, we've always got room for a goon"


anyway, my SB3 sounds better with the new settings!! :)

NRG
03-01-2009, 23:54
I managed to get a few hours to myself this afternoon...

Tried FLAC vs WAV first with the modified SB MK1 f/w v40 and SS 6.5.4 and then with the modded SB MK2 on f/w v81 feeding into a MF A3.24 DAC and a modded version of Stan's DAC.......no difference.

I went around and around with a number of tracks and honestly I didn't note any difference other than the SB MK2 sounds a bit fuller and richer than the SB MK1 on both file formats and Stan's DAC with ALW super reg sounds rather good! ;)

Comparing on the fly decoding of FLAC vs in the 'box' with the SB MK2 again I came to the conclusion there was no difference, I thought I detected something last night but.... not today.

The most significant change I noted was about half an hour after cracking open a nice bottle of ale from the Shepard Neme brewery around the time I gave up! ;) The sound improved beyond recognition. :cool:

leo
04-01-2009, 00:50
When your straining to hear a difference its not worth worrying, at least you did compare

Only thing I can think of if it is down to the version of FW and Slimcentre/squeezecentre running which may cause varying results:confused:

NRG
04-01-2009, 09:47
Could be Leo...lets flip this the other way what combination of f/w and SC can you readily detect a difference with? I don't have a duet....

leo
04-01-2009, 13:48
Hi Neal,

I no longer have a SB3, I think it was Slimcentre 6.5.1 and FW81 or 83
Maybe the file types in advanced settings was different, I'm not honestly sure.

I did mention the difference between Flac and Wav is much smaller with SB compared to say using the pc's sound card or a USB to SPDIF http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=27701&postcount=15 its not really a problem for me, only reason I mentioned it is because of the first post, it would be interesting to find the answer why some folks get the difference yet others don't though, surely its got to be in the settings.
Software used for the USB was foobar.

For the Duet I use Squeezecentre 7.3.1 Receiver FW48.
I'm 100% sure FW55 sounds different to 48, worse IMO so I went back to 48

Davo
05-01-2009, 14:29
All



I represent dCS and we believe that it is possible to build your own media server (cheaply) that can be used as a high end source.
Here are some of our findings:
Windows XP, Vista and OSX all contain, by necessity, a conceptual mixer. The OS is designed such that multiple applications can each access an audio device concurrently. To do this, it may have to sample rate convert sounds, and adjust the volume of both of them to prevent clipping.
For most applications, this works very well – the user playing back his MP3s hears the alarm bell mixed in when his e-mail arrives. However, to do this the mixer may make choices which may be unacceptable to an audiophile.
Firstly, most audiophile users will want to listen to only the music, and not be distracted by random sounds. Secondly, any volume control will alter the bits output to the audio device, possibly losing resolution. Thirdly, if the mixer decides to sample rate convert the music, rather than for instance system sounds, then the audio will be unnecessarily degraded.
Owing to the fact that a PC may contain many tracks in many different sample rates, and more than one can potentially be played at one time, the OS must have a scheme to deal with this, which can involve sample rate conversion.
OSX
OSX uses a “fixed” output sample rate (set by the Audio Midi panel in “Utilities”). The user sets this, and OSX resamples everything to match this rate.
Pros The digital out never changes rate, and if the rate is set to the same rate as the file being played back, and all enhancements/volume controls are disabled, the output is bit perfect.
Cons If the user has multiple sample rates, he either has to change the output sample rate manually every time the source sample rate changes, or rely on the OSX rate converter.
Windows XP
XP uses a thing called “K-Mixer” to handle sample rate clashes and mixing. If the audio device is already playing a sound, and a second application attempts to play another, K-Mixer will resample the second sound to be the same rate as the first. Otherwise, it does not perform rate conversion. A small volume adjustment is always in place (this is benign if the output device is 24 bit capable, not so if only 16 bit capable).
Pros If a user uses only one audio program, and has a 24 bit capable device, the output sample rate will change to meet that of the source material with very little degradation.
Cons Tricky and application specific to bypass K-Mixer for truly bit-perfect output.

Windows Vista
Windows Vista notionally uses a similar scheme to OSX – in the “Sounds” control panel, there is an “Output Sample Rate”. When using general purpose programs that use DirectSound (e.g. Windows Media Player), it works much the same as OSX – all audio is resampled by the OS to that set in the control panel. Similarly, the output can be bit perfect if the source rate matches the output rate. However, Microsoft have introduced a mode called “Exclusive”. In this mode, applications can talk directly to the sound hardware, bypassing all mixers, rate converters etc. using an API called WASAPI. The author is not aware that there are any fully working WASAPI implementations at present.
Pros Has the potential to combine the benefits of OSX for the casual user, with the pure-audio path and auto-rate switching an audiophile requires.
Cons Doubts as to whether WASAPI is fully ready, lack of software using this mode. Poor rate converter (see sample rate converter measurements).

Workarounds
Freeware available on the internet allows ASIO playback from Windows Media Player & Foobar, using both Windows XP and Vista. Use of these “workarounds” allows the application to select the sample rate, and guarantees the output from XP & Vista to be bit perfect. We are unaware of any software that allows iTunes to play back multiple sample rates without the Digital component (e.g. Upsmapler or DAC) being used for source rates that don’t match the selected output rate.
Summary
It is perfectly feasible to achieve bit perfect output from Windows XP, Windows Vista and OS-X. Choosing the interface carefully, together with being aware of what can be going on “behind the scenes” can result in a PC/Mac source that meets every criteria ( jitter performance, etc ) needed to be a “True High-End Source”, which combined with the convenience and flexibility make PC based audio almost irresistible.

purite audio
05-01-2009, 14:37
Davo Hi, interesting post ,will DCS be making their own 'server' , have you tried the various implementations you discuss ,and if you have do you have a favourite.
Thanks Keith.

Audiocom AV
05-01-2009, 16:17
It is perfectly feasible to achieve bit perfect output from Windows XP, Windows Vista and OS-X. Choosing the interface carefully, together with being aware of what can be going on “behind the scenes” can result in a PC/Mac source that meets every criteria ( jitter performance, etc ) needed to be a “True High-End Source”, which combined with the convenience and flexibility make PC based audio almost irresistible.

Hi

Thanks for your input.

This information is encouraging.

Best Wishes
Mark

leo
05-01-2009, 19:57
Nice post Davo! plenty there for us to be chewing on

I also came across this whilst browsing, not had time to read through it yet http://imageevent.com/cics/v03theartofbuildingcomputertrnsp