Raspberry Pi 4 and Caiman SEG

[StanleyB]

WAV files are not so good with metadata. And they can be so large that they cause drop outs if you are streaming them wireless. My 192kHz WAV files cause a lot of buffering on my network. But the fLAC versions play fie in real time. And you can forget about trying to steam 384kHz WAV files. Its a constant buffering playback. Those ones I have to play back via a wired connection.
The uncompressed FLAC files are also smaller then their WAV equivalent. But isn't so much about size really. It's not so easy to get music in WAV format unless you buy a CD.

[struth]

ive never had an issue with flac files, but wav as said are not so happy with metadata and can be pretty big. when youve a big collection, it takes up a lot of room. I think if your obsessive you can make an initial wav copy, as a master and then copy over a flac one as the user. Ive tried using the different rip levels years ago but found the one the program selected was fine and no audible difference. i used to use fancy rippers, but found no difference in 99.9% of discs.

[Edward]

IME (as that is all I have to go on) using a low powered CPU to decode a FLAC file (when compression is used) leads to audible degradation, using a sufficient CPU leads to zero degradation (as compared to say WAV files).

There are numerous other variables of course (such as what software is used for decoding).

[Labarum]

I was not suggesting the use of WAW, but questioning Stan's words "That's why I don't use any compression if I am the one creating the FLAC file from for example a CD."

A detailed technical explanation seems to be here, and all flac file generation involves compression

https://sound.stackexchange.com/ques...iency-analysis

"FLAC compression levels are (only) a trade off between encoding time and file size. "

So I remain at a loss to know what Stan was trying to say.

[StanleyB]

I was not suggesting the use of WAW, but questioning Stan's words "That's why I don't use any compression if I am the one creating the FLAC file from for example a CD."

A detailed technical explanation seems to be here, and all flac file generation involves compression

https://sound.stackexchange.com/ques...iency-analysis

"FLAC compression levels are (only) a trade off between encoding time and file size. "

So I remain at a loss to know what Stan was trying to say.

I am saying that I know better. Of course anyone is free to believe what they read on any other site. But please don't assume that they are smarter and know better than me. I made a living from knowing my digital stuff since the early eighties.

[Labarum]

I am saying that I know better. Of course anyone is free to believe . . .

That is not a particularly helpful or edifying posture, Stan.

Doing some more reading I note that as well as FLAC compressions 0-8 there is also an "Uncompressed FLAC" option, and that I did not know. I am guessing that is what you are referring to when you say "That's why I don't use any compression if I am the one creating the FLAC file from for example a CD."

Now I need to learn some more. I am supposing that an Uncompressed FLAC is something akin to a WAW but wrapped up in such a way that metadata may be conveniently attached; and I am supposing that such an Uncompressed FLAC would stress the playback device less than a highly compressed format that has to be decoded on the fly.

I would value more elucidation. Is anyone offering?

[Lawrence001]

I'm with Stan on this one, from experimenting I prefer lower compression rates in Flac files and nobody will convince me otherwise.

I experimented with a setting of 0 but the file size was the same as the default (5) so I put it down to a quirk of the Vortexbox software and use 1.

Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

[Lawrence001]

Anyway nice to know in not I'm a minority of 1 any more, and it's someone with the reputation of Stan who agrees with me

Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

[Labarum]

I must rip a CD to uncompressed FLAC and have a listen myself, but I cannot reliably differentiate between a good quality MP3 (or AAC) stream and a FLAC stream. The best Internet Radio Stations that use lossy streams are as good as the few that stream FLAC.

On other fronts I did notice an improvement on the recent move for my old 7510 DAC to a new Caiman SEG. One of the reasons for getting the SEG was its USB input. My PiCorePlayer running in a Raspberry Pi4 now drives the DAC directly rather than via a Google Chromecast Audio. There is a workaround to allow that marriage. A plugin called Castbridge runs in Logitech Media Server/PiCorePlayer and it enables a Google Chromecast Audio to masquerade as a Squeezebox with caveats. The music can be sent track by track to the Audiocast, but without gapless replay - there the FLAC is decoded in the Audiocast. For gapless replay the whole ripped CD or playlist must be decoded from FLAC in the server and sent to the Audiocast as a straightforward single PCM stream. That is stable even with the few 24/96 FLACs I have. Either way I hear no difference when listening via the Caiman SEG driving my Sennheiser HD25 headphones; I did, however hear some improvement when removing the Google Chromecast Audio dongle from the chain. (I was using it only as a transport to feed the Caiman SEG optically.)

And all of this of course against the observation that the Caiman SEG does not measure well by modern standards. I knew that when I bought it, but did so because it has pre-amp features that cannot be found elsewhere at the price, and it is well and robustly made. The ruling principle was again "I won't hear the difference" and in general - in engineering "good enough is good enough."

I'm not wasting my life looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I just listen to the music.

[Lawrence001]

I did 2 rips, one on setting 1 and the other on 9 to compare. If Flac is lossless then there should have been no difference but I'm sure the latter was slightly less open and airy and lacked the subtle nuances of things like guitar strums and breath of vocals.

This was not blind and I accept there is potential unconscious bias, but as storage space is not a limit I don't see any reason to increase compression rates beyond the minimum. These subtle improvements can make the difference between a short and long listening session into the night.

Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk