<sigh> Digital to Analogue

[Ali Tait]

Anyone tried encoding a track in FLAC at different compression levels and noticed any difference?

[Vincent Kars]

But a good degree in maths and knowledge of algorithms would be far more helpful than accepting the lossless claims as cast iron facts.

Indeed, a good degree in math is exactly what you are missing.

Maybe this helps assuming you are able to handle Foobar
Take a WAV(1)
Convert it to FLAC
Convert it back to WAV(2)
Open the Foobar2000:Components/Binary Comparator and compare WAV1 with WAV1
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....foo_bitcompare

[AlexM]

I am quite aware what is claimed. But unlike text and numbers, audio and video don't do true lossless compression by algorithms. Data has to be discarded or lumped together in order to reduce size.
Try RAR on a video or audio file and see how much smaller the file is. In many cases it actually ends up larger. And the reason for that? Not much, if any, data that can be lumped together and discarded.
For a FLAC file to be so drastically reduced in size without any audio detail being disposed of is stretching the imagination. Just have a look at the source code of the encoding/decoding process to see how the data is handled in order to get an idea of things.

Of course, I am not here to re-educate the misguided souls who cling on to the believe that all is well in the lossless compression department. But a good degree in maths and knowledge of algorithms would be far more helpful than accepting the lossless claims as cast iron facts. Real audiophiles don't do things like that.

Stan,

I think you are way off base here. You cant compare data reduction and data compression as they are different fundamentally. A LPCM file is just a file, and can be compressed without loss of information. All of the info is out there, and you need to read up a bit on this.

The agorythms dont lie, but I'm not disputing that some claim to hear a difference, but this (if true) is caused by something other than what you are saying.

This should be a good debate in another thread.

Regards,
Alex

[AlexM]

Anyone tried encoding a track in FLAC at different compression levels and noticed any difference?

Actually I will because I want to see for myself whether FLAC level 1 or 5 sounds any different to a wav in my system.

If it does it wont be because the source data has been discarded along the way at each level. prob wont bother with level 8 as compression is a lot slower and the file sizes arent much smaller

Cheers,

Alex

[Ali Tait]

Ok, cheers Alex, be interested in your conclusions.

[northwest]

Just trying to alter the ships course a little here.
I have spent ALL FKN DAY pi**ing about with my audio files. I didn't realise I hadn't catalogued so many
Anyhow, I installed the SSD with win7 on it into the netbook (also forgot you have to dismantle the bloody thing) and installed Foobar to it as a starting point. Then attached an external drive and pointed the program at it. Great really, MUCH better than a cable from the headphone out (we've all been there). Not as good as my CD player -> pre-amp-> power amp but a marked improvement. After a while I was wondering how much battery the Netbook had so plugged the Power Supply into it to be on the safe side. bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ;(

Oh boy. Just what I need, another 'element' into the mix.

[aBe]

Sharing my experience..

WAV sounds much better than FLAC in my system.
As for FLAC files, the bigger the size the better they sound.
I will also choose WMA format over MP3 anyday.

If Audio & Hifi is a religion, I am that aloof blind faith Disciple

[StanleyB]

Stan,

I think you are way off base here. You cant compare data reduction and data compression as they are different fundamentally. A LPCM file is just a file, and can be compressed without loss of information. All of the info is out there, and you need to read up a bit on this.

I happen to have worked on compression software code, so I am not diving in blindly. It' partly the result of working on that side of things that caused me to develop a mp3 player in the late 90's . Had the investors not been so scared of the new technology, I might have been a very rich guy by now .
But I digress. I am aware that there is a lot of info out there on the net. So too is info on area51, perpetual motion, Roswell, etc.

[bobbasrah]

I happen to have worked on compression software code, so I am not diving in blindly. It' partly the result of working on that side of things that caused me to develop a mp3 player in the late 90's . Had the investors not been so scared of the new technology, I might have been a very rich guy by now .
But I digress. I am aware that there is a lot of info out there on the net. So too is info on area51, perpetual motion, Roswell, etc.

It is obvious that there are entrenched or conflicting opinions and experience over compaction/decompaction of digital files (audio in this instance) and software applications, but this is contributing nothing to Graham's original query, has been voiced as a diversion elsewhere, and really should be taken on in a new thread should the subject sufficiently merit discussion and examination...
Come to that, the departure over John's little blue tablets did not help much either, although floppies are an uncommon subject these days....

Graham, there is certainly plenty of info to pick, choose and try a variety of players and experiment with, but I can wholeheartedy commend WASAPI (or ASIO if necessary) as an aid to audio quality/preservation, and is easy enough to apply in Win7/Foobar, etc...

The buzz that you have discovered is obviously a PSU related issue, either because of PSU, Netbook regulators, or the usb/link to the DAC.
I have no experience with Stan's DAC, but believe not to be USB powered, so it may be worth decoupling/chopping the power line on a spare/cheap usb cable to see if this is the cause. I am not sure whether the Caiman is galvanically isolated. Stan could perhaps comment on this with some knowledge and authority.

[Welder]

Given a great many of us will have difficulty telling a fixed bit rate 320 mp3 from redbook, 16/44.1 from 16/48, 16/48 from 24/96 one amp from another (ahem ) any difference between Flac and WAV, should any exist, hardly seems worth worrying about.

I keep a WAV copy just in case the impossible happens and my hearing drastically improves as I get older.

If people believe they can hear a difference between one thing and another that's great.
There is just one thing that keeps me sceptical and that's something my Physics tutor used to say, "they profit by your ignorance".