Jump to content
IGNORED

HDtracks now offers AIFF, ALAC, WAV, & FLAC


Recommended Posts

I am open to the fact the WAV could be better due to a decoder problem with some PC implementations, but flac has been proven to be lossless. There is way too much chatter about wav being better than flac. I am not completely closed to this possibility, but until I see proper evidence, it is just bunk.

 

Well, yes, considering it would violate a bunch of laws of physics and information theory, I think it goes into the category "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence".

 

As I said, abx testing can be fun. Try it yourself, you will often be surprised at the results.

 

Especially if you are of the "I don't need any ABX, I know what I can hear" persuasion...

Link to comment
And have you tried comparing the flac version with a wav file converted from that flac? And then compared that wav version with the wav you downloaded directly?

 

That, to me, seems the easy and obvious way to nail down any differences.

 

Sorry, I didn't realize I was reopening a can of worms. May I just say that I am very jealous of the folks who do not hear these differences, regardless of whether or not they are real. I've been in the audio industry for 35 years and have heard many things that could not exist as differences until something new needed to be found to measure. Take jitter, the math originally presented said there could be no difference in the digital datastreams until we found that jitter made audible differences and, with a few exceptions, the lower jitter units tended to sound subjectively better. Is it all hype and placebo? Maybe, I just count myself in the group that thinks these differences exist, but I do respect the opinions of those who believe the science as we currently understand it. I frankly think the truth is probably somewhere between our divergent opinions.

 

I did convert a 24/192 flac (jackson brown Rosie, from Running on Empty,) to 24/192 wav using Xrecode for the conversion. I found that the wav converted from flac was seemingly identical sounding to the flac file. Ergo, the converted from flac wav file was inferior to the wav. I was sitting in the sweet spot and two coworkers were well off axis. I knew which track was playing, but my coworkers, well off axis, did not know which was file was playing but identified the difference 5 our of 5 times. I recognize that this does not meet ABX criteria as I may have been presenting physical cues that they perceived.

 

FYI, I once participated in an ABX test and identified the compared components 8 out of 10 times. There were two other listeners that scored similarly out of 8 listeners. At my request, when this was done I asked that we compare the sound with and without the ABX box in the circuit. The switcher seemed to negatively affect the sound with both components to about the same degree. I came away thinking that at least some ABX tests may be affected by signal loss or change through the switcher.

 

I have emailed HD Tracks to see if it was the same master for both sources. When time permits, I will try a sampling of other tracks to see if there is any constancy in the results.

 

FYI, the system is a Lenovo laptop G550, 2.1GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Processor with 4GB Memory running Win7 32bit. DAC is Esoteric D02 with the G-0Rb clock feeding an Esoteric C-03 preamp which is driving a new cj LP125Sa that we are breaking in (about 400 hours so far.) The speakers are Focal 826W, (hardly up to the rest of the system, but there were there and I was lazy.) Cabling is Kimber BBus Ag USB, Kimber KS1126 balanced from the D-02 to the C-03, Kimber KS1026 from the pre to the amp and Kimber KS-3035 speaker cable.

 

I'll let you know if HDTracks replies about whether or not the files are from the same master.

 

Thanks to all for your experiences and thoughts. I apologizing for restarting what I should have realized would start flames. It would be nice if both sides of the debated could be more tolerant of the opinions of others. Remember, opinions are like anuses, everybody has one.

Link to comment

I just heard from HDTracks the flac and the wav are from the same master. So, my advise would be to opt for the wav when available. I also want to say the sound of the flac files are terrific. However, at least to my ear and in the case of two Jackson Browne cuts the wavs are even better.

Link to comment
Sorry, I didn't realize I was reopening a can of worms.

 

I guess it was inevitable :)

 

May I just say that I am very jealous of the folks who do not hear these differences, regardless of whether or not they are real. I've been in the audio industry for 35 years and have heard many things that could not exist as differences until something new needed to be found to measure. Take jitter, the math originally presented said there could be no difference in the digital datastreams until we found that jitter made audible differences and, with a few exceptions, the lower jitter units tended to sound subjectively better.

 

Well, any mathematical model that claims jitter has *no* effect is of course flawed. Pure digital systems have ways of coping with jitter so that it does not affect the results, but in situations where timing is transmitted along with data (such as S/PDIF) are affected by gross jitter - but we might debate to what degree.

 

I frankly think the truth is probably somewhere between our divergent opinions.

 

Sure. That's why I am in the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" camp - I acknowledge real-time FLAC-to-PCM conversions might have audible differences, but if off-line FLAC-to-WAV conversions cause audible differences, there is something wrong in the codec, and that "something" can be measured, isolated and fixed.

 

I did convert a 24/192 flac (jackson brown Rosie, from Running on Empty,) to 24/192 wav using Xrecode for the conversion.

 

I can't fault your choice of music, but I suggest using the reference implementation of the FLAC codec instead of a package that does a huge amount of codecs from unspecified sources and that might take shortcuts.

 

I came away thinking that at least some ABX tests may be affected by signal loss or change through the switcher.

 

Absolutely - there are some iffy switchers out there. In the case of different file formats the path should be pretty much identical.

 

Thanks to all for your experiences and thoughts. I apologizing for restarting what I should have realized would start flames. It would be nice if both sides of the debated could be more tolerant of the opinions of others. Remember, opinions are like anuses, everybody has one.

 

Totally agree - but I do believe in the axiom quoted in my signature.

Link to comment

 

I did convert a 24/192 flac (jackson brown Rosie, from Running on Empty,) to 24/192 wav using Xrecode for the conversion. I found that the wav converted from flac was seemingly identical sounding to the flac file. Ergo, the converted from flac wav file was inferior to the wav.

 

.

 

This is just impossible...more likely there was a problem in the conversion. WAV to FLAC and back to WAV is bit identical.

Link to comment
This is just impossible...more likely there was a problem in the conversion. WAV to FLAC and back to WAV is bit identical. - ron spencer

Not according to The Absolute Sound 220, and 221, where a series of tests were run, as well as many members here who are also reporting differences between .wav and flac files as you have already seen. However C.A. members have the luxury of being able to use their ears and report what they hear, unlike Hydrogen Audio Forum where Rule no.8 prohibits subjective reports.

but if off-line FLAC-to-WAV conversions cause audible differences, there is something wrong in the codec, and that "something" can be measured, isolated and fixed.

Pray tell us how, Johan. (grin)

I would expect that in the cases as mentioned here ,where the poster has reported that the .wav file derived after the conversion to .flac doesn't sound as good as the original .wav file, that both .wav files will almost certainly have identical check sums !!!

Kind Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
I just heard from HDTracks the flac and the wav are from the same master. So, my advise would be to opt for the wav when available. I also want to say the sound of the flac files are terrific. However, at least to my ear and in the case of two Jackson Browne cuts the wavs are even better.

 

Did they indicate if one was derived from the other? In other words did they just receive a Flac file and make the Wav and Aiff files from the Flac?

Silver Circle Audio | Roon | Devialet | Synology | Vivid Audio | Stillpoint Aperture | Auralic | DH Labs

Link to comment
Did they indicate if one was derived from the other? In other words did they just receive a Flac file and make the Wav and Aiff files from the Flac?

I would like to know the answer to that too, as even older hi res material is suddenly appearing with a .wav file provision.

They must have been busy little devils right through the holiday season to do such a mammoth task ?

OR did they cheat and just convert existing .flac material to .wav themselves ?

Also, it would be interesting to know what format the files are in that they receive from the Record Companies.

Does HDtracks do the conversions to .flac ?

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
The problem with squabbling about whether the FLAC or the WAV file came first (as if it could possibly matter) is it distracts from the very real problem HD tracks has with distinguishing real high-res from up-sampled files.

 

".....we DO test them in-house as well as by an independent 3rd party, at various time points within each track in the album. What we look for is a gradual rolloff in frequencies up to the appropriate point for 96/24, 192/24, etc, and reject anything with an obvious brickwall cutoff. Note that depending on where in a track a sample is taken, the rolloff may be at a slightly different frequency, which is natural with dynamic music."

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Re the newly offered uncompressed formats, I'm wondering if it's similar (or even the same?) as JRiver's HDTracks downloader, having FLAC as their server file, and converting the files to your requested format on the fly?

 

So, maybe ALL the new file formats are converted from a common FLAC version?

 

NOTE! This is conjecture on my part, unsubstantiated by fact. Hence the question.

 

Anyone know?

Synology NAS, Mac Mini 2011 (with SSD and 16GB RAM), Lampizator L4 Gen4 PCM DAC, Concert Fidelity CF-080 LSX2 line pre-amp, SGR CX4F active speakers, Apple iPad (as remote).

 

Software: OS X Mavericks, Amarra Symphony 3.0 with iRC/Audirvana Plus 1.5.12/, Remoter VNC (on iPad). CAD OS X script v2.2 (to remove redundant processes).

 

OS X Mavericks running from SD card; 8 GB RAM disk for music files.

 

All connected via a snakes nest of various exotic cables! ;o)

Link to comment
So, maybe ALL the new file formats are converted from a common FLAC version?

If they are, as far as I am concerned , they can shove them where the sun doesn't shine.(smile)

To do so would be a breach of trust,(and worse) and not the reason why so many people have requested files be made available in aiff and .wav, which is because of a possible higher SQ.Why would you want to use much greater bandwidth and DL time when you could just as easily do the conversions to .wav or .aiff for yourself if they started out life as .flac files?

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Re the newly offered uncompressed formats, I'm wondering if it's similar (or even the same?) as JRiver's HDTracks downloader, having FLAC as their server file, and converting the files to your requested format on the fly?

 

So, maybe ALL the new file formats are converted from a common FLAC version?

 

NOTE! This is conjecture on my part, unsubstantiated by fact. Hence the question.

 

Anyone know?

 

 

My guess is that is exactly what they are doing, and it is a perfectly reasonable, rational approach. The problem with screaming that this is a "breach of trust" is that it dilutes genuine criticism of their products (i.e., ones that appear up-sampled, whether unintentional or not).

Link to comment
".....we DO test them in-house as well as by an independent 3rd party, at various time points within each track in the album. What we look for is a gradual rolloff in frequencies up to the appropriate point for 96/24, 192/24, etc, and reject anything with an obvious brickwall cutoff. Note that depending on where in a track a sample is taken, the rolloff may be at a slightly different frequency, which is natural with dynamic music."

 

They can say that, but there are some really obvious problems with some of the downloads that show less than close attention paid to the source. For example, The Who's "Tommy" - remember the missing tracks? Well when I bought the DVD-A and ripped that, there was precisely the same glitch (the rip wouldn't do the tracks that were missing from the download all in the same batch with the others from the album for some reason). That's a little too coincidental, don't you think?

 

Perhaps they've become better about it, but I am still wary, not so much about resolution, though I agree that's important, but about underlying sound quality of the recordings the labels are providing HDTracks. So many seem to be from newer, compressed-to-sound-good-and-loud remasters. My strong guess is that the labels are seeing hi-res as just a convenient way to make yet another income stream from hits that have long since paid back their production costs. The price of persuading most boomers to buy our old faves as new yet again is having someone come in and make it loud enough for iTunes, and we as audiophiles get the highest available resolution of the compressed crap that quite often results.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Not according to The Absolute Sound 220, and 221, where a series of tests were run

 

I remember the flaws in The Absurdist Sound articles were amply pointed out in other discussions, and I don't think we need to rehash that discussion.

 

"but if off-line FLAC-to-WAV conversions cause audible differences, there is something wrong in the codec, and that "something" can be measured, isolated and fixed."

Pray tell us how, Johan. (grin)

I would expect that in the cases as mentioned here ,where the poster has reported that the .wav file derived after the conversion to .flac doesn't sound as good as the original .wav file, that both .wav files will almost certainly have identical check sums !!!

 

I would expect a software error in the codec (software errors? really?) is a much more likely explanation than some magical gap in information theory.

 

Anyway, we have had these discussions a zillion times in the other parts of the forum, and you are free to believe whatever you want. Can we get back to discussing HDTracks?

Link to comment
Anyway, we have had these discussions a zillion times in the other parts of the forum, and you are free to believe whatever you want. Can we get back to discussing HDTracks?

Julf.

Better still, as we now all know your belief that 16/44.1 is all that is necessary,having also seen it many times before, why don't you let people who have an interest in high res material from HDtracks and other suppliers have their say without you banging this tired old drum about hi res being a waste of time ?

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Better still, as we now all know your belief that 16/44.1 is all that is necessary,having also seen it many times before, why don't you let people who have an interest in high res material from HDtracks and other suppliers have their say without you banging this tired old drum about hi res being a waste of time ?

 

Alex,

 

Have you ever considered a career working for Rupert Murdoch?

 

Just to inject some facts:

 

a) I have no categoric belief that "16/44.1 is all that is necessary"

b) I do not believe that "hi res is a waste of time" in all cases.

c) I am still occasionally buying downloads from sites like HDTracks, but only after having verified the material is bona-fide hi-res.

 

 

Thanks for reminding me why I decided to stay away from the general part of CA.

Link to comment
a) I have no categoric belief that "16/44.1 is all that is necessary"

Then why do you keep posting stuff like this, and other stuff from old AES trials ??

 

In September 2007, two members of the Boston Audio Society and the Audio Engineering Society published their study in which about half of the 554 double-blind ABX test listening trials made by 60 respondents showed the correct identification of high-resolution or CD-standard sampling rate.[6] The results were no better than flipping a coin.[6]"

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Then why do you keep posting stuff like this, and other stuff from old AES trials ??

 

The stuff I posted (in another thread) in response to you posting the controversial/disproved research report from 12 years ago?

 

Perhaps because it was part of the wikipedia page discussing the controversial research? Perhaps because it is actually OK to present different views and results?

 

This is getting a bit too absurd to waste time on... Life is too short.

 

Look, Alex, you are free to believe whatever you want, and you can keep repeating it as often as you want in the hope that it will become true. Others might disagree with your views. Now, can we get back to the HDTracks discussion?

Link to comment
"In September 2007, two members of the Boston Audio Society and the Audio Engineering Society

published their study in which about half of the 554 double-blind ABX test listening trials

made by 60 respondents showed the correct identification of high-resolution or CD-standard sampling rate.

[6] The results were no better than flipping a coin.[6]"

 

Post 18 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/dbpoweramp-rips-vs-hdtracks-downloads-14444/

 

Julf

You posted that in the recent thread at the attached link.

I wasn't a participant in that thread. I think that it is fair comment to draw the distinction between what you claim to believe, and what you actually post. It's fair enough to highlight problems with material that HDtracks sells, but it isn't helpful to keep trying to prove that people are not able to hear differences between RBCD and hi res material.I don't believe that it is helpful for either the hi res providers, including Barry Diament, or the Industry in general, who continue to make available DACs and other products capable of playback at increasingly high resolutions. We are now even seeing the emergence of DSD capable DACs and DSD material from the likes of Cookie Marenco.

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Alex,

 

Post 18 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/dbpoweramp-rips-vs-hdtracks-downloads-14444/

 

You posted that in the recent thread at the attached link.

I wasn't a participant in that thread.

 

indeed - my apologies, it was in a response to a posting by Roch and not you.

I think that it is fair comment to draw the distinction between what you claim to believe, and what you actually post.

 

As I stated earlier, the part you selectively quoted was part of the Wikipedia entry on the controversial/dubious research Roch posted. It was not presented as my view or opinion, but as part of an independent view on that research.

 

It's fair enough to highlight problems with material that HDtracks sells, but it isn't helpful to keep trying to prove that people are not able to hear differences between RBCD and hi res material.I don't believe that it is helpful for either the hi res providers, including Barry Diament, or the Industry in general, who continue to make available DACs and other products capable of playback at increasingly high resolutions.

 

I don' t see why I would have to be helpful towards commercial product providers. I think we have enough audiophile magazines doing exactly that.

 

I do personally feel that the benefits of hi-res are still not very clearly proven, and that the benefits probably relate to the avoidance of steep filters. I don' t think that claiming (by faith) that hi-res is absolutely better than, for example, red book, just because it is "helpful to the industry" is very helpful towards us, the customers of that industry. But to each their own...

Link to comment

Ladies and Gentleman, thank you all for your comments. I am very willing to accept that flac should be identical to a wav. A special thanks to Julf for mentioning the implantation of the codec could be at fault. I'm using J. River the formerly described laptop as well as at home on a diy music server also running Win7. At home, I heard differences between different programs; in some cases it was very subtle, in other cases, rather obvious. Julf, can you point me to a reference implementation of the flac codec.

 

A big issue I'm finding with computer based audio is everything seems to make a difference. I went so far as to change the coax RCA out on an M-Audio 192 card to BNC with two identical cards in the computer, the coax and the BNC sounded different. I was using identical digital cables...I thought I was on to something until I found that the different pci slots on the Asus mobo seemed to have a different sound. I used to be a compulsive audiophile (obviously, I left that far in the past;-) and would readjust SRA with each record. What strikes me in this case is that so many people hear differences and so many respected scientists say they can't exist.

 

Perhaps it is not possible, but I would love for the people that have the ability to test this gear try to figure out what is causing the differences. In this case, I don't think the issue is jitter related as the Esoteric G-0Rb is accurate to ±0.05 ppb=±0.00005 ppm. If something is corrupting the flac decode process, we owe it to ourselves to try to figure out how to prevent that.

 

I would appreciate it if the folks who are not hearing differences PM me and let me know what they are using for a hardware and software. To refer to an earlier post, if my equipment is scheisse I want to know about it and improve it.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...