Flac vs Wav

[Teresa]

Hi Teresa,

Can I ask (if I am allowed to on this site) where do you download you DSD from. Also do you know the original format of these DSD files. I am interested in people who have A/B comparison with upsampled DSD files from 16/44 right up to 32/384 pcm conversion as well as original native DSD 64 & 128 masters which I assume are rare at the moment.

Regards, Gary

 

Hi Gary,

 

I like Rock, Jazz, Blues and Folk music so my DSD downloads are from high quality analog masters. I don't like Classical music so people who like Classical music can point out their favorite DSD downloads. There are many Classical DSD downloads from DSD masters.

 

When the Five Four Music store comes online there will be Jazz, Blues and Classical pure DSD recordings from Telarc and other labels they record for.

 

My favorites are the Jazz recordings in DSD 128 (5.6MHz) from Opus 3 Records

 

My second favorites are from APO (Analogue Productions Originals) which are recent Blues analog recordings made in Blue Heaven Studios, a church-turned-recording studio, they are DSD 64 (2.8MHz).

 

My third favorites are Analogue Productions Remasters of commercial recordings. There are also lots of other DSD downloads at Acoustic Sounds Super HiRez website

 

Also there are some free DSD downloads in 64, 128 and 256 fs from the Native DSD website

 

Hope this helps.

[garyfrancis100]

I think Firedog is being too generous. The entire discussion is ridiculous.

 

The entire discussion is not totally ridiculous as in post should be for all to look at and find out for themselves

I have just posted this comment below to firedog who is being generous in his comments but I just urged you post a couple of basic reasons as to how people should approach CA and what they should or should not be doing it helps Thanks

again no offence intended.

 

Parts of the discussion is pointless agreed but not for the novice who is about to enter the world of CA, These discussions help with getting the sound right for potential CA,s before plunging into this deep world. I used usb on memory stick as an easy way to hear the difference between files i.e the dreaded but improving mp3 files vs 16/44 and higher. Our inputs are important for others to see.

I personally have a purpose built fanless computer away from my listening room this connects via adnaco fibre optics and then into a fully isolated, battery powered, 384 KHz PCM/5.6 Mhz DSD reference USB interface which then outputs i2s over hdmi into my DAC which has hdmi input .A little overkill but the sound is to die for.

All of this may mean nothing to a novice but he or she will hopefully have enough ammunition for research before parting with hard earned cash. The DAC i will talk about another time, however for listening test using memory sticks and A/B testing was done on the cambridge audio dac magic 6. It is an ok dac for beginners, but what I like is that this dac shows how sound can change by sending sound via NAS, Memory Stick (usb) ,computer, computer via converter, Direct hdd external Storage etc this list goes on and on. This is a good starting point for beginners who really want to explore CA options. These beginners may include well experienced analogue audiophiles.

I still have my audio synthesis dac which is only good for redbook / spdif but still good (just take a look inside the components used then top draw stuff)

[sandyk]

Hi Sandy K

I am interested in the method you use for upsampling to DSD. Do you find this beneficial when converting from lower formats / files ?

For example is it worth upsampling and converting ones whole library of say Flac or Wav based on 16/44 to DSD.

Do you convert to 64 or 128

 

Regards, Gary

 

Hi Gary

I don't upsample to DSD, however quite a few other members report gains from doing so.

I am guessing that the more relaxed filtering involved after conversion to the much higher resolution is the reason for the reported resulting improvements, not the DSD format itself.

 

Alex

[garyfrancis100]

Thanks Teresa,

I have looked at some of these sites and your views are in line with many others.

The reason for me asking if these files are genuine is because I have heard raw studio masters on dac upsampled downsampled native etc and compared them to hi res files from websites. I must say these sites you mentioned are indeed good. But there are sites who claim to have hi res files but in reality they are upsampled Redbook converted to flac some sites state this and some do not. So to continue to name the genuine sites can only be good for potential purchasers

 

Thanks Again

Gary

[Paul R]

Actually your method of copying files onto a USB drive in order to play them sounds a little like the ritual that vinyl heads go through before they play a record.

 

(grin) A friend of mine pointed out the same thing the other day. What is amazing is that it is most definitely a copy, and not even a first generation copy, of the data that eventually gets to the USB stick.

 

First off, the data is decoded to buffer memory from the CD on the CD reader, then it is transmitted to the computer (even via DMA), then the computer makes a copy of it to format and write to the USB device, where it is copied to a buffer on the computer side and from a buffer on the USB stick to the physical media.

 

Plenty of digital copies of the data there, before it even gets to where it is intended to go, on at least three different physical devices.

 

-Paul

[Kal Rubinson]

Sounds like a bit of professional jealousy ?

Nope. Just trying for clarity. The articles were not written by TAS staffers.

 

Actually many TAS readers also panned this series:

Forums | The Absolute Sound

Yup.

[kumakuma]

Also, ALL conversions introduce the possibility of increased "Jitter", at the very least.

 

I can understand jitter when a file is converted to another format during playback but the idea that jitter can somehow be embedded in a static file doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Paul R]

I can understand jitter when a file is converted to another format during playback but the idea that jitter can somehow be embedded in a static file doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

I'm not sure I understand the statement either. A conversion cannot and will not introduce any jitter or anything else like it under normal circumstances. That being the conversion of one digital format to another, and given that both the to and the from format are lossless.

 

The one case where this is possible is when the data is from digital to analog and back again. Then some jitter is embedded in the music data itself, but that is not at all the same thing as what I think the question addressed.

 

And all bets are off if you convert AAC to MP3 or the like - I am not sure what the results will be.

[garyfrancis100]

(grin) A friend of mine pointed out the same thing the other day. What is amazing is that it is most definitely a copy, and not even a first generation copy, of the data that eventually gets to the USB stick.

 

First off, the data is decoded to buffer memory from the CD on the CD reader, then it is transmitted to the computer (even via DMA), then the computer makes a copy of it to format and write to the USB device, where it is copied to a buffer on the computer side and from a buffer on the USB stick to the physical media.

 

Plenty of digital copies of the data there, before it even gets to where it is intended to go, on at least three different physical devices.

 

-Paul

 

Hi Paul,

The files were copied from cd although the stick was placed directly into the dac which buffers reads etc

But I must stress again this was to make a direct A/B comparison with cd playback vs computer audio playback albeit by flash memory stick (usb). No doubt if it were copied from an original 16/44 file from a trusted website I would say there would be an unfair advantage. This was a simple level playing field test

[garyfrancis100]

I agree 100% with that and the proof is most definitely audible.

[Paul R]

Hi Paul,

The files were copied from cd although the stick was placed directly into the dac which buffers reads etc

But I must stress again this was to make a direct A/B comparison with cd playback vs computer audio playback albeit by flash memory stick (usb). No doubt if it were copied from an original 16/44 file from a trusted website I would say there would be an unfair advantage. This was a simple level playing field test

 

I find that CA playback almost always beats any CD player I have ever heard, and actually, is physically able to beat any CD player that exists.

 

I was sort of commenting on the idea that copying a digital file around will "degrade" it in any way. I have never found an instance of that being true, unless there were enough problems to cause errors of course.

 

-Paul

[sandyk]

I find that CA playback almost always beats any CD player I have ever heard, and actually, is physically able to beat any CD player that exists.

 

I wouldn't go quite that far, but it can certainly beat most affordable players.There are some expensive players that first put the CD contents into memory for playback.

 

Try ripping a very high quality CD on an older PC such as WinXP or an earlier Mac equivalent, burn it to a supermarket type CD-R , extract the contents again, still bit perfect, to a recent model PC ,and compare it with a fresh bit perfect rip on the new PC.

Why should .wav files ripped on 2 different PCs, one a Mac, and the other a Windows machine on 2 different continents, from a Norah Jones Hybrid SACD sound different despite having identical check sums ?

This was the finding of "Silverlight" (Geoff) from NYC about 5 years ago, with the uploaded rip from here reported to sound better than his direct local rip ?

Anyway, it is a waste of time further debating this issue.

[Paul R]

I wouldn't go quite that far, but it can certainly beat most affordable players.There are some expensive players that first put the CD contents into memory for playback.

 

Try ripping a very high quality CD on an older PC such as WinXP or an earlier Mac equivalent, burn it to a supermarket type CD-R , extract the contents again, still bit perfect, to a recent model PC ,and compare it with a fresh bit perfect rip on the new PC.

Why should .wav files ripped on 2 different PCs, one a Mac, and the other a Windows machine on 2 different continents, from a Norah Jones Hybrid SACD sound different despite having identical check sums ?

This was the finding of "Silverlight" (Geoff) from NYC about 5 years ago, with the uploaded rip from here reported to sound better than his direct local rip ?

Anyway, it is a waste of time further debating this issue.

 

I would definitely go that far. Nor would I condescend as much about merely "affordable" gear. The file retrieved from the supermarket cd will sound exactly like the original.

 

I certainly suggest a great deal of gear that is high end by price would still sound the same without the expensive decoration on the case. And with a correspondingly lower price making it quite affordable. Understand, I got no grief with someone making money- but I also do not have any grief with people saving their money either.

 

I also got got no grief with people who feel something has to expensive to be high end- I just do not happen to agree with them about that.

 

The simple answer is those two files do not sound different, if played on the same equipment and if the files are truly identical. That any two identical files sound different in the above situation has never been demonstrated to my satisfaction. You may feel differently of course.

 

And you are right- it is a waste of time debating an issue that can neither be proved nor disproved.

[sandyk]

PS Audio PerfectWave Transport CD-DVD-ROM Transport

Paul

A friend of mine owns one of these, and it certainly sounds better than any other normal CD/DVD player that I have heard, although our own PC efforts were acknowledged by those present to sound slightly better. Later revisions (?) of this player are likely to be further improved.

The sticking point here for me is your use of the wording " if the files are truly identical". If they are truly identical, and not just what normal binary checks say as identical, then they must by definition sound identical.

My 2 well qualified ,E.E. friends in Sydney, having heard these differences for themselves, do not presently believe that normal binary comparisons are capable of revealing these differences.

[dean70]

I.M.E. copying .flac files does not cause any degradation, whereas copying .wav files to other locations may.It comes down to how quiet electrically the PC is.

I use an LG BR writer in my PC for ripping purposes, not BluRay or CD/DVD playback. The optical blocks in this writer are markedly superior to most cheaper CD/DVD Roms due to the accuracy needed for quality BluRay playback of a much higher disc density. There have been photos posted on the Internet of the superior discs burned by this kind of writer, that were taken using specialised hospital imaging equipment.

It is supplied power via a JLH PSU add on which converts the PCs +12V and +5V SMPS power to squeaky clean low impedance supplies for the writer, with a noise level on the supply rails of around 4uV.The JLH PSU Add On also markedly reduces interaction via the PSU to other areas of the PC, including the Master Clock.

As the power supply to the writer is highly stable and low noise it is also likely to result in higher quality disc burns with less Jitter.

The Corsair Voyager GTs that my best sounding material is ripped to directly, are also powered by an external low noise +5V JLH PSU and a short modified USB cable.

 

IF electrically quiet power for the digital areas of a PC , and linear PSUs for some media players, even the S.B.T. , doesn't make any worthwhile improvement, then why are quite a few prepared to pay for a decent Linear PSU such as the John Swenson designed linear PSU for the Mac Mini, which is more expensive than the Mac Mini itself ?

John has also designed and posted details of a very good linear PSU for the S.B.T.

Quite a few others have opted for special order linear PSUs from Paul Hynes and other suppliers for their PCs and Music servers.

The forums are full of people fitting, and retro fitting linear PSU to music servers.

Are they all imagining the benefits of high quality low noise, and low impedance power ?

 

Where can you purchase the JLH PSU add on from?

[wgscott]

The entire discussion is not totally ridiculous as in post should be for all to look at and find out for themselves

I have just posted this comment below to firedog who is being generous in his comments but I just urged you post a couple of basic reasons as to how people should approach CA and what they should or should not be doing it helps Thanks

again no offence intended.

 

Parts of the discussion is pointless agreed but not for the novice who is about to enter the world of CA, These discussions help with getting the sound right for potential CA,s before plunging into this deep world. I used usb on memory stick as an easy way to hear the difference between files i.e the dreaded but improving mp3 files vs 16/44 and higher. Our inputs are important for others to see.

I personally have a purpose built fanless computer away from my listening room this connects via adnaco fibre optics and then into a fully isolated, battery powered, 384 KHz PCM/5.6 Mhz DSD reference USB interface which then outputs i2s over hdmi into my DAC which has hdmi input .A little overkill but the sound is to die for.

All of this may mean nothing to a novice but he or she will hopefully have enough ammunition for research before parting with hard earned cash. The DAC i will talk about another time, however for listening test using memory sticks and A/B testing was done on the cambridge audio dac magic 6. It is an ok dac for beginners, but what I like is that this dac shows how sound can change by sending sound via NAS, Memory Stick (usb) ,computer, computer via converter, Direct hdd external Storage etc this list goes on and on. This is a good starting point for beginners who really want to explore CA options. These beginners may include well experienced analogue audiophiles.

I still have my audio synthesis dac which is only good for redbook / spdif but still good (just take a look inside the components used then top draw stuff)

 

Punctuation could only help.

[sandyk]

Where can you purchase the JLH PSU add on from?

 

Presently there are no more PCBs available, except for a few reserved for Australian requests where one or 2 can be shoved in an envelope with a 60c stamp, without the need for Post Office queues and Customs Declarations. They may become available again for special direct delivery from the PCB manufacturer for orders of a minimum of 10 PCBs. We expect them to be around $30 for 10 plus P&P if that eventuates. They are non profit, but are DIY only, and you would need to source the individual components yourself. So far, there have been > 800 made available world wide via a few Group Buys.

 

Alex

 

P.S.

General information on the original design by the late John Linsley Hood is available at

http://users.tpg.com.au/gerskine/greg/default.htm Click on Power Supplies.

[Paul R]

PS Audio PerfectWave Transport CD-DVD-ROM Transport

Paul

A friend of mine owns one of these, and it certainly sounds better than any other normal CD/DVD player that I have heard, although our own PC efforts were acknowledged by those present to sound slightly better. Later revisions (?) of this player are likely to be further improved.

The sticking point here for me is your use of the wording " if the files are truly identical". If they are truly identical, and not just what normal binary checks say as identical, then they must by definition sound identical.

My 2 well qualified ,E.E. friends in Sydney, having heard these differences for themselves, do not presently believe that normal binary comparisons are capable of revealing these differences.

 

If a binary "bit for bit" check reports the files as identical, they contain identical data, there really is no question of that. I would easily accept identical files played back from different media may sound different. What I have seen no evidence of is two files on the same media sounding different, even if they are copied time and time again.

 

By the way, an Electrical Engineer tends to design electrical systems - lighting, aircraft electrical systems, precise machinery, etc.

 

Computer Engineers tend to specialize in the design of computers, both hardware and software. You need to talk to a local Computer Engineer, since you have trouble accepting what many of the CEs, SEs, and techs here tell you.

 

Asking a non-computer specific Eletrical Engineer about computer stuff is, in a way, like asking asking a Areospace Engineer about the container tolerances on a Nuclear Reactor. He will know something about it, but a Nuclear Engineer will have more and better facts and opinions.

 

Same is true in this case.

 

-Paul

 

 

-Paul

[sandyk]

You need to talk to a local Computer Engineer, since you have trouble accepting what many of the CEs, SEs, and techs here tell you.

 

I don't give a rat's rear end for what CE's, SE's or highly opinionated software people like yourself keep insisting. I use my own ears, not yours , and I have had my findings confirmed by many others, including quite a few C.A. members, and also including several with far better qualifications than yours in the hardware, listening, and recording areas , before I post most of my findings.

 

What I have seen no evidence of is two files on the same media sounding different, even if they are copied time and time again.

6 Blind A/B/A session reports say you are wrong, not that people like yourself will ever accept the results unless you personally set up the sessions. Even then, you would start blaming faults in the original test methodology if the results didn't go your way.

[Paul R]

I don't give a rat's rear end for what CE's, SE's or highly opinionated software people like yourself keep insisting. I use my own ears, not yours , and I have had my findings confirmed by many others, including quite a few C.A. members, and also including several with far better qualifications than yours in the hardware, listening, and recording areas , before I post most of my findings.

 

Perhaps. or perhaps you only listen to those who agree with you. You insist that you have the answers, but refuse to open your methods to examination and rigor.

 

 

6 Blind A/B/A session reports say you are wrong, not that people like yourself will ever accept the results unless you personally set up the sessions. Even then, you would start blaming faults in the original test methodology if the results didn't go your way.[/Quote]

 

And thousands, perhaps, tens of thousands of proper engineers, scientists, researchers and hobbyists say you are wrong. With their ears, experience, and brains. So what? You have never really opened your test methodology to rigor. Believe me, I would like to find some evidence to support you, and I have tried. You do not make it easy.

 

The topic is FLAC vs WAV.

 

If you RIP to a FLAC and then convert the FLAC file to a WAV file, the FLAC and WAV file may sound different, even on the exact same playback chain. If you then convert the WAV back to a new FLAC file, the original FLAC file and the converted FLAC file will sound the same on the same playback chain. If you choose AIFF instead of WAV, the new converted FLAC file will still sound the same as the original. There is nothing a power supply can do to affect that.

 

This is why most people advise to RIP to a lossless format of your choice, then convert the file to several different formats and pick the one you like best on your own equipment.

 

-Paul

[sandyk]

So what? You have never really opened your test methodology to rigor. Believe me, I would like to find some evidence to support you, and I have tried. You do not make it easy.

The last thing I feel the need for is "friendly fire" ! After >5 years, and at my age, I am not about to start over again simply to humour a few sceptics.

In the meantime I have a cut in half JLH PSU with an LM317T instead of the current limiter section, on "soak test" for the purpose of converting +12V SMPS to a squeaky clean +5V for powering an internal 120GB SSD for additional .wav file storage. However, according to some , I am wasting my time by doing so, just as I would be by retrofitting a low noise Linear PSU for the whole PC, or in a Music Server,or Mac Mini, as after all, "bits are bits" and the Power Supply area has no influence !

[orgel]

Anyway, it is a waste of time further debating this issue.

 

And you are right- it is a waste of time debating an issue that can neither be proved nor disproved.

 

I quite agree, and I'm reasonably sure many others here do as well. Maybe it's time to define a demilitarized zone and instate a long-term ceasefire?

 

--David

[elcorso]

Pardon me my very poor English.

 

When you are talking about uncompressed FLAC is about the same of lossless FLAC, but compressed in size compared to a resulting WAF or AIFF track?

 

Thanks,

 

Roch

[kumakuma]

Pardon me my very poor English.

 

When you are talking about uncompressed FLAC is about the same of lossless FLAC, but compressed in size compared to a resulting WAF or AIFF track?

 

Thanks,

 

Roch

 

Uncompressed FLAC files are about the same size as WAV and AIFF files which makes sense as all three formats are essentially just raw PCM.

 

For example, I just converted an AIFF file on my system to uncompressed FLAC and got the following values:

 

AIFF - 84,356,178 bytes

FLAC - 84,504,633 bytes

[firedog]

FLAC is an envelope for PCM data, just like WAV. Originally FLAC was only envisioned as being used to losslessly compress files, so all flac files had some compression. The dbPowerware people released a version of flac that would put the PCM data from in a flac envelope, but it was uncompressed. So if you rip a CD in uncompressed FLAC or in WAV you get essentially the same size file - since both are uncompressed PCM. The advantage of uncompressed flac over WAV is that you get the full tagging capabilities of flac, that WAV lacks.

 

 

Pardon me my very poor English.

 

When you are talking about uncompressed FLAC is about the same of lossless FLAC, but compressed in size compared to a resulting WAF or AIFF track?

 

Thanks,

 

Roch