Mac Observer says 44/16 is all you need

[sandyk]

Alex enjoys misrepresenting other people's observations in an attempt to corroborate his fantasies about how bit-identical files sound different, so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

 

LIAR, LIAR.

You really are getting desperate to attempt to discredit me now !

 

View Profile: Blu - Computer Audiophile

.."If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD, you might as well give up your career as a tester." - Cookie Marenco. bluecoastrecords.com, Cookie is an audio engineer, and being a woman has better hearing than men.. I would add further that some people cannot hear the difference between a 16/44 version of a good recording and the 24/192 master.

That was posted early in the thread by Blu. Was he misrepresenting Cookie Marenco too ? Why not ask the lady ? Cookie is a C.A. member.

Likewise, Barry D. is able to hear the differences between the original master and that from a CD replication plant, despite identical binary content. IIRC, Barry even prefers his masters to be created at normal, not fast speed for superior results.

Does that mean that most CD players must have faulty error correction, or is there perhaps another reason why differences can be heard ?

[new_media]

Well, it didn't take Alex long to get caught up on the time he was out.

 

I think he's covered a month's worth of his usual pet peeves in seven posts in this thread alone.

 

Glad you are back to full steam, Alex.

[wgscott]

LIAR, LIAR.

 

Theresa?

 

You really are getting desperate to attempt to discredit me now !

 

This just keeps getting mo' better.

[kumakuma]

Barry D. is able to hear the differences between the original master and that from a CD replication plant, despite identical binary content. IIRC, Barry even prefers his masters to be created at normal, not fast speed for superior results.

Does that mean that most CD players must have faulty error correction, or is there perhaps another reason why differences can be heard ?

 

I think you may be confusing a few things here. Barry is saying that playback from a CDP never sounds the same as the master but that the differences disappear when the CD is ripped. In other words, the identical binary content (master and ripped CD) do sound the same.

 

Here is a recent post from him on this subject:

 

Hi Roch,

 

This has been my experience as well. Ever since I mastered my first CD back in January of 1983 and compared the pressings with the master used to make them, I've been saying that CDs made at different replication facilities (often different lines at the same facility) all sound different from each other and none sounds indistinguishable from the master used to make it. The differences vary from subtle to not at all subtle. This has been true in my experience, without exception regardless of the CD player or transport used for playback.

 

However, when the discs are properly ripped to a computer, all the differences go away and the results *are* indistinguishable from the master.

Same with SHM and HQCD discs, which when played via a CD player or transport, often sound so different from their plain CD counterparts, I've been led to believe I was listening to two different masterings. However, a good rip of both discs removes the differences, both now sounding like the "better" disc (actually a little bit better than that disc sounded when played via disc transport or player).

 

I still buy CDs. (Frankly, I'm turned off to downloads, having seen way too many instances, from too many sources, of what are essentially CD resolution files in high res "packages".) The only high res I've purchased has been on DVD, such as the discs offered by Reference Recordings. All purchases immediately go into the music server. I save the CDs for use in the car.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[sandyk]

I think you may be confusing a few things here. Barry is saying that playback from a CDP never sounds the same as the master but that the differences disappear when the CD is ripped. In other words, the identical binary content (master and ripped CD) do sound the same.

 

Here is a recent post from him on this subject:

 

I've been saying that CDs made at different replication facilities (often different lines at the same facility) all sound different from each other and none sounds indistinguishable from the master used to make it. The differences vary from subtle to not at all subtle. This has been true in my experience, without exception regardless of the CD player or transport used for playback.

 

That isn't how I interpret this, and I have also exchanged numerous emails with Barry over quite a period of time.

In other words, CDs made at different replication plants do sound different despite identical binary content. Many CDs are also made at replication plants from different generation files, and not the original master..

[kumakuma]

In other words, CDs made at different replication plants do sound different despite identical binary content. Many CDs are also made at replication plants from different generation files, and not the original master..

 

This is probably true but this doesn't prove your case because as Barry says these differences disappear when the CD is ripped and the data is played back from the HDD. To quote him: "when the discs are properly ripped to a computer, all the differences go away and the results *are* indistinguishable from the master."

[Allan F]

I, for one, dislike "appeals to authority" when the authority in question doesn't know what they're talking about. The notion that a "reconstituted FLAC" sounds different, even slightly, from the WAV from which it has been generated is pure fantasy-world thinking and can be easily disproved. If Ms. Mancuso thinks otherwise, let's see her identify a sound file, any sound file, where, if it compressed to FLAC and then decompressed ("reconstituted") back to WAV, one can run a compare utility on the two WAV files and find anything other than an exact match. I've tried it, and they match exactly every time. Or are we somehow supposed to believe that, although the two files are bit-identical, one will still sound different because the DAC somehow knows it's been "sullied" by having spent part of its existence as a FLAC? Seriously, this is the sort of thing that makes "audiophile," in the public's eye, synonymous with "credulous moron."

 

First of all, who the hell is Ms. Mancuso? The only Ms. Mancuso I am familiar with is Julia Mancuso of the U.S. Alpine Ski Team. OTOH, Alex did refer to Cookie Marenco of Blue Coast Records. The issue between WAV and reconstituted FLAC has nothing to with both being bit perfect. FYI, many have reported that WAV sounds better than FLAC or other lossless compressed formats. Perhaps, it has to do with the additional processing involved in decompression. I don't know. So you can take your utility and put it where the sun doesn't shine. All it proves is what everyone already knows. Seriously, this is the sort of thing that makes know-it-all closed-minded people so tedious.

 

And to that other individual who raised the idiocy of a conflict of interest, you've got it ass backwards. Cookie Marenco opted for DSD because, after many years experience in the recording business, DSD sounded better to her than any other digital format that she had worked with. Similarly, Barry Diament, who only has four plus decades in recording and mastering, has found 24/192 PCM to produce what he considers to be the best digital sound. These people don't support the format because they are selling it. They chose the format and sell it because they believe it allows them to provide the best sound quality available to their customers.

[audiventory]

these differences disappear when the CD is ripped and the data is played back from the HDD.

 

Ripping and playback of CD have no difference for raw audio stream from technical point of view.

 

If we have 2 equal digital streams, we havn't unknown quantity what can influence to sound transparensy.

 

Damaging of digital stream don't lead to simple decreasing of transparensy.

 

Theoretically, we can get difference in digital processing or analog circuits.

 

But how linked quality manufacturing of CD (as medium) with digital processing or analog circuits (when digital data both compared CD is equal)?

 

 

 

We can considered in the aggregate 3 our initial conditions:

 

1. Two CD from different plants can have difference sound transparency.

 

2. Binary content both CDs is equal.

 

3. When we rip it to HDD same files from both disks sounds same also.

 

 

 

 

How playback CD player:

 

1. Read pits from CD and convert in in digital stream with error correction.

 

2. Digital stream go to processing

 

3. DAC with analog circuits.

 

 

 

How rip CD and playback it:

 

1. Read pits from CD and convert in in digital stream with error correction.

 

2. Write to HDD as file.

 

3. Digital stream (from file) go to processing

 

4. DAC with analog circuits.

 

 

 

Between goals 1. and 2. of playback CD algorithm included synchronize buffer that get clock not from CD but from internal generator.

 

Thus we get place where can appear "the unknown quantity» that influence to sound quality - jitter.

 

But how quality of CD manufacturing influence to jitter that defined by internal generator?

 

I do not deny the possibility of the existence of this phenomenon, but would like to find an explanation.

[Le Concombre Masqué]

He bashes iTunes competition ; guess he gets money from Apple

Digital Music: Can You Hear Above 16-bit/44.1kHz? - The Mac Observer

 

Here we go again, another computer journalist jumping on the low resolution is enough bandwagon.

[sandyk]

Ripping and playback of CD have no difference for raw audio stream from technical point of view.

 

If we have 2 equal digital streams, we havn't unknown quantity what can influence to sound transparensy.

 

Damaging of digital stream don't lead to simple decreasing of transparensy.

 

Theoretically, we can get difference in digital processing or analog circuits.

 

But how linked quality manufacturing of CD (as medium) with digital processing or analog circuits (when digital data both compared CD is equal)?

 

 

 

We can considered in the aggregate 3 our initial conditions:

 

1. Two CD from different plants can have difference sound transparency.

 

2. Binary content both CDs is equal.

 

3. When we rip it to HDD same files from both disks sounds same also.

 

Audiventory.

Neglecting PC playback for the moment.

As an example, the BluSpec comparison sets come with a RB standard CD, and a CD whose master was created by a Blue Laser. This version also uses a special improved polymer.

The binary contents of both discs are identical, yet most can hear the improvement with the BluSpec version on direct CD playback with CD players that have fully functioning correction, which was Sony's intention.

Most people are unable to hear any difference between both versions when ripped to HDD, yet I am still able to hear a small improvement with the .wav file ripped from the BluSpec version.

For this reason, many of the comparison tracks on my comparison CD-Rs, with the pairs of tracks having identical checksums, are sourced from the BluSpec comparison sets.

For the worse sounding copy, I rip the RB CD version using an external USB powered CD ROM.

The better sounding version is ripped from the BluSpec version with an internal LG BR writer powered via a very low noise, and low impedance ,John Linsley Hood designed PSU add-on. (modified for higher performance) which creates highly stable low noise (around 4uV) and low impedance +12V and +5V supplies from the PCs SMPS.

This results in pairs of files, still with identical check sums, where the audible differences are further enhanced.

Occasionally, I will further process the rip from the RB CD version by converting to .flac and back again to .wav to further highlight the differences, while the checksums still remain identical .

The RB CD derived rips from the external USB writer are normally ripped to a HDD, and the BluSpec derived version is ripped directly to a Corsair Voyager with an external low noise +5V JLH PSU add-on and a modified USB cable with the red +5V wire disconnected at the USB-A plug at the PC end of the cable.

I then create a CUE list using EAC, and burn the pairs of tracks to the same CD.

The CD-R is then ripped back to a HDD to verify that the track pairs still have identical check sums.

 

As Ripley would say : "Believe it, or not"

 

Alex

[seeteeyou]

Please kindly correct me if I were mistaken, two different *.wav files with identical check sum won't always share identical waveform when we compare them with Audacity.

 

That's only applied to *.WAV but not *.FLAC or *.ALAC etc.

 

http://www.post76.com/x2/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=202763&page=6#pid3304197

 

---

If only glass-substrate CD were costing much less than plastic counterpart

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-2000-cd-made-from-glass-1/

[sandyk]

Please kindly correct me if I were mistaken, two different *.wav files with identical check sum won't always share identical waveform when we compare them with Audacity.

 

That's only applied to *.WAV but not *.FLAC or *.ALAC etc.

 

分享我的2014 CAS主機 - 第6頁 - HIFI 與 CAS 音響討論區 - Post76 玩樂網 - Powered by Discuz!

 

---

If only glass-substrate CD were costing much less than plastic counterpart

 

The $2000 CD Made From Glass | The Absolute Sound

 

seeteeyou

2 different rips of the same music track, having identical check sums, even though they may sound a little different, still have identical looking waveforms, and the statistics for both (using SoundForge 9) are identical.

Alex

[alfe]

Ripping and playback of CD have no difference for raw audio stream from technical point of view.

 

If we have 2 equal digital streams, we havn't unknown quantity what can influence to sound transparensy.

 

Damaging of digital stream don't lead to simple decreasing of transparensy.

 

Theoretically, we can get difference in digital processing or analog circuits.

 

But how linked quality manufacturing of CD (as medium) with digital processing or analog circuits (when digital data both compared CD is equal)?

 

 

 

We can considered in the aggregate 3 our initial conditions:

 

1. Two CD from different plants can have difference sound transparency.

 

2. Binary content both CDs is equal.

 

3. When we rip it to HDD same files from both disks sounds same also.

 

 

 

 

How playback CD player:

 

1. Read pits from CD and convert in in digital stream with error correction.

 

2. Digital stream go to processing

 

3. DAC with analog circuits.

 

 

 

How rip CD and playback it:

 

1. Read pits from CD and convert in in digital stream with error correction.

 

2. Write to HDD as file.

 

3. Digital stream (from file) go to processing

 

4. DAC with analog circuits.

 

 

 

Between goals 1. and 2. of playback CD algorithm included synchronize buffer that get clock not from CD but from internal generator.

 

Thus we get place where can appear "the unknown quantity» that influence to sound quality - jitter.

 

But how quality of CD manufacturing influence to jitter that defined by internal generator?

 

I do not deny the possibility of the existence of this phenomenon, but would like to find an explanation.

 

In glass mastering physical jitter is due to variation of the pit depth which is created by the intrinsic jitter of the diode.

 

In moulded CD physical jitter is due to chromatic dispersion and polarisation mode dispersion:

Chromatic dispersion: the refraction index of the polycarbonate is wavelength dependent, therefore velocity of the wave inside is wavelength dependent,laser source and modulation waveform have some spread in their spectrum combination of the two causes an optical pulses train that spread in time domain.

Polarisation mode dispersion:this is due to birefringence in which the refraction indexes along orthogonal axes are different causing different propagation velocities.

[alfe]

That isn't how I interpret this, and I have also exchanged numerous emails with Barry over quite a period of time.

In other words, CDs made at different replication plants do sound different despite identical binary content. Many CDs are also made at replication plants from different generation files, and not the original master..

 

hmm....

how I can answer to that, I'm might be a better football player than Einstein or might be more clever than Pelé but in any case I can't compete with both in their fields.

[seeteeyou]

seeteeyou

2 different rips of the same music track, having identical check sums, even though they may sound a little different, still have identical looking waveforms, and the statistics for both (using SoundForge 9) are identical.

Alex

FYI - this is how they cracked the code back in December 2012, it's a community in Taiwan so translation is required

 

http://www.myav.com.tw/bbs/showthread.php?postid=205218414#post205218414

http://www.myav.com.tw/bbs/showthread.php?postid=205237643#post205237643

 

They thought the files with identical check sum would sound different as a result of fragmentation. Still different sounding after defragmentation.

 

Next step was trying RAM disk. Same files and they sounded different as well.

 

Finally they nailed it with a command to defrag this way - the location in the physical address map could be specified manually. Playing from an identical location accomplished identical sound, nobody could tell the difference.

 

You could tell what the skeptics would say without ever trying it. That's perfectly understandable since those folks in Taiwan had to create a fully customized OS (OS4.0 as mentioned in the links above) and pretty much exhausted all options under the sun before they made it.

 

The thing is, some of us would approach this with a fixed mindset while the others would have a growth mindset instead:

 

http://mindsetonline.com/whatisit/about/

 

What you've been doing so far seemed to be challenging the belief system of someone with a fixed mindset, and not much you could do about it.

 

On the other hand, the computer audiophile community in Taiwan should be equipped with a growth mindset. They're more like Thomas Alva Edison since they wouldn't stop until they're running outta things that didn't work.

 

If you still weren't sure about what's going on, recently the author of Bug head Emperor wrote something called "Rewrite data" and obviously that's also someone with a growth mindset. Again some of us would write it off (pun intended?) right away while others would actually try it out.

[tranz]

Thanks for sharing seeteeyou.

[sandyk]

They thought the files with identical check sum would sound different as a result of fragmentation. Still different sounding after defragmentation.

seeteeyou

.wav files saved on different storage medium that sound different when played from system memory, still sound different when copied to a non fragmented /empty USB memory stick. Surely files played from system memory should sound the same, yet they don't always sound the same. If system memory had marked fragmentation, then 2 files, one of which was a direct copy, should then sound different too ?

I have previously uploaded .wav files that sound different to me, and when saved to, and played from a USB memory stick in a Naim Unitiserve in the U.K. the same differences that I heard are reported. Furthermore, I have UL .wav files ripped with a LG BR writer using different power supplies for the writer, and the differences that I hear due to the different power supplies are still reported after saving to USB memory and played from the USB memory port of a Naim Unitiserve,. In fact, the original files that were saved were played via a later model Naim Unitiserve and the differences were reported to be even more noticeable.

Alex

[buffalobill]

 

Similarly, Barry Diament, who only has four plus decades in recording and mastering, has found 24/192 PCM to produce what he considers to be the best digital sound. These people don't support the format because they are selling it.

 

He sells a 16/44.1 for $15, a 24/192 for $45. I wonder which one he is going to support?

[mayhem13]

He sells a 16/44.1 for $15, a 24/192 for $45. I wonder which one he is going to support?

 

Now now......you don't have to agree with Barry's personal listening experiences, but that doesn't entitle anyone to assume his motivations for his recording or production processes.

Let's keep things civilized, ok?

[mayhem13]

Alex....glad you're feeling better.......nough said.

 

Now.......I think it's really unfair and disrespectful for you to drag Barry, Cookie, and whoever else into your debates. Stand on your own two feet please. This tactic isn't earning you any credibility here, and it's certainly not helping those you attempt to represent.

[sandyk]

Alex....glad you're feeling better.......nough said.

 

Now.......I think it's really unfair and disrespectful for you to drag Barry, Cookie, and whoever else into your debates. Stand on your own two feet please. This tactic isn't earning you any credibility here, and it's certainly not helping those you attempt to represent.

Anthony

I don't give a damn what you think. I will quote anybody I wish that has confirmed my reports. If you or wgscott etc. don't like it, tough ! You would love for other members to believe that I am some old nut case with weird ideas that nobody else has verified! Well, a well respected member called Audiophile Neuroscience ,has also verified some of my reports, and even started a thread on the subject without being asked to. When my health further improves, I will be more than happy to demonstrate these things directly to any other interested Sydney Au. members.

 

I will start worrying when I get down to your level of credibility.

 

Interestingly, I note a thread asking for audiophiles in NYC. I can understand why you haven't replied, as an Audiophile you ain't !

I see very few positive contributions in the forum from you these days, just mainly sniping and smart ass replies.

You may be a speaker designer, but I take it that you are a qualified E.E. who should be more than capable of being far more helpful with some general questions if you chose.

Perhaps I missed it while I was away, but I haven't even noticed some suggestions from you in the speaker projects area either.

Regards

Alex

[audiventory]

As an example, the BluSpec comparison sets come with a RB standard CD, and a CD whose master was created by a Blue Laser. This version also uses a special improved polymer.

The binary contents of both discs are identical, yet most can hear the improvement with the BluSpec version on direct CD playback with CD players that have fully functioning correction, which was Sony's intention.

Most people are unable to hear any difference between both versions when ripped to HDD, yet I am still able to hear a small improvement with the .wav file ripped from the BluSpec version.

 

Alex,

 

As I understand before talks about decoded/corrected binary content. It must be identical for any kind of CD’s manufacturing. This content ripped and placed on HDD of computer also.

 

This binary content go to buffer that synchronized by internal clock of CD player. Not from CD disk.

 

Therefore any CD theoretically must sound identical in one CD player. If you use different CD player, sound can have difference. Ripped CD must have identical sound for any optical drive.

 

We can suppose such audio stream corruption, that decrease transparency. As example corrupting (or bad recording) only low bits. But such corruption almost impossible according theory of probability for CD pit’s structure.

 

For this reason, many of the comparison tracks on my comparison CD-Rs, with the pairs of tracks having identical checksums, are sourced from the BluSpec comparison sets.

For the worse sounding copy, I rip the RB CD version using an external USB powered CD ROM.

The better sounding version is ripped from the BluSpec version with an internal LG BR writer powered via a very low noise, and low impedance ,John Linsley Hood designed PSU add-on. (modified for higher performance) which creates highly stable low noise (around 4uV) and low impedance +12V and +5V supplies from the PCs SMPS.

This results in pairs of files, still with identical check sums, where the audible differences are further enhanced.

 

You can compare files byte-by-byte.

 

Occasionally, I will further process the rip from the RB CD version by converting to .flac and back again to .wav to further highlight the differences, while the checksums still remain identical .

 

FLAC and WAV have fully identical content (byte-by-byte) after any number of conversions. I checked it. I makes short video about it now. Soon publish.

 

In glass mastering physical jitter is due to variation of the pit depth which is created by the intrinsic jitter of the diode.

 

In moulded CD physical jitter is due to chromatic dispersion and polarisation mode dispersion:

Chromatic dispersion: the refraction index of the polycarbonate is wavelength dependent, therefore velocity of the wave inside is wavelength dependent,laser source and modulation waveform have some spread in their spectrum combination of the two causes an optical pulses train that spread in time domain.

Polarisation mode dispersion:this is due to birefringence in which the refraction indexes along orthogonal axes are different causing different propagation velocities.

 

Alfe,

All these things placed before buffer that synchronized by internal clock of CD player. Thus jitter by optical or mechanical reasons is eliminated there.

 

When I wrote my post I thought that is buffer is absent. I was rejoiced that found key for enigma But after small learning I found that this buffer must be in any player.

 

 

Yuri

[alfe]

 

Alfe,

All these things placed before buffer that synchronized by internal clock of CD player. Thus jitter by optical or mechanical reasons is eliminated there.

 

When I wrote my post I thought that is buffer is absent. I was rejoiced that found key for enigma But after small learning I found that this buffer must be in any player.

 

 

Yuri

 

Physical jitter are errors translated into timing errors in the recovered signal and because it's always present, the CD reading process is supposed to be immune to it.

To explain how it works after a phase-locked loop (PLL) the resulting data are fed into an elastic buffer, a second fixed frequency clock control the rate at which data exits the buffer and the disc speed keep the average buffer occupancy at 50%.

The problem is that excessive amount of jitter may exceed the capacity of the buffer which is not helping the clock and you can't have a larger buffer because it's related to the reading speed.

 

[sandyk]

Alex,

 

As I understand before talks about decoded/corrected binary content. It must be identical for any kind of CD’s manufacturing. This content ripped and placed on HDD of computer also.

 

This binary content go to buffer that synchronized by internal clock of CD player. Not from CD disk.

 

Therefore any CD theoretically must sound identical in one CD player. If you use different CD player, sound can have difference. Ripped CD must have identical sound for any optical drive.

 

We can suppose such audio stream corruption, that decrease transparency. As example corrupting (or bad recording) only low bits. But such corruption almost impossible according theory of probability for CD pit’s structure.-Yuri

 

Yuri

I am fully aware of the theory, but in practice it doesn't quite work out that way. IIRC, Alfe has said that even the write strategy affects the resulting sound of a manufactured CD.

 

The comparison CDs that I have created, have pairs of identical tracks on the SAME CD, that were originally ripped by different writers and saved to different locations.

When burned to a CD-R the SQ differences can still be readily heard through different CD/DVD players, and to a much lesser extent after being saved to a HDD again to verify that the checksums are still identical.

Audiophile Neuroscience has also heard these differences at a friend's place during a listening session several months ago.

Many people can hear the difference between an original .wav file, and the .flac version of it, most likely due to the additional pocessing need for playback.

TAS 220 and 221 * also discusses audible deterioration of .wav files after conversion from .wav to .flac and back again, despite still having identical checksums .

* The Absolute Sound 220 and 221.

I suggest that you try to find a copy of their articles.

 

Alex

[audiventory]

The problem is that excessive amount of jitter may exceed the capacity of the buffer which is not helping the clock and you can't have a larger buffer because it's related to the reading speed.

 

The comparison CDs that I have created, have pairs of identical tracks on the SAME CD, that were originally ripped by different writers and saved to different locations.

When burned to a CD-R the SQ differences can still be readily heard through different CD/DVD players, and to a much lesser extent after being saved to a HDD again to verify that the checksums are still identical.

 

 

Hi Alfe,

Hi Alex,

In this case on next (after depletion buffer) clock impulse DSP algorithm will generate:

 

1. Last correct value of sample (listen silence)

2. Zero value (listen click(s) different values)

 

It is not subtle difference in transparency. I listened not once such distortions during real-time playback.

 

Possibly, periodical, enough rare and little by amplitude clicks perceived as some decreasing of transparency.

 

But it is binary difference in real-time audio stream (pause’s samples filled some values anyway).

 

Then we rip CD we avoid these pauses, and get correct binary from CD (if possible read it via error correction and repeats of reading). For this case we get fully identical binaries from two CDs manufactured in different plants.

 

 

 

 

Audiophile Neuroscience has also heard these differences at a friend's place during a listening session several months ago.

Many people can hear the difference between an original .wav file, and the .flac version of it, most likely due to the additional pocessing need for playback.

TAS 220 and 221 * also discusses audible deterioration of .wav files after conversion from .wav to .flac and back again, despite still having identical checksums .

* The Absolute Sound 220 and 221.

I suggest that you try to find a copy of their articles.

 

Alex,

 

WAV can has some difference even after conversion from WAV.

 

Here reasons in digital sound processing.

 

Examples:

 

1. My audio converter fit audio stream to optimal playback on DAC (does «half work of DAC» offline ).

 

Input and output files has different binary content for same sample rate.

 

2. We can turn OFF any DSP for same input and output sample rates. For this case we get absolutely identical binary audio content input and output files.

 

 

3. We change sample rate with ordinary qualitative sample rate conversion algorithm (without «half work of DAC»), and convert back to original sample rate.

We again get difference in binary form due ringing of filters. Here possibly try switch to minimal phase filters.

 

Goals 1, 2, 3 fair for any WAV, FLAC, AIFF conversion.

 

Finish conversion has very subtle differences between converted and original files (comparing mix and post-production's aliases). But these differences present in binary form.

 

Yuri