Do computers leave behind a digital fingerprint on files?

[esldude]

She says the comparisons are "blindfolded", by not just her, but others on her staff. She also says the differences are minimal, and recommends going with whatever type you think sounds best on your setup. Here's an example of such a comment from her site, for which the hi-res WAV is the original recording medium:

 

I would like to know how the blindfolded testing was done and how it shows FLAC to sound different from WAV. She may not care about the math, but there is nowhere for a wav file to hold information that it once was a FLAC file in its history. If they are converting FLAC real time there is more possibility though it too seems very unlikely.

[sandyk]

I would like to know how the blindfolded testing was done and how it shows FLAC to sound different from WAV. She may not care about the math, but there is nowhere for a wav file to hold information that it once was a FLAC file in its history. If they are converting FLAC real time there is more possibility though it too seems very unlikely.

 

If I had to choose between the original 24/96 .wav file and the 24/96 .flac to download, I would choose the 24/96 .wav file, BUT only if both came as Uncompressed Zips.

If they didn't come as Uncompressed Zips , I would choose the 24/96 .flac file as the .flac container appears to give it some additional protection. I then convert the original .flac file to a 24/96 .wav file, saving it to the most electrically quiet drive on my P.C.

I still have 24/96 .flac DLs from Linn Records of "Claire Martin-Too Darn Hot" from 2008 where I find the original .flac DL a little dull sounding, but after conversion to .wav and saved to either USB memory with an external +5V Linear PSU or an SSD with an improved +5V supply, I find the new .wav file sounds considerably better in the area of HF detail, as if a fine veil has been lifted.

I often use "Too Darn Hot"and "Black Coffee"from this album for demo purposes.

[Audio_ELF]

Cookie, I've just taken a few paragraphs from your detailed post hopefully I'm not taking them out of context...

Along with being a recording engineer for more than 30 years, I'm often hired by pro audio and consumer audio companies to test gear and/or audio. It's not easy to setup a proper A/B blindfold test. We take great care to have multiple people involved in the tests. I never do a test and operate the gear at the same time.

While I agree that a proper A/B test is not easy to setup; I am unsure if you are making this statement to put forward a "but we try as hard as we can" kind of feeling or more of a "so we do the minimum possible". Would it be possible for you to describe a usual / average test which you have done which gets close to "proper A/B blindfold test".

 

Now, as a 'distributor' there is a completely different set of goals. I feel our job is to supply our customers with formats that we can afford and you will buy. If our customers want to buy FLAC converted from WAV, we'll sell those FLAC files. I feel it's our job to provide the provenance and do the listening tests on behalf of our customers. We make recommendations on the best sounding files but more often, our customers buy what suits their home listening environment.

 

We do these listening tests through out the month. We routinely compare converter tools and they all sound different.

 

We don't do this for bragging rights of which format is better or to convince anyone how they are listening is wrong. We do these tests for our customers because we are in a position to do so when many can't. I don't care about math.. I care that we are bringing the optimal experience to our customers on whatever format they choose... DSD, WAV or FLAC.

When you talk about FLAC vs WAV here ... are you talking about (1) comparing FLAC vs WAV at playback or (2) that there is a difference between a WAV, and a WAV which is converted to FLAC and then converted back to WAV again?

 

There is a big difference in these two situations to my (and many other people's) mind. We need to be clear what you are suggesting here: two converters may well produce different (e.g. FLAC) files when fed the same original (e.g. WAV) - even more so if you are considering WAV/PCM converted to DSF/DSD or vice versa; while converting a WAV to FLAC to WAV it can be verified that the original and created WAV are identical to the computer. To hear a difference in the latter (WAV to FLAC to WAV) is suggesting something which goes against understanding of how computers work.

 

To follow on, when you comment about comparing converter tools, are you ever in a position to verify if you can actually tell a difference between converter A and converter B or is it more a "does converter A sound better than converter B"? It appears (to my mind) if you are doing the latter then you have already assumed there are differences and so may well (through human nature) search for differences which don't exist and so hear them. The former would be done (IMO) by comparing pairs of tracks and being able to tell if both were created with the same converter or if they were created by difference converters.

 

From your final paragraph "I don't care about math.. I care that we are bringing the optimal experience to our customers on whatever format they choose." While I don't fundamentally disagree with your sentiments, at some point you need to understand that "the math" (sic) just don't support the idea that WAV to FLAC to WAV (where the created WAV contains identical data to the original) can possibly sound different.

 

So at the end of this post, I'm really asking for clarification on two things...

(a) when you are talking about WAV sounding better than FLAC; are you meaning simply when you play back the WAV vs the FLAC, or does the original sound better than a FLAC turned back into a WAV (a WAV - FLAC - WAV conversion)?

(b) if in (a) you are talking about a WAV sounding better than WAV - FLAC - WAV what were the circumstances of the testing which led you to that position?

 

Finally I do hope this is not coming across as badgering you... I'm just trying to understand your position and if its being misrepresented in any way.

 

Thank you for your time

Eloise

[sandyk]

It appears (to my mind) if you are doing the latter then you have already assumed there are differences and so may well (through human nature) search for differences which don't exist and so hear them.

 

Give the lady a break Eloise, she is a Professional, and highly successful Recording Engineer.

Insinuations like those are insulting, and made simply because you steadfastly refuse to accept what some of us have been telling you for years.

Please note also, that Barry D. also refuses (still, I presume) to supply his files in .flac format for similar reasons.

[Audio_ELF]

Give the lady a break Eloise, she is a Professional, and highly successful Recording Engineer.

Insinuations like those are insulting, and made simply because you steadfastly refuse to accept what some of us have been telling you for years.

Please note also, that Barry D. also refuses (still, I presume) to supply his files in .flac format for similar reasons.

Alex ... please I didn't ask YOU what Cookie meant.

 

She can choose for herself weather to answer my questions to her and I'm pretty sure as a "Professional, and highly successful Recording Engineer" she is capable of deciding to answer or not without you getting involved and doesn't need you to defend her.

 

Barry (afaik but I'm not trying to speak for him) feels that utilising FLAC for playback causes degraded sound quality*; he has never confirmed that your claim of WAV - FLAC - WAV (in his case substitute AIFF for WAV iirc) causing degradation is valid.

 

Eloise

 

 

 

*I don't find the suggestion of FLAC at playback causing degraded sound quality to be impossible as the computer is carrying out different operations which is why I'm trying to understand what Cookie is saying and how she got to her opinion.

[sandyk]

Alex ... please I didn't ask YOU what Cookie meant.

 

.

 

TOUGH !

I found your method of questioning highly insulting. and yes, you are badgering her. Also, you keep insisting that if people look for differences, they will hear them, whether there are or not, and thus any Blind tests are invalid. Again, it's insulting to suggest that most C.A. members, and especially highly qualified Professionals like Cookie, are unaware of Expectation Bias, and are unable to take it into account. The ones LEAST able to take Expectation Bias into account are members like yourself who refuse to accept that Expectation Bias is even stronger among those who believe that things like that are impossible.

We both know that no matter what Cookie says, that your position will not change one iota !

You have been aware of Cookie's stance on this issue, as well as her preference for sending files as UNCOMPRESSED Zips for several years already, as you have seen her quoted many times over, as well as previous discussions on the subject of Uncompressed Zips, as well as explanations from elcorso about his involvement in that area.

 

Barry (afaik but I'm not trying to speak for him) feels that utilising FLAC for playback causes degraded sound quality*; he has never confirmed that your claim of WAV - FLAC - WAV (in his case substitute AIFF for WAV iirc) causing degradation is valid.

Where have I ever claimed that Barry did confirm my claim about .wav - flac - .wav conversions ? I simply stated that Barry doesn't wish to provide DLs in .flac format, as he wishes to provide the highest quality copy on a DVD.

 

Then of course, there is the usual insinuation from esldude (and yourself) that the Blind Tests obviously weren't performed correctly, or the results would have been as he insists they should have been !

[Jud]

First, thank you Cookie for the coupon! It was with this type of BOGOF sale that I purchased my favorite version of the late Beethoven string quartets (Cypress Quartet) from the Downloads Now! site.

 

Cookie, something I'm very curious about if you'd care to answer: I believe I've read that you've trained people to hear the differences you're talking about. I'd love to hear a description of the differences if it's something that would make sense without being able to sit in the same room and listen to the audio playback as you gave the description.

[mansr]

Give the lady a break Eloise, she is a Professional, and highly successful Recording Engineer.

 

I am a Professional and a reasonably successful Software Engineer. Why does my knowledge not count?

 

Insinuations like those are insulting, and made simply because you steadfastly refuse to accept what some of us have been telling you for years.

 

That statement goes both ways.

[mansr]

So at the end of this post, I'm really asking for clarification on two things...

(a) when you are talking about WAV sounding better than FLAC; are you meaning simply when you play back the WAV vs the FLAC, or does the original sound better than a FLAC turned back into a WAV (a WAV - FLAC - WAV conversion)?

(b) if in (a) you are talking about a WAV sounding better than WAV - FLAC - WAV what were the circumstances of the testing which led you to that position?

 

Well put (the whole post).

[Paul R]

TOUGH !

I found your method of questioning highly insulting. and yes, you are badgering her. Also, you keep insisting that if people look for differences, they will hear them, whether there are or not, and thus any Blind tests are invalid. Again, it's insulting to suggest that most C.A. members, and especially highly qualified Professionals like Cookie, are unaware of Expectation Bias, and are unable to take it into account. The ones LEAST able to take Expectation Bias into account are members like yourself who refuse to accept that Expectation Bias is even stronger among those who believe that things like that are impossible.

We both know that no matter what Cookie says, that your position will not change one iota !

You have been aware of Cookie's stance on this issue, as well as her preference for sending files as UNCOMPRESSED Zips for several years already, as you have seen her quoted many times over, as well as previous discussions on the subject of Uncompressed Zips, as well as explanations from elcorso about his involvement in that area.

 

 

Where have I ever claimed that Barry did confirm my claim about .wav - flac - .wav conversions ? I simply stated that Barry doesn't wish to provide DLs in .flac format, as he wishes to provide the highest quality copy on a DVD.

 

Then of course, there is the usual insinuation from esldude (and yourself) that the Blind Tests obviously weren't performed correctly, or the results would have been as he insists they should have been !

 

 

Hi Alex - are you Cookie's publicist? Sure sounds like you are trying to speak for her. Expect you owe her an apology.

 

You certainly owe Eloise an apology for your unwarranted and plain mean diatribe.

 

And actually, you pretty much owe everyone else an apology too. Perhaps you should take a time out - before your blood pressure goes off the scale and your head explodes?

[Paul R]

I am a Professional and a reasonably successful Software Engineer. Why does my knowledge not count?

 

 

 

That statement goes both ways.

 

Naw - trust me, a degree or two and 34+ years experience only makes you a target in some people's eyes. Too much drama, far too little actual thinking, hardly any listening at all. (Shrug)

[goldsdad]

[plissken]

And now you descend into pure outright falsehoods. You keep refusing to make your files available, and have always refused to do so claiming some unnamed but potent conspiracy is arrayed against you.

 

The simplest explanation is it you just don't have these magical files, or if you do, that said files reveal themselves to contain different data, or sound identical.

 

And that is also borne out by your constantly changing stories.

 

I Swear, if you have better things to do than spread this poisonous hate filled nonsense about, then please go and do them!

 

In my professional opinion, your claims are bogus. There is no verification of them anywhere that has credibility, your results. Are not duplicatable, and your constantly changing story suggest falshoods, intentional or not. This is like cold fusion of the audiophile world. Untrue and embarassimg.

 

 

I couldn't even get him to compare some files for the chance @ $1000. I even offered to send him a 60GB SSD with a 90 day Win8 eval and then I would remote in and do the rip on his hardware with his playback chain.

 

This answered all his criticisms:

 

1. The file being transferred over the big bad Internet (laughable)

2. Not doing this in his actual setup (understandable)

3. Not wanting his current playback machine futzed with (totally understandable)

 

I can keep knocking out the legs of the chair all day long until they are finally in the corner.

 

Of course this is all at zero cost to him and he would have had a 60GB SSD for his troubles not to mention $1000.

 

He is going to make a bunch of protestations and I will answer the valid ones... Should be interesting.

[wgscott]

Maybe it is time to make this a bicycling thread, or one about puppies.

[Jud]

I couldn't even get him to compare some files for the chance @ $1000. I even offered to send him a 60GB SSD with a 90 day Win8 eval and then I would remote in and do the rip on his hardware with his playback chain.

 

This answered all his criticisms:

 

1. The file being transferred over the big bad Internet (laughable)

2. Not doing this in his actual setup (understandable)

3. Not wanting his current playback machine futzed with (totally understandable)

 

I can keep knocking out the legs of the chair all day long until they are finally in the corner.

 

Of course this is all at zero cost to him and he would have had a 60GB SSD for his troubles not to mention $1000.

 

He is going to make a bunch of protestations and I will answer the valid ones... Should be interesting.

 

Not. He's not doing it. I don't care what the reasons are. You know it, I know it. So to keep on raising it is to keep on telling a joke that's past its sell-by date. If you want to keep on being unfunny in this particular way, up to you I guess.

[Jud]

Maybe it is time to make this a bicycling thread, or one about puppies.

 

It's as germane to the original topic as anything that's been posted.

[plissken]

Using WAV files I have converted them to FLAC and back to WAV. The audio samples are identical in the two WAV files, but often the file contents (as proven by an MD5 checksum) are not.

 

Then you need to figure out how to transcode loss-less formats back and forth without the extra baggage added by the utility doing the trans-code.

 

I had to mess around for 30 minutes to get it all worked out.

 

After that it was all file identical using either the Windows File Compare utility or MS's fciv MD5 hash command line utility.

[plissken]

You must save a fortune by using any old device that yields a bit perfect output. The rest of us are spending thousands on improving something that you don't believe can be improved. I truly wish I could agree.

 

You need bit perfect streaming up to the conversion to Analog. Once it hit analog and therefore real-time it's a hand off to a whole other ball game with Speakers being the most important analog aspect.

 

I love seeing $5K of speakers driven by $7K of electronics. Makes 'perfect' sense.

[mansr]

Then you need to figure out how to transcode loss-less formats back and forth without the extra baggage added by the utility doing the trans-code.

 

Different programs write WAV headers slightly differently, so it's typical for a WAV-FLAC-WAV round-trip to result in a different header. Doing the conversion one more time using the same software should give a stable result.

[mansr]

Duplicate. I clicked the "Post Quick Reply" button exactly once and did not reload the page. Something funny is going on with the server. Perhaps a silver Ethernet cable would help.

[plissken]

I feel our job is to supply our customers with formats that we can afford and you will buy. If our customers want to buy FLAC converted from WAV, we'll sell those FLAC files.

 

You need to consider changing the nomenclature that you use however. FLAC isn't a conversion of WAV. It's a specialty built compressor for PCM encoded data.

 

There isn't a conversion process, there is a compression process. The decompression process yield identical PCM data down to the binary level.

 

Conversion is PCM to MP3, or AVI to MPEG.X

 

I think this consideration needs to be accepted as much as I'm willing to accept that maybe the decompression engine in players that support FLAC have something to do with the 'Audibility'. I personally don't have a horse in this race since I just go full bit rate .wav's. Storage is cheap. I have 12TB of RAID in the basement with 9TB of Music and DVD's on it. I can always daisy chain another NAS and double up.

[Paul R]

Duplicate. I clicked the "Post Quick Reply" button exactly once and did not reload the page. Something funny is going on with the server. Perhaps a silver Ethernet cable would help.

 

That is pretty much the server not getting a response back to your browser quickly enough.

 

To avoid the issue, just click 'Post Quick Reply' a second time while the browser is in a wait state. Say after 10-15 seconds.

 

You *should* almost immediately get an alert about a duplicate post, and everything will be well. Don't wait too long though, or your browser will time out.

 

I would guess this is a new bug introduced into the code recently with an update.

 

-Paul

[plissken]

Different programs write WAV headers slightly differently, so it's typical for a WAV-FLAC-WAV round-trip to result in a different header. Doing the conversion one more time using the same software should give a stable result.

 

In my $1000 bounty thread I used two utilities and was able to get File Comp and MD5 hashes to == every time.

[plissken]

Different programs write WAV headers slightly differently, so it's typical for a WAV-FLAC-WAV round-trip to result in a different header. Doing the conversion one more time using the same software should give a stable result.

Duplicate post. I'm glad it's not just me having this time out issue.

[Paul R]

You need to consider changing the nomenclature that you use however. FLAC isn't a conversion of WAV. It's a specialty built compressor for PCM encoded data.

 

There isn't a conversion process, there is a compression process. The decompression process yield identical PCM data down to the binary level.

 

Conversion is PCM to MP3, or AVI to MPEG.X

 

I think this consideration needs to be accepted as much as I'm willing to accept that maybe the decompression engine in players that support FLAC have something to do with the 'Audibility'. I personally don't have a horse in this race since I just go full bit rate .wav's. Storage is cheap. I have 12TB of RAID in the basement with 9TB of Music and DVD's on it. I can always daisy chain another NAS and double up.

 

Well, technically that is a conversion, and the right name is "transcode" - not changing the data but putting it into a different storage container. WAV is not pure PCM, it has additional metadata embedded in, as does AIFF, FLAC, and every other PCM format save for straight binary LPCM.

 

-Paul