Do computers leave behind a digital fingerprint on files?

[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. So it's doable and helps with applicability of the conversation at hand.

[Jud]

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.

 

At RMAF one of the rooms had two speakers priced at $560/pr driven by several thousand dollars' worth of electronics and sounding terrific.

[blownsi]

Agreed 100%, I am pretty much the same.

 

I have had the biggest upgrade with speakers. Coming to the PC, the biggest upgrade has been the addition of an SSD for the OS, and moving all of my rips to an SSD and/or using RAM Disk for playback. Another huge gain has been from Bug Head Emperor player.

 

Actually you two do not agree at all. You believe in SSD and Ram Disk and that one player sounds different than another. In the bit is a bit camp none of these things would make any improvement at all.

[plissken]

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

 

I understand the differences between conversion/transcode and compression. Flac is a loss-less compressor. It gets nuanced. You can transcode something with out any compression as an example and not have any PCM data left over on the other side. Flac doesn't modify the underlying PCM data. Transcoding to another file format may however.

 

Transcode is PCM to DSD.

 

Compression is to run an algorithm on a file with a dictionary that enables the compressor to losslessly save space. The intent is to always uncompress it to the original state.

 

To ZIP or FLAC something isn't a conversion, and it isn't a transcode in the normal use of the term. They are compression utilities (please save the argument, I know they end up with a different file structure and extension).

[plissken]

At RMAF one of the rooms had two speakers priced at $560/pr driven by several thousand dollars' worth of electronics and sounding terrific.

 

Great Jud. You take take the total budget of say $3000. You spend $560 on a pr of speakers and the rest in the stack.

 

I'll spend $2300 on speakers and $700 on the stack.

 

Race for pinks.

[plissken]

At RMAF one of the rooms had two speakers priced at $560/pr driven by several thousand dollars' worth of electronics and sounding terrific.

 

Dup Post

[Jud]

Great Jud. You take take the total budget of say $3000. You spend $560 on a pr of speakers and the rest in the stack.

 

I'll spend $2300 on speakers and $700 on the stack.

 

Race for pinks.

 

My own speakers certainly cost more in proportion to the rest of the system than these did. Strange thing about me though is I'm ready to be interested in new information and ideas. The designer of the $560/pr speakers, by the way, is Andrew Jones, if that means anything to you.

[plissken]

My own speakers certainly cost more in proportion to the rest of the system than these did. Strange thing about me though is I'm ready to be interested in new information and ideas. The designer of the $560/pr speakers, by the way, is Andrew Jones, if that means anything to you.

 

I know whom he is from TAD/Pioneer.

 

I'm agreeing that $560 speakers can sound really good. They aren't sounding good because they have ~$2500 worth of electronics driving them. They are sounding good because they are well designed speakers.

[plissken]

My own speakers certainly cost more in proportion to the rest of the system than these did. Strange thing about me though is I'm ready to be interested in new information and ideas. The designer of the $560/pr speakers, by the way, is Andrew Jones, if that means anything to you.

...........

[Jud]

Great Jud. You take take the total budget of say $3000. You spend $560 on a pr of speakers and the rest in the stack.

 

I'll spend $2300 on speakers and $700 on the stack.

 

Race for pinks.

 

So let's do this, just out of interest and fun. Go ahead and pick your speakers and stack, and I'll do the same. We're both held to the limits you mention above. If you want to start a new thread to be extra polite to the folks here, fine, though if you want to stay here I don't think it's any more OT than most of what's already in the thread.

[Jud]

I know whom he is from TAD/Pioneer.

 

I'm agreeing that $560 speakers can sound really good. They aren't sounding good because they have ~$2500 worth of electronics driving them. They are sounding good because they are well designed speakers.

 

Well, they're really sounding good because of both the fact that they're well designed and the fact that they have very good electronics (not necessarily a particular price point) driving them. Let's put it this way, Andrew Jones was doing the demo, and *he* thought the electronics he was using showed off his speakers to advantage. If cheaper stuff would have done just as well, I'm sure he would have been using it.

[Jud]

So let's do this, just out of interest and fun. Go ahead and pick your speakers and stack, and I'll do the same. We're both held to the limits you mention above. If you want to start a new thread to be extra polite to the folks here, fine, though if you want to stay here I don't think it's any more OT than most of what's already in the thread.

 

Here's mine:

 

- ELAC F5 speakers, $558/pr.

 

- James Romeyn Hypex NCore stereo amp build, $1490

 

- Schiit SYS volume control, $49

 

- iFi Micro iDSD DAC, $499

 

- UpTone Audio Regen, $175

 

- Etymotic ER4-PT earphones, $229

[firedog]

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

 

Nah, someone will come in and kill the puppies.

[cookiemarenco]

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:

 

Yes, and to be clear....

The source files have always tested to be the best sounding to our ears. Most record labels deliver files as WAV from which we convert to the other formats.... which was the case in the provenance that was used as an example.

 

It is also our opinion that if the source file is DSD, then the DSD file will be optimum and sound the best. After many blindfold tests, for Blue Coast Records, we prefer to record to DSD or tape. To our ears, tape will always win out, closely followed by DSD. As a producer, for Blue Coast Records, it is my preference to NOT record to PCM, but as a distributor, we don't dictate what other engineers record to.

 

Also, we understand that a music lover's home system my be optimized for DSD, WAV or FLAC. That is the file they should buy.

 

Just wanted to make sure my own feelings of about PCM or WAV were clear on this... I don't like to record to that format for my own projects. However, when paid a lot of money to do so for outside projects, I can stand it.

 

When it comes to listening... I listen for the situation whether it's YouTube or DSD256. I don't use iTunes or Spotify for personal reasons.

 

Happy Holidays!

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Records

Blue Coast Records | Exceptional Acoustic Recordings

[sandyk]

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

 

Rubbish!

This is exactly the same as I have been copping from Eloise and Dennis for several years now. The same refusal to accept the validity of any Blind tests where they don't agree with the results, and the insinuations that the tests couldn't possibly have been correctly performed. Her wording there was almost identical to many of the replies she has made to me in the last few years. As usual, the same crew of hard line Objective members is once again involved, and it's no surprise that you are once again among them.

[wgscott]

nah, someone will come in and kill the puppies.

 

<--- r.i.p.

[wgscott]

[deleted double post -- software glitch? ]

[tmtomh]

Dennis

I wasn't concerned about the level difference. To my ears, and that of another member, the 24/96 version is far more detailed, with even his voice sounding way better. Neither does the 16/44.1 version have anywhere near the same soundstage. Through my system there is simply no comparison, and the level difference has nothing to do with it.

 

Alex

 

I wasn't going to respond to this, but the rudeness of some of your responses has motivated me to do so. (By rudeness I mean starting wth exclamations like "TOUGH!" and "Rubbish!" which are the online equivalent of yelling at someone.)

 

The claim that one can compare files with different bit-depths, sample rates, volume levels, and EQ, and make any meaningful claim about which factor(s) is making them sound different, is simply not a meaningful claim. If anything, evidence suggests that differences in volume and EQ would swamp anyone's ability to discern differences in resolution.

 

What's really interesting, though, is how tenaciously you hold on to this kind of deeply flawed comparison when a better one, with files identical in volume and EQ, could so easily be conducted.

[wgscott]

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.

 

Same thing is happening here. But I bet if you believe in mystical binary forces, this won't happen.

[esldude]

Same thing is happening here. But I bet if you believe in mystical binary forces, this won't happen.

 

D*mmit Bill,

It isn't mystical. You just need a linear PS.

[sandyk]

Jud

Please check your PMs

 

Alex

[plissken]

Yes, and to be clear....

The source files have always tested to be the best sounding to our ears. Most record labels deliver files as WAV from which we convert to the other formats.... which was the case in the provenance that was used as an example.

 

It is also our opinion that if the source file is DSD, then the DSD file will be optimum and sound the best. After many blindfold tests, for Blue Coast Records, we prefer to record to DSD or tape. To our ears, tape will always win out, closely followed by DSD. As a producer, for Blue Coast Records, it is my preference to NOT record to PCM, but as a distributor, we don't dictate what other engineers record to.

 

I think many of us are curious if there is an audible difference for you in a file that went through some contortions.

 

That is wav that was compressed to FLAC and then uncompressed back to wav where both the original and the one coming out of the FLAC container both having the same MD5?

[sandyk]

I think many of us are curious if there is an audible difference for you in a file that went through some contortions.

 

That is wav that was compressed to FLAC and then uncompressed back to wav where both the original and the one coming out of the FLAC container both having the same MD5?

 

 

What part of the attached don't you understand ?

It is very rare for the .md5 not to match that of the original .wav file after conversion to .flac and back again to .wav

 

"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. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist. - Cookie Marenco"

[esldude]

What part of the attached don't you understand ?

It is very rare for the .md5 not to match that of the original .wav file after conversion to .flac and back again to .wav

 

I don't understand whether the reconstitution has already occurred well before playing or whether it is occurring on the fly as the file is being played?

[wgscott]

What part of the attached don't you understand ?

 

All of it.