Why do WAV and FLAC files Sound Different

[plissken]

Can you lay off with your bet thing? It has proven nothing and is arrogantly insulting to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

 

Uh, no and It's actually proven a lot.

 

Crickets.

[Paul R]

Uh, no and It's actually proven a lot.

 

Crickets.

 

Let me rephrase that. You have proven that you know how to make a nusiance of yourself. Everyone would greatly appreciate it if you would stop proving that now.

 

As for your attempts to prove that everyone who does not agree with you is stupid or easily misled, see the above paragraph.

[Don Hills]

Taking the high ground only works when you have something to stand on. ... Or something like that.

[firedog]

Whether someone takes a bet or not proves nothing except a little about their personal concept of risk aversion and how much they value a given amount of money. It proves nothing about any other question like the topic of the bet.

[mansr]

Whether someone takes a bet or not proves nothing except a little about their personal concept of risk aversion and how much they value a given amount of money. It proves nothing about any other question like the topic of the bet.

 

Some people would gladly jump at a 1 in 100 chance of winning $1000. If you don't believe it, visit a casino some time.

[firedog]

Some people would gladly jump at a 1 in 100 chance of winning $1000. If you don't believe it, visit a casino some time.

 

yes, but that is very different from putting up the $1000

[plissken]

Let me rephrase that. You have proven that you know how to make a nusiance of yourself. Everyone would greatly appreciate it if you would stop proving that now.

 

As for your attempts to prove that everyone who does not agree with you is stupid or easily misled, see the above paragraph.

 

Paul you aren't the mouthpiece for the board. So why don't you shut up or put me on your ignore list?

 

I've proven I'm the only one that will put money where my mouth is in the face if utter stupidity. I'll do so again when this comes back around. It's the easiest way to attempt fixing stupid as I know how.

 

Yes, if you believe you can hear the difference between bit identical wav files you're a moron.

[plissken]

yes, but that is very different from putting up the $1000

 

I'm the one putting up a $1000 bounty (the house). The only thing being asked in return is $100 donation to charity. I'm not even in it for myself monetarily.

 

I still haven't seen an argument made for why incentivizing participation in a truly blinded test is of any issue or any particular importance to anyone other then the people the directly agree to it.

 

I'm all ears.

[plissken]

Whether someone takes a bet or not proves nothing except a little about their personal concept of risk aversion and how much they value a given amount of money. It proves nothing about any other question like the topic of the bet.

 

Ok, I'll take the $100 off the table from the participants side. Not only will I give them $1K, I'll donate another $100 to a charity of their choosing.

[Paul R]

And you are not the one beholden authority or authorized to use this board for your personal aggrandization.

 

Really - nobody wants to hear more of your bragging about how you proved something because nobody was willing to "take your bet." You have not proved jack.

 

Let me provide you with a little more reality there - doing your "challenge" is not a trivial thing. It involves considerable time and effort, as well as the fact you are not trying to do any kind of research here, but like that Randi creep - just trying to show off and make people think you are really clever.

 

I would be glad to do your challenge, but $1000 is not enough to even cover my time. Figure 6 hours of time, more like 8 to build in enough breaks to avoid listener fatigue, and you are looking at between $2500 - $2700 of my time, for no guaranteed return. Like a charity in other words. I prefer to choose my charities.

 

So either come up with a valid non-biased test, and put your money towards doing something like passing a test kit around to those willing to invest their time to your charity, or STFU and stop being such an ass.

 

 

Paul you aren't the mouthpiece for the board. So why don't you shut up or put me on your ignore list?

 

I've proven I'm the only one that will put money where my mouth is in the face if utter stupidity. I'll do so again when this comes back around. It's the easiest way to attempt fixing stupid as I know how.

 

Yes, if you believe you can hear the difference between bit identical wav files you're a moron.

[Paul R]

Some people would gladly jump at a 1 in 100 chance of winning $1000. If you don't believe it, visit a casino some time.

 

Yeah, but most of the folks here would put the $100 into savings for the next greatest new thing. Paying for Tidal streaming, Apple Music, that wonderful new DAC or speaker cable...

[plissken]

And you are not the one beholden authority or authorized to use this board for your personal aggrandization.

 

Really - nobody wants to hear more of your bragging about how you proved something because nobody was willing to "take your bet." You have not proved jack.

 

Let me provide you with a little more reality there - doing your "challenge" is not a trivial thing. It involves considerable time and effort, as well as the fact you are not trying to do any kind of research here, but like that Randi creep - just trying to show off and make people think you are really clever.

 

I would be glad to do your challenge, but $1000 is not enough to even cover my time. Figure 6 hours of time, more like 8 to build in enough breaks to avoid listener fatigue, and you are looking at between $2500 - $2700 of my time, for no guaranteed return. Like a charity in other words. I prefer to choose my charities.

 

So either come up with a valid non-biased test, and put your money towards doing something like passing a test kit around to those willing to invest their time to your charity, or STFU and stop being such an ass.

 

I'll respond point by point:

 

Then don't participate. It really is that easy. Others seem to think the difference is readily apparent therefore quickly discernible, therefore not much time invested IMO.

 

It's not bragging if you you have backed up your relative positions however. Just like if you can hear the differences in bit identical WAV's and you prove it. The former is bragging and 'personal aggrandization' the latter is not. If you go through and nail both rounds it's not bragging. What about this concept is lost on you?

 

So let me ask you this: Why is it that when members here say they can hear a difference it's not bragging. I put up $1000 and it's crickets and I'm braggadocios? I'm pointing out I have hard data of 0 subjectivists believing their own suppositions.

 

On the $2500 - $2700 number I'm only willing to risk $1000 to a random 1 in 100 correct guess. If you want to go to say $3000 then we are talking a 1 : 300 scenario. Honestly you don't strike me as an individual that believe bit identical WAV's can sound different.

 

I've come up with a very valid blind test. It's even more valid because it's self administered. There is no proctor. There is no rigidity in evaluation protocol. You even said it yourself: Figure 6 hours of time, more like 8 to build in enough breaks to avoid listener fatigue That's all up to you.

 

So for you I'll go $3000 and 16 samples in each of two rounds. $100 to a charity of my choosing if you can't. That's a 1:256 for just blindly throwing a dart.

[plissken]

Yeah, but most of the folks here would put the $100 into savings for the next greatest new thing. Paying for Tidal streaming, Apple Music, that wonderful new DAC or speaker cable...

 

Or they could put my $1000 toward the same

[wgscott]

Yeah, but most of the folks here would put the $100 into savings for the next greatest new thing. Paying for Tidal streaming, Apple Music, that wonderful new DAC or speaker cable...

 

Most of the folks here consider $100 (and $1000) chump-change. That's the real reason expensive cables persist. If you have money to burn, who cares whether it makes a difference or not. It is a cheap insurance policy for your investment in a $200K DAC with tubes that glow mounted for display on the top.

[Paul R]

I'll respond point by point:

 

So let me ask you this: Why is it that when members here say they can hear a difference it's not bragging. I put up $1000 and it's crickets and I'm braggadocios? I'm pointing out I have hard data of 0 subjectivists believing their own suppositions.

 

It is the difference between reporting something one things is amazing, and trying to ridicule or put down others. If you were doing real honest research, that would be one thing. Can you honestly say your reason is anything other than to embarrass and put down other people you see as foolish?

 

On the $2500 - $2700 number I'm only willing to risk $1000 to a random 1 in 100 correct guess. If you want to go to say $3000 then we are talking a 1 : 300 scenario. Honestly you don't strike me as an individual that believe bit identical WAV's can sound different.

 

I don't just believe they don't sound different, I know they don't. However, I also know that some people here can legitimately hear a difference between a WAV and a FLAC version of the same file. That is not a conundrum, merely a lack of pertinent information. I personally suspect that is due to their equipment kit.

 

I've come up with a very valid blind test. It's even more valid because it's self administered. There is no proctor. There is no rigidity in evaluation protocol. You even said it yourself: Figure 6 hours of time, more like 8 to build in enough breaks to avoid listener fatigue That's all up to you.

 

So for you I'll go $3000 and 16 samples in each of two rounds. $100 to a charity of my choosing if you can't. That's a 1:256 for just blindly throwing a dart.

 

To what possible benefit? Take your $3K and build a kit with a player, known cables, headphone, and audio files preloaded. Have someone else hold the keys to which files are which, and have users report their findings here - you can do that with a simple poll.

 

Ship the kit around to people willing to test it. I'll chip in up to a grand for doing that, so figure out what you can do along those lines for $4K and propose it. Do it for the research without a pre-supposition what the findings will be.

 

Warning, that is not so easy to do as one might suppose. But you could probably tap into some of our resident scientific, mathematical, engineering, and legal expertise to make a dynamite project. And who knows? The results might astound everyone.

 

-Paul

[plissken]

It is the difference between reporting something one things is amazing, and trying to ridicule or put down others. If you were doing real honest research, that would be one thing. Can you honestly say your reason is anything other than to embarrass and put down other people you see as foolish?

 

So I have to coddle the feelings of people who refuse to correct their misunderstanding? Enough is enough when it comes to people saying bit identical files can sound different.

 

I don't just believe they don't sound different, I know they don't. However, I also know that some people here can legitimately hear a difference between a WAV and a FLAC version of the same file. That is not a conundrum, merely a lack of pertinent information. I personally suspect that is due to their equipment kit.

 

Then you need to reread some posts. My response is to the people that insist they can hear the difference between two WAV's where one has gone through compression and another has not and they have the same MD5 hash.

 

I agree: if you are hearing a difference in WAV vs FLAC it's not the FLAC format that is causing the difference.

 

 

To what possible benefit? Take your $3K and build a kit with a player, known cables, headphone, and audio files preloaded. Have someone else hold the keys to which files are which, and have users report their findings here - you can do that with a simple poll.

 

The money is incentive. Businesses do this all the time when it comes to performing studies. It is supposed to increase the level and effort of participation. If someone goes for this easy, self administered, all on their own system test then it really drives a nail in the coffin. I'm attempting to either resolve it by failed attempts or by showing people are all talk. Either way gives data and one of those ways risks zero $$'s on my part. I'm completely happy with that.

 

Ship the kit around to people willing to test it. I'll chip in up to a grand for doing that, so figure out what you can do along those lines for $4K and propose it. Do it for the research without a pre-supposition what the findings will be.

 

I can't ship an evaluation kit. The biggest complaint will be it's 'not my system'. So I've knocked every possible roadblock out of the way:

 

1. It's a fully sighted test

2. Its' on their own equipment

3. It's on their own test interval

4. It's as many iterations as they want

5. There is no pressure of a test administrator

6. I've publicly posted how to produce this test on one's own. It's doable by anyone.

 

Warning, that is not so easy to do as one might suppose. But you could probably tap into some of our resident scientific, mathematical, engineering, and legal expertise to make a dynamite project. And who knows? The results might astound everyone.

 

-Paul

 

I'm certainly open to and invite reasoned, well thought out, critical, feedback.

[Paul R]

So I have to coddle the feelings of people who refuse to correct their misunderstanding? Enough is enough when it comes to people saying bit identical files can sound different.

 

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Not everything is about you and your needs and wants.

 

 

Then you need to reread some posts. My response is to the people that insist they can hear the difference between two WAV's where one has gone through compression and another has not and they have the same MD5 hash.

 

I suggest you re-read the title of this thread. Again, it isn't all about you...

 

 

I agree: if you are hearing a difference in WAV vs FLAC it's not the FLAC format that is causing the difference.

 

The money is incentive. Businesses do this all the time when it comes to performing studies. It is supposed to increase the level and effort of participation. If someone goes for this easy, self administered, all on their own system test then it really drives a nail in the coffin. I'm attempting to either resolve it by failed attempts or by showing people are all talk. Either way gives data and one of those ways risks zero $$'s on my part. I'm completely happy with that.

 

 

 

I can't ship an evaluation kit. The biggest complaint will be it's 'not my system'. So I've knocked every possible roadblock out of the way:

 

1. It's a fully sighted test

2. Its' on their own equipment

3. It's on their own test interval

4. It's as many iterations as they want

5. There is no pressure of a test administrator

6. I've publicly posted how to produce this test on one's own. It's doable by anyone.

 

 

 

I'm certainly open to and invite reasoned, well thought out, critical, feedback.

 

Well, I am sure you think so. On the other hand, one of the BIG flaws in your test is you have no control over, or even *recording of*, the test equipment used, and that alone will pretty much invalidate any possible results. That's why you need a standard "test kit" and a standard way to record responses.

 

In other words, you have reduced it to nothing more than an ego challenge. That will not "resolve" anything, and will not lead to people better understanding or enjoying their systems and music.

 

If you are so insistent - why don't you put this in your Blog or at least in a thread you create somewhere? Stop polluting every other thread on the system.

 

-Paul

[plissken]

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Not everything is about you and your needs and wants.

 

I'll look at it any way I please. I've been open in posting and it's also open inviting critique. This is about discovery.

 

 

Well, I am sure you think so. On the other hand, one of the BIG flaws in your test is you have no control over, or even *recording of*, the test equipment used, and that alone will pretty much invalidate any possible results. That's why you need a standard "test kit" and a standard way to record responses.

 

That's only a flaw if I'm designing a test around the *recording of*, the equipment used. I'm not. What is being tested is peoples ability to discern. They've made claims and it's all been performed on their equipment. If they want to provide a WAV file to me that is acceptable.

 

In other words, you have reduced it to nothing more than an ego challenge. That will not "resolve" anything, and will not lead to people better understanding or enjoying their systems and music.

 

I disagree. It will help lead to a better understanding about how computer audio files work.

 

 

If you are so insistent - why don't you put this in your Blog or at least in a thread you create somewhere? Stop polluting every other thread on the system.

 

-Paul

 

I'm not in every other thread with this. Again I'm all about the data driven approach and you are welcome to back any position you want to take with it.

[Paul R]

I'll look at it any way I please. I've been open in posting and it's also open inviting critique. This is about discovery.

 

Nope. it is about you trying to look clever and smart and intelligent, and your desire to pick a fight with or ridicule people who do not agree with you. It's a self correcting problem though, most often seen in teenagers between 14 and 19.

 

 

 

That's only a flaw if I'm designing a test around the *recording of*, the equipment used. I'm not. What is being tested is peoples ability to discern. They've made claims and it's all been performed on their equipment. If they want to provide a WAV file to me that is acceptable.

 

I doubt seriously anyone wants to provide *anything* to you with your attitude. But you missed the more important point, and that is - you have to *record* the system that the test was done on. An xyz amp connected with abc cables to 123 speakers setup in a room zyx with particular acoustic treatments, furniture, etc.

 

Have you really never thought it out? Or are you so blinded by tunnel vision that you think you are the only person to think of this before?

 

Try searching the system, you will find we have done this before, with most people not able to tell a difference, and a few being able to tell a difference on their own systems.

 

I disagree. It will help lead to a better understanding about how computer audio files work.

 

How? It will not provide any insight into the format of the chunks, conversion from a disk file to packetized data ready to transmit over a USB line, nor even the very basic concept of the LPCM data that is in both a WAV and a FLAC file.

 

It certainly doesn't account for or explain the processing in one's playback machine, the possible issues surrounding data transmission or the operators that are in effect to counter, neutralize, or in some cases, enhance those transmission effects.

 

So.. how do you expect your test to produce a better understanding of how "computer audio files" work?

 

I'm not in every other thread with this. Again I'm all about the data driven approach and you are welcome to back any position you want to take with it.

 

You are in far too many, and you make far too many assumptions. Almost all of which are probably not very good assumptions to be making at all.

 

Now, understand, I am all for you being able to say what you want to say, but this constant self aggrandizement is wearing. Some of those folks who believe that WAV and FLAC files sound different are very smart, very careful people indeed. They deserve more respect than your swarmy diatribes offer.

 

And I am out of this. Three times exhausts my limit on charity explanations.

 

-Paul

[plissken]

Nope. it is about you trying to look clever and smart and intelligent, and your desire to pick a fight with or ridicule people who do not agree with you.

 

It is about showing people the earth isn't flat. I'm certainly not going to blunt my interactions or responses.

 

 

But you missed the more important point, and that is - you have to *record* the system that the test was done on. An xyz amp connected with abc cables to 123 speakers setup in a room zyx with particular acoustic treatments, furniture, etc.

 

Sigh.... No you are missing the point. If I claim I can jump the grand canyon in MY car you don't provide me with a plane to make the attempt.

 

Have you really never thought it out? Or are you so blinded by tunnel vision that you think you are the only person to think of this before?

 

Actually I'm aping a challenge from another forum where the result was the same. No one had faith in their convictions. Rightly so it blew up the thread.

 

Try searching the system, you will find we have done this before, with most people not able to tell a difference, and a few being able to tell a difference on their own systems.

 

I've seen the faith healers, just not the healed people so to speak.

 

 

So.. how do you expect your test to produce a better understanding of how "computer audio files" work?

 

That bit identical files are indistinguishable.

 

 

You are in far too many, and you make far too many assumptions. Almost all of which are probably not very good assumptions to be making at all.

 

Which is why my process is 100% out there to be vetted. Which you have yet to do any of. You simply could try getting out of the way instead of increasing the noise to signal.

 

Now, understand, I am all for you being able to say what you want to say, but this constant self aggrandizement is wearing. Some of those folks who believe that WAV and FLAC files sound different are very smart, very careful people indeed. They deserve more respect than your swarmy diatribes offer.

 

And I am out of this. Three times exhausts my limit on charity explanations.

 

-Paul

 

Please let's just put each other on ignore. As you will be after this post.

[diggle]

$ 3000 is also ok for me. But in just 1 round. After all I've read here I can't be sure you would include a 'compressed-decompressed' sample after my first correct guess. In fact I can't be sure you will include it in the first round either can I?

[Paul R]

It is about showing people the earth isn't flat. I'm certainly not going to blunt my interactions or responses.

(*sigh*) The Earth isn't round either.

 

Sigh.... No you are missing the point. If I claim I can jump the grand canyon in MY car you don't provide me with a plane to make the attempt.

I can certainly require you to tell me the details of your car though. Else wise, who knows? Your "car" might be a single engine Piper.

 

 

Actually I'm aping a challenge from another forum where the result was the same. No one had faith in their convictions. Rightly so it blew up the thread.

It didn't work there, it won't work here, and still you don't learn?

 

 

Yawn - wasted case I suppose. One of those people who never learn their right to yap ends at everyone else's ears... noise pollution.

[mansr]

(*sigh*) The Earth isn't round either.

 

The earth is round but not spherical.

[plissken]

The earth is round but not spherical.

 

Don't look at me. I just said it wasn't flat...

 

Nothing like putting words into someones mouth and then attempting to correct them. But it's Paul so it's expected. Shrug.

[plissken]

$ 3000 is also ok for me. But in just 1 round. After all I've read here I can't be sure you would include a 'compressed-decompressed' sample after my first correct guess. In fact I can't be sure you will include it in the first round either can I?

 

The entire process is screen cast so it's documented. And my original two evaluation scenarios still stand. I'm not giving anyone a simple 1 in 10 dart throw chance.

 

Heck, I'll even prepare everything live. That is I can give you remote shared view of my system while I do it. You will see me generate the WAV file, do the MD5 hash, create all the copies, touch the creation/modification date to flatten them. Rename them 1 - 10. Alternately you can provide me with a WAV of your choosing.

 

The only part I'll kick you out of is the random selection of which one I will FLAC/Zip/Unzip/UnFlac back to WAV and verify the MD5 Checksum. Will screen record the entire thing and post it on YouTube.