Lies about vinyl vs digital

[sandyk]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

The risk is small yet non-zero.

 

Going back to the why bother argument, that is actually stronger in the other direction. For music distributors and online stores, storage and bandwidth do matter, so they tend to keep the files as FLAC. They then sell you the same FLAC. Why bother decompressing it?

 

Because many people find that it sounds better in the original format instead of being converted "on the fly".

 I first found this with Claire Martin-Too Darn Hot 24-96  FLAC"  from Linn Records way back in 2008, when computers were far more noisy electrically.

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Because many people find that it sounds better in the original format instead of being converted "on the fly".

 I first found this with Claire Martin-Too Darn Hot 24-96  FLAC"  from Linn Records way back in 2008, when computers were far more noisy electrically.

What about the added noise generated by reading twice as much data from disk when playing uncompressed files?

[marce]

8 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

No need for hostility.

 

I assumed the degradation mentioned related to compressing files, so uncompressed files were the way to go.  Now I see you mean that a zip file somehow prevents the music file from being degraded.

Millions of files sent zipped and unzipped get there unadulterated every day, why does only the freaky stuff happen with audiophile's data!!!

[sandyk]

20 minutes ago, mansr said:

What about the added noise generated by reading twice as much data from disk when playing uncompressed files?

Mansr

 I don't give a damn whether you or Marce believe me or not .I am simply reporting what I have found.

 I have also found that many YouTube videos with .aac audio at bit rates as low as 125kbps can sound quite noticeably better if re-encoded at a typical 576kbs with suitable Video S/W such as TMPGEnc Video Mastering Works.

 

Not that I expect either of you to believe that either.

[RickyV]

27 minutes ago, marce said:

Millions of files sent zipped and unzipped get there unadulterated every day, why does only the freaky stuff happen with audiophile's data!!!

The  freaky stuff happens all the time to all data but you know that.

The problem comes when the crappy switches and routers are connected to sensitive DACs.

It's noise

[marce]

4 minutes ago, RickyV said:

The  freaky stuff happens all the time to all data but you know that.

The problem comes when the crappy switches and routers are connected to sensitive DACs.

It's noise

Would love to see some measurements and information then if its such a big issue....

Of  course it does not say a lot for all those designers of audio DAC's that have totally forgotten to do their EMC testing... 

[marce]

45 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Mansr

 I don't give a damn whether you or Marce believe me or not .I am simply reporting what I have found.

 I have also found that many YouTube videos with .aac audio at bit rates as low as 125kbps can sound quite noticeably better if re-encoded at a typical 576kbs with suitable Video S/W such as TMPGEnc Video Mastering Works.

 

Not that I expect either of you to believe that either.

Just refer to us as M&M I would hate to be responsible for RSI due to having to type both our names repeatedly, we even come in easy to open packets...

http://www.mms.com/

 

[Rexp]

6 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

I am not into .aiff , as l use a Windows 10 PC not a Mac,  and use JRiver with .wav. files 

These files opened for me using Foobar 2000, and I also found the 24/192 version sounded much better, and was quite a bit more enjoyable.

 

So Dennis , you appear to be the odd man out on this occasion, and I know that it's not due to your hearing capabilities as you have previously demonstrated with samples from John Kenny of Shelby Lynne, which perhaps brings us back to what we have been privately discussing via email today ?

 

Agreed.

Just tried comparing in Foobar and the 24/192 is clearly better than the 16/44.1 its not even close. Maybe the down sampled file would sound better if the original was recorded at 24/176.4? Very interesting, Thank you @Paul R

[esldude]

5 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

 

How are these FLACs being compressed, dynamic range or size?

Do a search on FLAC and figure it out for your own good.  No need to start this crap again. Of course you already know the answer to that question.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

Just tried comparing in Foobar and the 24/192 is clearly better than the 16/44.1 its not even close. Maybe the down sampled file would sound better if the original was recorded at 24/176.4? Very interesting, Thank you @Paul R

I've already said I thought the first down sampled version sounded different. Fas42 has shown the FR is different. No mystery. I didn't find my resample to sound different. Did you try it?

[Paul R]

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

I am not into .aiff , as l use a Windows 10 PC not a Mac,  and use JRiver with .wav. files 

These files opened for me using Foobar 2000, and I also found the 24/192 version sounded much better, and was quite a bit more enjoyable.

 

So Dennis , you appear to be the odd man out on this occasion, and I know that it's not due to your hearing capabilities as you have previously demonstrated with samples from John Kenny of Shelby Lynne, which perhaps brings us back to what we have been privately discussing via email today ?

 

Agreed.

 

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

There wasn't any point in more closely examining Pauls' first set of files, because of the extra processing that had occurred. But an interesting aspect in the second lot is that the energy in the above 10kHz region is greater in the 44.1k capture, increasing to about 3dB difference by 20k, where it obviously then drops to nothing - compared to the 192k capture. This alone should make the 44.1 sound different, though I haven't tried to listen for this - if one is not favourable to the treble in one's system then this would be enough to make one version preferrable. In the following, pink is the 44.1k version of course,

 

 

Why there should be this HF boost in Paul's 44.1k compared to the 192k capture is possibly a relevant factor.

 

 

I did send spectrum analysis with that, and I am not quite sure I understand it either. However, it was with the same gear, same settings, and no processing other than to add RIAA.

 

In fact, essentially same results when I record using: 

-    Same software,  using a RIAA corrected preamp

-    Different software not using RIAA amp

-    Different software using a RIAA preamp

-    Different ADC 

 

 

I first suspected the cart, but if anything - it is something to do with the recording setup. What, given the only change needed to produce that bit of oddness is the recording sample rate, I do not know. Cables are impedance matched of course correct resistors in them, correctly grounded, etc. Channel-D built these cables, but same result with home built cables. 

 

It it could be something inherent with the sample rate but I cannot imagine what, and am very unwilling to go down that road. Operator Error is much more likely. 

 

Okay Frank - this sounds like you believe this is a problem in your kinda world. Where in specific, would you look?  

 

 

 

[Paul R]

6 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

 

How are these FLACs being compressed, dynamic range or size?

 

Just size, there is no change to the audio. 

 

When people are are saying they hear a format difference, such as between FLAC and AIFF, they generally agree it has to do with the processing it takes to extract the audio from FLAC format. Since the processing is very minimal, it is probable that the effect can only be heard on very low powered systems, if it can be heard at all.

 

To test, preprocess a file into two formats, FLAC and another format. AIFF, WAV, or even just direct LPCM. One or the other might sound different on your system. Don’t be dissapointed if they all sound the same however. They probably will on any modern system. 

 

Hope that helps a bit. 

[kumakuma]

21 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Don’t be dissapointed if they all sound the same however. They probably will on any modern system. 

 

 

Especially if you are using a player like JRiver that loads the entire track into memory before playback.

[Paul R]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

Lower risk of damage from random data corruption. Hell, if you compress the files, you can even store two copies for extra safety.

 

I had not thought of the risk of data corruption. Less data, less risk. 

 

Of course, the inverse is also true, if data corruption does occur, the severity will probably be greater in a compressed file. 

 

Of the the top of my head, I can’t calculate the risk of each to compare, not even a general magnitude. That probably means the risk of either is pretty low, and raises in a linear function with the amount of the data and/or  the data density. Mmmm. Fun out of the box thinking though!! 🙂

 

6 hours ago, mansr said:

I keep backups of my photos on both Google and Amazon cloud storage. It seems unlikely that they'd both die at the same time.

 

I use Adobe because it integrates so well with Lightroom, and that is on all my devices. But I think that Adobe is just not a trustworthy company anymore. 

[kumakuma]

7 hours ago, mansr said:

Lower risk of damage from random data corruption. Hell, if you compress the files, you can even store two copies for extra safety.

 

Wouldn't an additional advantage be the fact that the FLAC format has a built-in checksum?

 

Of course, this is only important if you "believe in checksums". 👺

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

Wouldn't an additional advantage be the fact that the FLAC format has a built-in checksum?

The checksum provides a convenient way to check the integrity of the file. For formats lacking such a feature, a checksum can be stores separately. Some filesystems even do this automatically for all files.

[Paul R]

5 hours ago, marce said:

Would love to see some measurements and information then if its such a big issue....

Of  course it does not say a lot for all those designers of audio DAC's that have totally forgotten to do their EMC testing... 

 

For data corruption? Depends upon the storage system, but about 1 in every 10^17 bits becoming silently corrupted and not detected is a safe measurement. Was 10^16 not that long ago, but big data processes that trigger parity reads, RAIDS, filesystems like ZFS, and so on have reduced the undetected cosmic ray zaps significantly. Home systems are rapidly approaching the older 10^16 error threshold though. 

 

 

 

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Especially if you are using a player like JRiver that loads the entire track into memory before playback.

 

Is there a setting for that?  JRiver plays files immediately in my setup.

[The_K-Man]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

Do a search on FLAC and figure it out for your own good.  No need to start this crap again. Of course you already know the answer to that question.

 

I'm trying to encourage the correct, confusion-free, terminology.

 

Give it a try

[The_K-Man]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Just size, there is no change to the audio. 

 

So DATA REDUCTION 'compression'.

 

Thank you!

[The_K-Man]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

I've already said I thought the first down sampled version sounded different. Fas42 has shown the FR is different. No mystery. I didn't find my resample to sound different. Did you try it?

 

If the FR(freq. response?) is different, then there are two different versions, or masterings.

[Paul R]

8 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

So DATA REDUCTION 'compression'.

 

Thank you!

 

 

There is no data reduction involved at all. Just lossless data compression.  Maybe offline or near-line storage reduction, but no data reduction. Not with FLAC. 

 

You get data reduction with MP3 and MQA, for example. 

 

[marce]

36 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

For data corruption? Depends upon the storage system, but about 1 in every 10^17 bits becoming silently corrupted and not detected is a safe measurement. Was 10^16 not that long ago, but big data processes that trigger parity reads, RAIDS, filesystems like ZFS, and so on have reduced the undetected cosmic ray zaps significantly. Home systems are rapidly approaching the older 10^16 error threshold though.

As for files changing over the internet

 

 

 

Er I was talking about noise! I dont worry about files sent over the internet, they get there and back intact.

Interesting comment about Adobe, I use an old version of lightroom that I still own... haven't moved to the subscription yet.

[kumakuma]

20 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Is there a setting for that?  JRiver plays files immediately in my setup.

 

Here's where it lives in JRMC 22.

 

Tools > Options > Audio > Settings > Memory playback

 

[Paul R]

27 minutes ago, marce said:

Er I was talking about noise! I dont worry about files sent over the internet, they get there and back intact.

Interesting comment about Adobe, I use an old version of lightroom that I still own... haven't moved to the subscription yet.

 

Adobe will be forcing you to move to a subscription model pretty soon I think. They just published a warning that anyone using older versions of their software may be in copyright violation. 

 

Adobe used to to be such a good company... 😩