Bottom
line: Use FLAC IMO.
Regards Question #1, FLAC files are compressed (you state "can be"), I can't think of any real 'advantage' to AIFF other than (as you mention) possibly slightly lower processor load, but no modern processor should be seriously challenged by this, witness the popularity of the Pi which has a fraction of the processor muscle of a full fledged PC, but sees wide use as a server/streamer.
2) Bryston would be the definitive source on this, but I doubt it.
3) Yes to the first part, defer to Bryston on the second.
4) Yes IMHO. Some claim to hear differences but I'm skeptical (to put it mildly) that these differences would survive blind testing.
I suggest FLAC.
You give a recommendation for FLAC without any reason, as far as I can read. What tips the scale to FLAC in your opinion?I just don't see a compelling case for taking up twice the storage space (and bandwidth, if one is using a NAS setup), so I think a case for uncompressed has to justify that. Since the FLAC file (unlike lossy formats like mp3 and Ogg) decompresses into a bit-perfect replica of the original, I don't think the case is made. HD space is cheap though, so just pick whichever you want.
A sonic preference for one lossless type over another lossless type can be readily explained by neurophysiology. Millions of hair cells are tuned to specific sound frequencies inside our ears. The sensitivity of these cells to becoming excited by their tuned freqs will vary with age: many actually die off with age (and with usage: louder music will kill off cells, leading to hearing loss). A perceptual difference between WAV/FLAC/AIFF is explained by the responses of the remaining hair cells to identical freqs of sound waves. To further complicate things, all cells are plastic -- they respond in a variable manner depending on prior experience (i.e. history of listening). Some hair cells also become stiffer with age or with chemical damage, making them harder to excite at specific freqs. (Taking certain antibiotics for a long period will kill inner ear cells, leading to partial hearing loss).
A few other variables also come into play, such as head position/angle and emotional mood when comparing file types on a system.
In the end, a lot of things can happen before the sound waves reach my brain to allow me to perceive a music file as sounding the "same" or "different".
cheers
You give a recommendation for FLAC without any reason, as far as I can read. What tips the scale to FLAC in your opinion?
Have you guys tried A/B tests of tracks ripped from dBpoweramp vs. iTunes?
I've ripped about 100 CD's using iTunes....but thinking of getting specific software to complete this task more accurately.
any thought on this?
T
what software do you use, CM?
Chief, I use XLD because I am a Mac fanboy. :lol:
But dBPoweramp is very good, I'm told.
Deadly accurate.
dBPoweramp can be set up to various levels of accuracy, from "Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's okay on the first run", to "I WANT THIS CHECKED 18 TIMES TO MAKE SURE EVERY LITTLE 0 AND 1 IS THERE! AND THEN CHECKED AGAIN!!!"
----- I did blind A/B comparisons. AIFF beat FLAC on my system to my ears.
My experience. Potential technical reasons for this - I don't know.
A bit more detail and resolution. Not night and day, but noticeable.
A bit more detail and resolution. Not night and day, but noticeable.
I'm now using a Modwright Oppo Sonica DAC. Again, I have no idea what the technical differences are. But it's a 15 minute experiment to rip the same disk in FLAC and then in AIFF and have a friend flip back and forth blind. Done. Hopefully FLAC wins as it does take a lot less space.
I think one of the issues is there is so much going on behind the scenes
One of the reasons I had for developing the BDP Digital player product way back when was I was finding thats files were not BIT Perfect using my Windows or MAC computer as the source - things like KMIXER in Windows for example and such was screwing with the signal.
james
James,
Yet there are some who use the BDP (a great product that I highly endorse), and still claim to hear diffs between file types. With all else constant (cables, external drives, etc).
What gives?
cheers
I was surprised to find that playback of DLNA streamed files sounded consistently more refined, open, and relaxed than playback of those same files accessed through the shared NAS folder. Perhaps the DLNA protocol provides additional local data handling at the source end, facilitating smoother transmission over the network. Playback via NAS file-share access imposed a crude, grainy, airless haze over the music. Using the BDP-2’s DLNA client to play the same files streamed by the source computer’s DLNA server substantially reduced those unpleasant artifacts.
However, neither networked playback mode came close to the performance of the directly connected USB hard drive. Music played over the network exhibited a disembodied, diffuse quality, lacking foundation, substance, and presence, never remotely suggestive of the real thing. The notes were there, but not the instruments that generated those notes. In stark contrast, music played from a USB hard drive connected directly to the BDP-2 engages the listener’s attention with vitality, immediacy, and dramatically superior resolution.
1. Since both are lossless, but FLAC files can be compressed, is the extra workload required of the BDP-2 to decompress the file of any consequence?
2. Would the BDP-2 processor be happier playing back uncompressed files (less workload)?
3. Are the two formats equivalent in terms of their capacity to transport metadata (e.g. Artist information) and can the BDP-2 pick up the metadata as easily from either format?
4. Are the two formats equivalent in SQ?
Bottom line: what format should I be ripping CDs to?
On linux, you have to go through the ALSA drivers and everything needs to be converted to PCM. So MPD/Roon will call a decoder for lossless uncompression for flac (or ALAC, and a lossy uncompression for mp3, aac, etc).
...
People hear what they hear and think what they think, but having a beer will be more impacting to the sound than the file format.
What's interesting about Roon is i've had some drop offs and playback speed issues when the source is Tidal. Just pausing the song clears up the issue, but makes me feel that Roon isn't optimized and not nearly as mature as others media players.
Jim
James,
Yet there are some who use the BDP (a great product that I highly endorse), and still claim to hear diffs between file types. With all else constant (cables, external drives, etc).
What gives?
cheers
2018 or 2008 year?
...
The problem is the compression. More decompression work -> more CPU -> more jitter!
...
IMO, the speed of your Roon Core matters a lot more than Roon would like to admit. I used to run Roon Server on a Mac Mini (2012 model) and I would occasionally experience what you describe. When I moved to a MacBook Retina (quad i7 w/ 16 GB RAM, SSD), wired to the same switch as my BDP-1, all of that went away for me...
As always, YMMV.
2018 or 2008 year?
The musical information is the same because they are lossless but...
The problem is the compression. More decompression work -> more CPU -> more jitter!
Yes, the CPU generates jitter than we can not eliminate but yes minimize.
In my system, I can differentiate between FLAC 8 and FLAC 0. And more easy between 16/44, 16/96, 24/96 too.
With AIFF, WAV or FLAC 0 not.
By the way, it is important to update FLAC 1.3.2
And to optimize the S.O. to play multimedia. The soft players too. And...
The CPU is not an ideal machine.
And if we forced the CPU to work with avx2 instructions with sound files -> less jitter -> better sound.
Of course, with good records and system with low noise. Bad records and systems with high noise mask the jitter. That is why many are unable to appreciate the difference and not because they are deaf and others golden ears.
One of my sayings in audio: noise (of all kinds) is our enemy.
...
I've been finding the Roon iOS app buggy and the Tidal integration is very poor.
2018 or 2008 year?
The musical information is the same because they are lossless but...
The problem is the compression. More decompression work -> more CPU -> more jitter!
Yes, the CPU generates jitter than we can not eliminate but yes minimize.
In my system, I can differentiate between FLAC 8 and FLAC 0. And more easy between 16/44, 16/96, 24/96 too.
With AIFF, WAV or FLAC 0 not.
By the way, it is important to update FLAC 1.3.2
And to optimize the S.O. to play multimedia. The soft players too. And...
The sound of jitter
In general I find jitter to cause a loss in "inner detail" which usually relates to a "flatter" sound. It looses the "liveness", it becomes boring. Sometimes I find jitter also effects bass significantly. This is strange because I would expect high frequencies to be more susceptible, but I frequently hear a significant improvement in bass articulation when decreasing jitter.
Its hard to listen to a piece of gear and say "thats got high jitter" just by listening, because many other things can cause similar sonic effects. By building my own gear I've been able to do quite a few tests where I can hold everything equal except change jitter and can definately hear major improvements in sound by lowering jitter.
But frequently similar changes can be had (for example) by upgrading the power supply of the preamp.
Another issue is all jitter is not the same. The spectrum has a lot to do with it. I have one receiver with 200 ps of jitter that sounds significantly better than another with 50ps, BUT the spectrum is radically different between them. Thus just picking the lowest published "jitter number" will not guarantee the best sound.
John Swenson
IMO, the speed of your Roon Core matters a lot more than Roon would like to admit. I used to run Roon Server on a Mac Mini (2012 model) and I would occasionally experience what you describe. When I moved to a MacBook Retina (quad i7 w/ 16 GB RAM, SSD), wired to the same switch as my BDP-1, all of that went away for me...
As always, YMMV.