[Double Ugly]

I've heard mostly from SB owners who have tried it both ways, and it seems that most of them don't hear any differences between FLAC files, and WAV files.

But I do know that the stuff I have listened too that is FLAC doesn't seem to lack the ambience on drum tracks, or any other instruments for that matter.

I'm in the camp that hears no difference.

I was predisposed to using FLAC when I first began ripping my CDs to HDD (somewhat limited space, since rectified), but I was also determined to avoid any loss in fidelity.  Long story short, I've ripped CDs to FLAC using several different "Best Ever!" EAC techniques, via Easy CD-DA Extractor and with Max once I moved to an OSX platform, and I've yet to hear any difference.

Worth noting is that I didn't just compare CDs ripped to FLAC and to WAV, but to the CDs themselves.  Using my best recorded material (some CD, some XRCD), all the decay is still present, as are the subtle nuances of individual instruments, performers and performances requisite to achieve an "I'm there" reproduction.

I suppose some may be inclined to assume it isn't sufficiently resolving to make the differences know, and aside from inviting everyone over for a listen, I don't have a way of proving otherwise.  I know that I and my wife are exceedingly pleased with my system, and the only guaranteed improvement option I'm aware of is to upgrade my speakers.  Fortunately, that's in the works. 

SYSTEM
*  Speakers:  SP Technology Timepiece 2.1s (SP Technology Revelations with all available upgrades on order, thus the above )
*  Amplifiers:  Butler Audio Monad monoblocks
*  Source:  Slim Devices Transporter modified by Aberdeen Components (an excellent all-in-one option, FWIW)
*  Speaker Cables:  Gregg Straley's Reality Cables
*  Interconnects:  Stealth Audio Cables Indra
*  Power Cords:  Black Sand Statement One x 3 (2 for the amps, 1 for the source)
*  Tweaks:  Star Sound Technologies Audio Points or Sistrum stands beneath every component, speaker stands filled with Star Sound’s Micro-Bearing Steel Fill.  2 dedicated 20-amp outlets.

[WEEZ]

I agree with george_k's observation as far as 'burned' cd's are concerned. They don't sound as good as the original. ( I have posted about this on another forum ). Unless the original is one of the many harsh, bright, overly compressed, and otherwise obnoxious recordings that permeate much of today's offerings...in which case the 'burned' copy might relax the sound a bit. (Which may be a good thing. )

As for playing WAV files vs. FLAC files directly ( thru a network player, or otherwise) I can offer no opinion. I play cd's out of necessity....on a cd player .  Not because I love digital; but because it's my only digital source. Someday, I'll likely add a music server of some sort to my system to play 'mixes', and internet radio, etc. But I can't fathom it being my only source.

I have to echo what Clay W posted...."Vinyl, it seems, is keeping it alive".

I just got my turntable back from SOTA that was in for an upgrade.....Ahhhhhhh.... ...high fidelity is indeed still alive.

WEEZ

[Double Ugly]

Someday, I'll likely add a music server of some sort to my system to play 'mixes', and internet radio, etc. But I can't fathom it being my only source.

Vinyl's great, and it does a lot of things very well, things most digital systems are incapable of mimicking.  Still, unless I fail to find a way to rip all my vinyl to HDDs, I'll likely never have another vinyl rig.

Could be you'll always feel that way, WEEZ.  Then again, maybe you just haven't heard the right digital set-up yet.

[doug s.]

Someday, I'll likely add a music server of some sort to my system to play 'mixes', and internet radio, etc. But I can't fathom it being my only source.

Vinyl's great, and it does a lot of things very well, things most digital systems are incapable of mimicking.  Still, unless I fail to find a way to rip all my vinyl to HDDs, I'll likely never have another vinyl rig.

Could be you'll always feel that way, WEEZ.  Then again, maybe you just haven't heard the right digital set-up yet.

i've heard a few really superb over-the-top digital set-ups, but they still do not hold a candle to a good winyl set-up, imo...

re: "hi-fidelity" being dead, it's always been dead, imo.  (or, it always yust smelled funny, take your pick!   )  even in the early years of hi-fi, it was only the lunatic fringe who went all-out on stereo systems.  same as it ever was, imo...   

doug s.

[Double Ugly]

i've heard a few really superb over-the-top digital set-ups, but they still do not hold a candle to a good winyl set-up, imo...

Yeah, so have I (full dCS stacks and other big $$$ systems), but it isn't as though I don't have a basis for comparison (I'm not living in a cave; just the middle of nowhere ).  I've also heard a lot of vinyl rigs, ranging in price from a few hundred bucks to tens of thousands of dollars. 

Yeah, I'll stick with digital; most (if not all - mine is "done right") of the goodness of vinyl sans the scratching, pops and labor requirements. 

[Double Ugly]

same as it ever was,...

So sayeth AC's own Talking Head. 

And you may ask yourself
How do I work this?
And you may ask yourself
Where is that large automobile?
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful house!
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful wife!

[darrenyeats]

I agree with george_k's observation as far as 'burned' cd's are concerned. They don't sound as good as the original. ( I have posted about this on another forum ). Unless the original is one of the many harsh, bright, overly compressed, and otherwise obnoxious recordings that permeate much of today's offerings...in which case the 'burned' copy might relax the sound a bit. (Which may be a good thing. )

As for playing WAV files vs. FLAC files directly ( thru a network player, or otherwise) I can offer no opinion. I play cd's out of necessity....on a cd player .  Not because I love digital; but because it's my only digital source. Someday, I'll likely add a music server of some sort to my system to play 'mixes', and internet radio, etc. But I can't fathom it being my only source.

I have to echo what Clay W posted...."Vinyl, it seems, is keeping it alive".

I just got my turntable back from SOTA that was in for an upgrade.....Ahhhhhhh.... ...high fidelity is indeed still alive.

WEEZ

Modern optical drives can read CDs faultlessly if the CD is free of scratches. People who use EAC (which verifies the ripped audio down to the last bit with a known-to-be-correct reference rip) confirm this all the time. And from personal experience, if I rip a CD on my laptop which has an old CD-RW combo drive in it, and rip the same CD on my new server with a DVD-R drive in it, I get exactly the same audio file. I mean EXACTLY down to the last 1 or 0 (I checked).

It isn't possible for a CD player to improve on such a perfect performance. Perhaps, it might do a little worse - which might or might not cause an audible difference. Or more likely, CD players perform the same (perfect reads on unscratched discs).

Once a CD has been ripped, converting it to FLAC has absolutely no effect on the sound quality as long as the data lives on a computer. FLAC is analogous to winzip - what you put in is what you get out when you extract it again, exactly and precisely with no changes whatsoever. Remember, this isn't grooves in a plastic disc, it's 1's and 0's and there is no in between. Either it is an exact copy or it isn't - and just like with winzip, with FLAC you get an exact copy of what you put in.

I'm not talking about digital processing in general. What I am saying is that if you rip a CD to computer and do nothing to it except convert it to FLAC without replay gain or anything else fancy, you get what was on the disc. So any differences in sound must be due to parts of the audio chain, be it a S/PDIF connection or analogue output stage. Or of course a placebo effect.

Let me tell you story. Even with all of the above knowledge I still found my CD transport sounded better than a Squeezebox 3 used as a transport. Well, the truth is the truth, I don't mind saying it. Better soundstage was the main thing. The comparison was unfair, because though old my CDT cost many times what the SB3 does, but it annoyed the hell out of me, because I liked the convenience of the SB3.

I did a blind test with a friend a couple of months ago, SB3 vs CD as transports. The difference was very clear to hear, better soundstage, more natural perspective, picked the same player every time. It was the SB3, to my surprise. Since then, a lot of my conceptions are out the window.

If you've never tried a blind test, give it a go. It's fun! Just before it starts you get this silly smile over your face which says "This audiophile pretender may be about to be found out!". Just that feeling right there is a real experience, and then there's the test itself. If you've never tried it - and even if you don't agree blind tests are very worthwhile - go on. I guarantee you'll get that sheepish smile as you start!
Darren

[george_k]

Daygloworange,

No it wasn't that the FLAC file sounded different that the WAV file, it shouldn't as that is the whole premise behind lossless compression.

What might have affected the output could have been the original ripping process (note: EAC isn't always 100% accurate), the blank media (I tend to buy the stuff on sale at bestbuy) or the burning back to CD process (possibly?)



Darren,

With the blind testing you did, did you make sure the SPL levels were roughly comparable? Apparently our ears/minds perceive "louder" as sounding "better" so I'd imagine that a 2-3dB difference could affect results.

I've heard stories that some sales people when demoing things like amps, cd players, etc. over the same set of speakers will tend to increase the volume on the pieces they want to sell ($$$) in order to fool the customer into liking it better (I've never seen it happen so I can't confirm though)

[darrenyeats]

George,
Your point about the levels is a good one. The levels were the same in the blind test I described. It was a digital transport test so the levels should be identical...but we checked with my SPL meter to make sure!

Although ripping isn't always 100% accurate it's very likely, on any given occasion, that with an unscratched CD it will be accurate. Check it out by doing some rips on different computers and comparing (making sure the drive offsets are corrected). You should find the rips are the same...

Technology has moved on. The 'cdparanoia' software engine, which is at the heart of almost all good rippers, is a complex beast and does a good job of ensuring rips are accurate almost regardless of the hardware layer.

So, I believe the differences I heard in my transport contest are more probably to do with jitter or perhaps read errors by my ageing CD transport.
Darren

[doug s.]

i've heard a few really superb over-the-top digital set-ups, but they still do not hold a candle to a good winyl set-up, imo...

Yeah, so have I (full dCS stacks and other big $$$ systems), but it isn't as though I don't have a basis for comparison (I'm not living in a cave; just the middle of nowhere ).  I've also heard a lot of vinyl rigs, ranging in price from a few hundred bucks to tens of thousands of dollars. 

i'll take a $2k winyl rig (i get to choose arm/cart/fono/stage/deck, new or used), over any digital playback system of your choice, at any price...  and, i will still have enough money left over for my modded art di/o & transport, that will give me 97%+ of what your digital rig brings to the table.     it makes no sense to me to spend megabucks (or even more than $1k) on a technology when you can get 97%+ of everything that can be gotten out of it for such a minimal inwestment.  i know the law of diminishing returns exists in all things audio (and in all other things as well), but it really kicks in soonest in digital audio gear, imo.  well, cabling is right there, too, but that's an accessory!   

Yeah, I'll stick with digital; most (if not all - mine is "done right") of the goodness of vinyl sans the scratching, pops and labor requirements. 

"most of the goodness of vinyl..." - i can agree w/this.  "if not all the goodness of vinyl..." - not a chance, imo! - see my comment directly above. 

scratching & pops are a problem, on a few rare occasions. 

re: labor, when i am really having a listening session, i do not at all mind having to get up to change a record every 20 minutes or so.   

doug s.

[Double Ugly]

["if not all the goodness of vinyl..." - not a chance, imo!

Doug, have you heard a Bolder Ultimate PS (unbroken, preferably ) w/ a fully-modified SB?  Or an Aberdeen Components-modified Transporter (my current source)?

The PS I sent Rim back in the day doesn't measure up to what's available now, and it was awfully good IMHO.  I don't know how it sounded after Rim's repair attempt, but it was never the same here, even though Wayne tried to fix it (even upgraded it). 

[doug s.]

nope, i haven't.  but, based upon what i have heard, even if it's the best digital extant, regardless of price, i would wager it would be splitting hairs to determine how much better it is than what i have heard.  only so much blood you can squeeze from a stone, ya know?   

regards,

doug s.

["if not all the goodness of vinyl..." - not a chance, imo!

Doug, have you heard a Bolder Ultimate PS (unbroken, preferably ) w/ a fully-modified SB?  Or an Aberdeen Components-modified Transporter (my current source)?

The PS I sent Rim back in the day doesn't measure up to what's available now, and it was awfully good IMHO.  I don't know how it sounded after Rim's repair attempt, but it was never the same here, even though Wayne tried to fix it (even upgraded it). 

[Double Ugly]

only so much blood you can squeeze from a stone, ya know?   

True dat!  But then that applies to every type source, ya know? 

It's all completely subjective anyway.  Guys like you, WEEZ, TCG and other vinyl noggin's may never believe vinyl can be bettered by any digital set-up, regardless of what I and others say we've heard, and there's nothing with that.  As long as none of you become the Audio Czar and begin telling me what I do and don't hear/can and can't do with my system, it's all good!   

Even so, I think it may be a wee bit better than you think, Doug.  It was way better than I'd anticipated, and to my ears it is preferable to every much-ballyhooed digital rig I've heard.

But as always, YMMV. 

[Daygloworange]

but, based upon what i have heard, even if it's the best digital extant, regardless of price, i would wager it would be splitting hairs to determine how much better it is than what i have heard.  only so much blood you can squeeze from a stone, ya know?  

regards,

doug s.

Don't be so quick to that conclusion Doug. I wondered the same thing too. How much better can it get? I have a Bolder full analog SB 3 powered by a Bolder modified Elpac. I have the Bolder Ultimate PS MkII on loan to me from Wayne. It changes the performance significantly. Seriously. It adds a lot of refinement to an already good digital front end.

And there are a number of Bolder SB 3 mods since mine was done, along with the Burson Buffer Op Amp, along with a newer version PS that apparently make significant improvements to what I have.

I won't get into a debate about analog vs digital, but from the standpoint of improvements, I can say I've heard very significant improvements and refinements in digital with mods and upgrades.

It can get better. A lot better.

Cheers

[doug s.]

re: your digital rig that's better than any other digital rig you have ever heard - hook up a $2k winyl source to your rig & get back to me.   

if redbook cd were 24/192, i don't think we'd be having this discussion, & i think winyl would be alive only to play old stuff &/or burn it to digital...  but, as long as it's 16/44.1, most folks who have heard both, prefer analog.  this is true of many of my friends who refuse to do winyl cuz they don't wanna mess w/it - they all agree it's still better, tho...

but you're right about one thing - what ever floats your boat...   

doug s.

only so much blood you can squeeze from a stone, ya know?   

True dat!  But then that applies to every type source, ya know? 

It's all completely subjective anyway.  Guys like you, WEEZ, TCG and other vinyl noggin's may never believe vinyl can be bettered by any digital set-up, regardless of what I and others believe, and there's nothing with that.  As long as none of you become the Audio Czar and begin telling me what I do and don't hear/can and can't do with my system, it's all good!   

Even so, I think it may be a wee bit better than you think, Doug.  It was way better than I'd anticipated, and to my ears it is preferable to every much-ballyhooed digital rig I've heard.

But as always, YMMV. 

[doug s.]

well, maybe it's getting close to the time to start auditioning for upgrades?  anything $1k or less?  that's my limit for digital. 

thanks,

doug s.

but, based upon what i have heard, even if it's the best digital extant, regardless of price, i would wager it would be splitting hairs to determine how much better it is than what i have heard.  only so much blood you can squeeze from a stone, ya know?   

regards,

doug s.

Don't be so quick to that conclusion Doug. I wondered the same thing too. How much better can it get? I have a Bolder full analog SB 3 powered by a Bolder modified Elpac. I have the Bolder Ultimate PS MkII on loan to me from Wayne. It changes the performance significantly. Seriously. It adds a lot of refinement to an already good digital front end.

And there are a number of Bolder SB 3 mods since mine was done, along with the Burson Buffer Op Amp, along with a newer version PS that apparently make significant improvements to what I have.

I won't get into a debate about analog vs digital, but from the standpoint of improvements, I can say I've heard very significant improvements and refinements in digital with mods and upgrades.

It can get better. A lot better.

Cheers

[Daygloworange]

well, maybe it's getting close to the time to start auditioning for upgrades?  anything $1k or less?  that's my limit for digital. 

If that's your limit, then you possibly haven't had enough noteworthy digital playbacks in your system to reach a proper conclusion.

I said it before that I had similar thoughts as to how much better you can get with digital, and the answer I have discovered is quite significant.

I, after over 20 years of exclusively listening to high end analog studio reel to reel recorders, and then began with digital recording when it was at the 9 bit stage all the way through to 24 bit, have obviously come to a very different one than you. I have heard some mondo tweaked, uber expensive vinyl rigs.

Don't presume digital is inferior to analog. I can go on, and on, and on, and on, why analog is riddled full of reasons why is awful. Yes, awful.

It's fine if it's you preference, just don't imply that analog is in everyway better than digital.

Cheers

[doug s.]

that's my limit, based upon extremely expensive digital i have heard...  just not worth it, imo...

ymmv,

doug s.

well, maybe it's getting close to the time to start auditioning for upgrades?  anything $1k or less?  that's my limit for digital. 

If that's your limit, then you possibly haven't had enough noteworthy digital playbacks in your system to reach a proper conclusion.

I said it before that I had similar thoughts as to how much better you can get with digital, and the answer I have discovered is quite significant.

I, after over 20 years of exclusively listening to high end analog studio reel to reel recorders, and then began with digital recording when it was at the 9 bit stage all the way through to 24 bit, have obviously come to a very different one than you. I have heard some mondo tweaked, uber expensive vinyl rigs.

Don't presume digital is inferior to analog. I can go on, and on, and on, and on, why analog is riddled full of reasons why is awful. Yes, awful.

It's fine if it's you preference, just don't imply that analog is in everyway better than digital.

Cheers

[Daygloworange]

Fair enough.

Just for the record, Personally, I wouldn't waste a dime looking for analog to do anything superior to digital.

Cheers

[Scott F.]

Doug, DU,

Even so, I think it may be a wee bit better than you think, Doug.  It was way better than I'd anticipated, and to my ears it is preferable to every much-ballyhooed digital rig I've heard.

I have to agree with DU. I've got a very good vinyl rig and Wayne's latest Statement mods (at $1k) have now tipped the scales quite a bit. What I'm finding now is that it really boils down to one of two things, the quality of the vinyl (how far from the Mother its been stamped) and whether the CD has been remastered or if its the old 8/16 bit master. There are other factors too like how well the remastering was done.

As a pure analog fan, I have to admit that the Statement modded SB often times sounds better than my vinyl. That said, there are selections where the vinyl sounds better. It's about 50/50 at this point. Now, when I compare the identical release on a quality piece of vinyl with a quality mastered CD, the vinyl wins nearly every time. The one big thing that the modded SB brings to the table is its lack if digital artifacts and 'edginess' of the traditional CD player.

When it comes to your digital budget, I'm afraid you've set it too low. A $1k digital allowance almost gets you there but you really need to add about $500 to the budget to get a good quality experience from the SB. Add another ~$2k to it for Wayne's top shelf power supply and his upcoming modded Burson buffer and now you are talking about an absolute, top shelf, digital setup. I heard this in my system a few weeks ago and it was as good as it gets in digital IMO.

Is ~$3k too much to spend on a digital front end?....maybe....but you can drop $3k on a vinyl front end in a heartbeat and still not have a "killer" rig.....very, very good but still short of killer. Bottom line, its all expensive but its up to you where you want to focus your audio bucks. Both formats are very good (now).