[kirch]

So if I rip a CD to flac format and playback from my Squeezebox Touch to the digital in to my DAC, shouldn't this sound every bit as good, or even exactly the same as listening to a CD thru the same digital input on my DAC?  It's using the same processing as the squeezebox file, isn't it?

Am I missing something here?

[mcgsxr]

I would say that with careful configuration of software settings, yes the SB should sound as good as your wav files via cd player.

Do they not?

[kirch]

I would say that with careful configuration of software settings, yes the SB should sound as good as your wav files via cd player.

Do they not?

Can't say exactly because I have no way of A/B'ing it.  Too much time in between swapping the cable back and forth, then sitting back down in the same spot. Can't make that immediate comparison.  Know what I mean?

[eclein]

Hey kirch!!!- I'm just now finding out the brass tacks of what your talking about.. I have a Virtue Audio Piano M1 CD Player with a certain brand/manufacturer of the DAC chip that the CD player has internally.
 My SB DUET goes to a Grant Fidelity Tube DAC-09 which has a different type DAC Chip plus to add to the mix it also has a optional output that runs through the tube whihc gives it the nice warm tube sound. Even though theoretically they are doing the same thing, they aren't doing the same thing!!!
 I have heard a bunch of DAC's and everyone has a slightly different sound, so if you were to strip away all the extraneous stuff, like CD transport, the electronics onboard the CD player as opposed to the DAC and just said its a signal that on the one side goes through the DAC in the CD player and then out to your stereo, and the same thing happens with the squeezebox--its a file thats sent to your DAC and then out to your stereo but even that basic idea is flawed because each chip is different.
 Its like a sideways..CATCH 22...LOL...too much caffeine here sorry...I'have had AC members here listen to the same song playing simultaneously through the SB to Dac to the world and from the CD players transport to its dac and out to the world and we were able to go back and forth and up until recently it was fairly easy to hear the difference with the CD player edging out the SB...BUT then something as simple as a new digital coax cable that now runs from the SB to the DAC comes along and boom..the SB now sounds better by a very small margin...the new cable brought out the dynamics of the music. Its all synergy and I hated that word, but its true...I'm here from being totally new to this 18 months ago to where I am now and pretty much every thing I thought was not important really is important and some of the stuff I thought was critical wasn't so much.....
 PM me if you want my list of things that were just the opposite of what I and probably most people think....No affiliation here I'm just a retired guy chillin in my recliner.....LOL....wait until you try some power cords!!!  LOL....seriously--amazing stuff ahed

[bpape]

Technically, it's not the same thing since CD-> DAC is WAV format direct to the DAC.  From the SB and FLAC, it has already gone through the WAV->FLAC conversion and then on the decode side, it has to go back FLAC->WAV then D/A in the DAC.

That additional step can be eliminated if you store WAV files directly on the PC/Mac - though it takes a considerable amount more space.

Bryan

[kirch]

Hey Bryan -

Now we get into the wav/flac argument.  I've seen those posts.     To stay away fom that, let's just call it a draw between the two. 

Re the conversion process, are you saying that all my flac files are converted to wav before I hear them?  So here we go again, what's the point in ripping to Flac?  From what I've read here on AC, flacs are the primo format for highest quality.  Subjective?

If you listen very closely, you can hear the can of worms being opened . . . 

Hope this doesn't move us away from my initial post.  Just wondering why I have a CD player if it's essentially redundant with the introduction of the streaming media player to my system.  Was contemplating eliminating it completely because I noticed how noisy the transport was this morning. 

[Vincent Kars]

PCM audio is samples + sample rate

A CDP has to read the samples in real time.
Ripping software reads a CD not in real time.
This allows for as many retries as needed to read the data right.
In principle ripping software is a saver way to read a CD right than a CDP.
In practice a CD in good condition is read without a flaw.
I don’t think there will be a difference  in the value of the samples between CD and e.g. FLAC except when the CDP if forced to interpolate.

A CDP and a FLAC (assuming bit identical content) feed into a DAC can sound different.
This is of course a matter of the accuracy of the timing by the source.
The SPDIF out of e.g a CDP, a Touch, a PC might differ and this can manifest itself in differences in sound quality (yep, jitter again).
The DAC used also has its impact. They differ in their capability to cope with input jitter.
If the outputs don't differ to much on timing errors and the DAC is good in input jitter rejection one shouldn't hear a difference.

[wilbert-vanbakel]

Re the conversion process, are you saying that all my flac files are converted to wav before I hear them?  So here we go again, what's the point in ripping to Flac?  From what I've read here on AC, flacs are the primo format for highest quality.  Subjective?

The point of using Free Lossless Audo Compression is storage and tagging, it takes half the space of the same track/CD in wav format.
'Highest quality' in the sense of compression, not in the sense of audio. FLAC has the same compression standard as zip or rar, when you decompress you will have an exact copy of the original, guaranteed (assuming that the compressed file is bit perfect).When you decompress mp3, you won't get a bit perfect copy of the original, you will have a different file, although you may not hear a difference.

[kirch]

Vincent/Wilburt - this is what I was looking for.  Thanks!

[Big Red Machine]

So if I rip a CD to flac format and playback from my Squeezebox Touch to the digital in to my DAC, shouldn't this sound every bit as good, or even exactly the same as listening to a CD thru the same digital input on my DAC?  It's using the same processing as the squeezebox file, isn't it?

Am I missing something here?

I've always found FLAC files to sound better than the CD through the same DAC.  More life and detail.

[krikor]

Well, here's my two cents (plus a few more).

I owned a Cary 306/200 for many years which, since it is both a CDP and a DAC, allowed me to A/B CDs and WAV/FLAC files (via a Squeezebox3 connected using Chris Sommovigo's excellent Illuminati Datastream coax cable... still the best I've used to my ears). Results:

• I always felt that the CDs had a slight edge over the Squeezebox streaming either WAV or FLAC files... just sounded a bit more open and expansive, better detail and less stridency on the top end
• FLAC had the slightest edge over WAV files played back through the Squeezebox in the same areas that CDs excelled in, but it was a much smaller margin between WAV and FLAC than FLAC and CD (I ripped several reference albums to both formats at once using EAC, but now only use FLAC)

I speculate that the difference between CD and Squeezebox (WAV or FLAC) was largely due to deficiencies in the SPDIF interface. If I understand things correctly, the transmission of CD data to the DAC internally stays in the I2S format and so had the advantage.  If I could have connected the Squeezebox via I2S perhaps the difference would disappear (I actually looked into getting my player modded for this, but took a different route).

With regards to FLAC vs. WAV files... well, that is a bit of a can of worms as mentioned earlier and people seem adamant on either side of the fence (there IS an audible difference even with lossless compression vs. there CANNOT BE a difference if the bits are the same). My speculation again... different discless transports are better suited to handle one or the other file types and that's what creates any audible differences.  Squeezebox is designed to natively decode FLAC files at the device, not via transcoding in the computer, and convert it to PCM for the internal DAC or SPDIF output. Perhaps it is not as well suited to receive raw WAV files even though it can handle these natively as well, maybe due to their larger size which gives it a bit more processing difficulty when receiving/buffering (FYI, I run my squeezebox wired only for increased bandwidth).

So where am I today?

Sold the Cary 306/200 last year and got the W4S DAC2 knowing that I'm moving to a discless system. I'm just about done ripping all my CDs to FLAC on a home-built server in the basement. Audible memory is a fickle thing, but I've not missed the Cary in the slightest since going to the W4S (perhaps my only very slight quibble is in ultimate bass extension, detail and tautness which is an area where the Cary was outstanding).  I've done some brief listens using a Denon DVD2900 as a CD transport, but find I now prefer the Squeezebox as a digital source (of course both are using SPDIF into the DAC).

Next, I'm going to set up a computer transport connected via USB to the DAC2. Brief test of this was very impressive using a Windows laptop and AQ Coffee USB cable. Just need to get my wife to give up the Mac Mini upstairs.  Perhaps with this I'll prefer WAV or maybe even ALAC over FLAC.  Good news is that I can always convert the FLAC files back to WAV if need be.  Either way, CDs are now a thing of the past for me... as soon as I get them they get ripped onto the server are never touched again.

[dlaloum]

A few thoughts

Digital replay is extremely time sensitive - you can be bit perfect and sonically imperfect if you have any clocking issues...

A lot of SPDIF problems (and one of the main advantages of I2S) comes down to clock.

The very best SOTA DAC's (and ADC's) use extremely accurate word clocks - and in many cases buffer and reclock locally to avoid transmission errors.

On my shortlist of DAC's would be Lavry DA11, Mytek Stereo96/Stereo192, and perhaps the Benchmark DAC as well.

All of these have exceptionally "tight" word clocks - and a great reputation with recording engineers and performers that have used them.

In some cases it is possible to run a high precision external clock (often done in Studios to ensure not only good clocking but also precise sync between the various digital devices) - but these external clocks seldom provide results as good as are achieved by the best DAC's with integrated top notch onboard clock.

I too have converted my entire CD library to FLAC.

I have both Squeezeboxes (3 in different rooms) and a Media Centre PC.

Currently my main system uses an AVR as the DAC....
There is logic in my madness, as I consider the Room Equalisation to be of equal or greater value than the ultimate in DAC quality....
The digital signal from my Media PC is sent via HDMI in most cases to the AVR. I also resample 16/44 to 24/96 before sending it on to the AVR.
I then try to keep the signal digital right through till it hits the AMP section.... hence the AVR which is a natively digital device with an amp bolted on the back. I wish there was a way to upgrade the internal DAC's to the level of the Lavry/Mytek gear!


I will in due course upgrade the AVR - (currently an Onkyo TX-SR876) - but I have not seen any paradigm shifts in this market segment for a few years, and until there is greater level of change, the gain for an upgrade would be only an increment.... not enough to warrant the time, effort and $.

bye for now

David

[scb]

CD-> DAC is WAV format direct to the DAC. 

incorrect

From the SB and FLAC, it has already gone through the WAV->FLAC conversion

so?

and then on the decode side, it has to go back FLAC->WAV then D/A in the DAC.

incorrect


WAV is a file format. 

The audio data on Red Book cds is not in WAV format. 

DAC's don't operate on WAV files, they operate on PCM data.  CD players read discs and send pcm to the dac.  Flac players read flac files and send pcm to the dac.  If you want to talk about jitter and what that might introduce, that's fine (though I won't get into it).  But they're both sending the same pcm data to the dac

[bpape]

I understand that WAV is a file format - and it's the file format that the music is stored on on a CD.  Yes - the file is read and converted to PCM data IIRC.  Even if it isn't, when you rip to PC, it goes into WAV format.  Then another conversion is required to go to FLAC.  It doesn't rip directly from CD to FLAC.

My point was that with WAV, there is only one conversion - from the WAV file to PCM data.  With FLAC, there is a file conversion from WAV to FLAC, then it is streamed to the player, which has to use a FLAC decoder, then convert to PCM.  Just additional conversion steps.

[lcrim]

Brian:
Presently I'm storing all music files in flac for the very imprtant reason that the metadata tags are native.  Whatever I do w/ those flac files in the future I'll be able to identify them.
Before those files are sent over the network to the player they are converted to PCM, so that the player's resources are saved for um, playing.
If I understand correctly, ted_b w/ his mac follows a similar practice.
Larry

[bpape]

You have that option.  Or, with the Squeezebox, Touch, Duet, you can stream the flac over the network and allow the player to decode it to save network bandwidth if required.

[scb]

I understand that WAV is a file format - and it's the file format that the music is stored on on a CD.

No, it's not.  Red Book audio cds are linear pcm data at 16/44.1, but the data is *not* stored as a wav file

Even if it isn't, when you rip to PC, it goes into WAV format.  Then another conversion is required to go to FLAC.  It doesn't rip directly from CD to FLAC.

Again, this is incorrect.

[bpape]

Did you read what I said above?  I said - even if it's NOT stored in WAV format on the CD - when you rip it to a PC, it gets saved as a WAV file.  So, to go to FLAC, you then add another conversion step.  WAV is the default file format for CD audio ON A PC when you rip it.

[scb]

WAV is the default file format for CD audio ON A PC when you rip it.

If you choose to save as a WAV file.

Software reads pcm samples off a disc.  It can then do whatever it pleases with those samples.  It can create a wav file and write those samples to a wav file, or it can create a flac file and encode the samples to a flac file, or create an aiff, sdii, raw, .wv, .ape, etc.  There doesn't need to be an intermediate samples > wav file > flac file step.

But again, why does this matter?

[bpape]

In some software, you can select those options for default storage.  Though if you really look close, a lot of software does an initial read to WAV and then does a conversion even if it's in the back ground.

It matters since there is a 2nd conversion step in the case that it's wav->flac instead of straight to wav OR flac.  The less conversion steps, the better IMO.  That's my point.