[scb]

The less conversion steps, the better IMO.

Why?  The pcm data is exactly the same

[werd]

Why?  The pcm data is exactly the same

Guess you will never know until you compare it.

[scb]

Guess you will never know until you compare it.

By his logic, playing wav files will be different from playing aiff files on a pc because aiff files are big endian while redbook cd audio and wav are little endian. 

By the same logic, playing a wav file on a PowerPC machine would actually be worse because the PowerPC chips are big endian and redbook data is little endian.  In this case, playing aiff files would actually be "less conversion steps," so should sound better

All of this is ridiculous, of course.  If I took an audio file, converted it to flac, then to monkey's audio, then to apple lossless, then to wavpack, then to shorten, then back to flac, again to ape, again to wavpack, and then decoded that file to wav, there would be at least 9 conversion steps in there, but the resulting wav file would sound exactly the same as the original.  The number of "conversion steps" means absolutely nothing.  The pcm data in the file is all that matters.

[bpape]

By his logic, playing wav files will be different from playing aiff files on a pc because aiff files are big endian while redbook cd audio and wav are little endian. 

By the same logic, playing a wav file on a PowerPC machine would actually be worse because the PowerPC chips are big endian and redbook data is little endian.  In this case, playing aiff files would actually be "less conversion steps," so should sound better

All of this is ridiculous, of course.  If I took an audio file, converted it to flac, then to monkey's audio, then to apple lossless, then to wavpack, then to shorten, then back to flac, again to ape, again to wavpack, and then decoded that file to wav, there would be at least 9 conversion steps in there, but the resulting wav file would sound exactly the same as the original.  The number of "conversion steps" means absolutely nothing.  The pcm data in the file is all that matters.

So what you're saying is 'bits is bits?'  That's up to you but I don't believe it.  On very high res systems, I've heard differences between wav and the same wav converted to flac - much less through 9 conversions.  By your logic, a CD played through any of 9 different transports but all through the same DAC would also all sound identical as they're all reading and passing the same bits.

To each their own.

[scb]

By your logic, a CD played through any of 9 different transports but all through the same DAC would also all sound identical as they're all reading and passing the same bits.

I didn't say that.  I said earlier that I was throwing jitter out of the discussion.

My argument is with your statement that "less conversion steps" actually makes an audible difference.  In my 9 conversion scenario, you'd have "Wave File A" that went cd audio > wav and you'd have "Wave File B" that went cd audio > 9 different steps > back to wav.  These 2 files would contain the exact same data in the exact same format, yet your argument about "less conversion steps" sounding better claims "A" would sound better than "B."

I'd bet you all the money in the world that you couldn't tell the difference between 2 wav files containing the exact same data. 

[werd]

I didn't say that.  I said earlier that I was throwing jitter out of the discussion.

My argument is with your statement that "less conversion steps" actually makes an audible difference.  In my 9 conversion scenario, you'd have "Wave File A" that went cd audio > wav and you'd have "Wave File B" that went cd audio > 9 different steps > back to wav.  These 2 files would contain the exact same data in the exact same format, yet your argument about "less conversion steps" sounding better claims "A" would sound better than "B."

I'd bet you all the money in the world that you couldn't tell the difference between 2 wav files containing the exact same data.

You are trolling. You are on an audio site. If you are not prepared to apply it to listening then go else where.

[bpape]

I didn't say that.  I said earlier that I was throwing jitter out of the discussion.

My argument is with your statement that "less conversion steps" actually makes an audible difference.  In my 9 conversion scenario, you'd have "Wave File A" that went cd audio > wav and you'd have "Wave File B" that went cd audio > 9 different steps > back to wav.  These 2 files would contain the exact same data in the exact same format, yet your argument about "less conversion steps" sounding better claims "A" would sound better than "B."

I'd bet you all the money in the world that you couldn't tell the difference between 2 wav files containing the exact same data.

What I said was that there would be a difference between CD->wav out to DAC and CD->Wav->Flac then out to DAC.

Big endian and little endian have nothing to do with file conversions.

I still seriously doubt that you could go through those 9 steps and get a file that was bit for bit identical.

As I said, believe what you will.  I'm not going to have a discussion with someone that's not willing to at least consider that we can't measure everything we can hear - and then come back with "I'll bet you all the money in the world..."  Haven't heard that since probably 6th grade.

[scb]

You are trolling. You are on an audio site. If you are not prepared to apply it to listening then go else where.

Who said I'm not prepared to apply it to listening?  Who said I haven't applied it to listening?  My experience *listening* makes me say 2 wave files containing identical data will never sound different. 

What I said was that there would be a difference between CD->wav out to DAC and CD->Wav->Flac then out to DAC. 

You said "less conversion steps" sounds better, and I thought you meant that any file conversion, no matter what the final result is, will degrade the sound. This is what I don't necessarily agree with.

I still seriously doubt that you could go through those 9 steps and get a file that was bit for bit identical.

Sure you can, as they are lossless formats and there are very simple ways to prove that they are bit for bit identical.

As I said, believe what you will.  I'm not going to have a discussion with someone that's not willing to at least consider that we can't measure everything we can hear - and then come back with "I'll bet you all the money in the world..."  Haven't heard that since probably 6th grade.

The only person who said I'm not willing to "consider that we can't measure everything we can hear" is you.  You're also the only person calling someone a 6th grader. 

I said I am 100% sure you couldn't tell the different between 2 identical wav files.  Tell me I'm wrong if you think I'm wrong.  I'm not trying to be a troll here, I'm just curious if you actually meant to say that you could hear a difference between 2 identical wav files.   

[adydula]

You can rip Redbook Audio PCM directly to FLAC.

Also...

Audio CDs do not use WAV as their sound format, using instead Red Book audio. The commonality is that both audio CDs and WAV files have the audio data encoded in PCM. WAV is a data file format for a computer to use that cannot be understood by CD players directly. To record WAV files to an Audio CD the file headers must be stripped and the remaining PCM data written directly to the disc as individual tracks with zero-padding added to match the CD's sector size. In order for a WAV file to be able to be burned to a CD with most burners it should be in the 44100 Hz, 16 bit stereo format.

I rip all my cds directly to FLAC and have spent OMG sooo many hours comparing the original CDS in a CDP with good dacs and the Flac files transcoded back to PCM to play on the same CDP dacs sans the transport.

No one can reliable tell the difference. Case Closed.


Enjoy the music.!

Been there and done with that!!

 

Alex

[bpape]

I said I am 100% sure you couldn't tell the different between 2 identical wav files.  Tell me I'm wrong if you think I'm wrong.  I'm not trying to be a troll here, I'm just curious if you actually meant to say that you could hear a difference between 2 identical wav files.   

OK.  For the 4th or so time, I think you're wrong. 

I never said I could tell the difference between 2 wav files.  What I said again was...

- If you go through those 9 steps, I don't think the files will end up being bit for bit perfect

- One can tell the difference between a direct ripped WAV file and one that was ripped to WAV and then converted to FLAC.

I HAVE heard the difference between a WAV and the WAV->FLAC conversion on the same sytem, on the same day, ripped from the same CD, played back on the same device.

Yes - I was incorrect on the CD storing WAV files.  Yes - you can directly rip to FLAC with some software, but with many, it's WAV and then convert either internally or behind the scenes.  EAC is a perfect example and a tool that many people use.

I have never compared a direct FLAC rip to a direct WAV rip so I can't comment on that.