FLAC - Lossless Uncompressed

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 16744 times.

ted_b

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
Re: FLAC - Lossless Uncompressed
« Reply #40 on: 26 Sep 2011, 03:44 am »
Any differences between WAV, AIFF, FLAC and ALAC is a software bug on the BDP


I understand your "bits is bits" position, you've made it several times....I just don't agree at all with it...it's clearly debatable (hundreds of posts about wav vs "x" on many sites)..it's not empirical.  I hear cable differences, I hear format differences (as do many others).  And as I said already, they are consistent across hardware sources (i.e. it isn't a BDP-1 bug unless the same bug occurs on every source I've ever tried it on).

And by the way, it's "among" not "between".  :)

skunark

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1418
Re: FLAC - Lossless Uncompressed
« Reply #41 on: 26 Sep 2011, 04:49 am »
"usage: 1 Between is used in speaking of two things, people, etc.: we must choose between two equally unattractive alternatives. Among is used for collective and undefined relations of usually three or more: agreement on landscaping was reached among all the neighbors. But where there are more than two parties involved, between may be used to express one-to-one relationships of pairs within the group or the sense 'shared by': there is close friendship between the members of the club; diplomatic relations between the US, Canada, and Mexico. 2 Between you and I, between you and he, etc., are incorrect; between should be followed only by the objective case: between you and me, between you and him, etc."

lol, any more?   

My argument, if you want to re-read, has been it's data until it hits the sound card.

I would also argue that most of the past discussions are based on source syncronous products (USB DACs and streaming products) where it's a tweaker's and manufacturer's dream solution.  If you remotely agree with that, then past discussions are pretty tainted.   

The entire digital design flow is based on validation toolkits that guarantee the highest reliable products work, for example: avionics, pacemakers, and HPC multi-core processors.  Not to mention those same flows are used for media SOCs, Graphics and set-top boxes.  You can be sure that anyone writing a codec has the goal of a perfect encode/decode every time, but they do understand there are bugs to crush. 


Alpha10

Re: FLAC - Lossless Uncompressed
« Reply #42 on: 3 Oct 2011, 07:53 pm »
I just used dBpoweramp to convert from compressed FLAC to uncompressed FLAC.
Simples

Hi Terry, going to have a play with this finally. Did you just set compression to Zero on the batch converter and let it run?

Cheers

terrycym

Re: FLAC - Lossless Uncompressed
« Reply #43 on: 3 Oct 2011, 09:11 pm »
I've just been using zero compression on new stuff.
I must play with the batch version to suss it out properly.

ted_b

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
Re: FLAC - Lossless Uncompressed
« Reply #44 on: 3 Oct 2011, 09:23 pm »
Hi Terry, going to have a play with this finally. Did you just set compression to Zero on the batch converter and let it run?

Cheers
Guys, zero ("0")  is not uncompressed, it is truly a compressed option, just fast.. 



terrycym

Re: FLAC - Lossless Uncompressed
« Reply #45 on: 3 Oct 2011, 09:38 pm »
Zero compression as in no compression rather than 0 compression.
That's the point I've trying to get over.
Sorry you've misunderstood

Alpha10

Re: FLAC - Lossless Uncompressed
« Reply #46 on: 3 Oct 2011, 09:50 pm »
Guys, zero ("0")  is not uncompressed, it is truly a compressed option, just fast.. 



That must be a new version, I do not have that setting circled in red, which is why I was confused...

Cheers

Lyndon

Re: FLAC - Lossless Uncompressed
« Reply #47 on: 3 Oct 2011, 10:01 pm »
Yes, that is the new version.
I am hoping that my Media Monkey Gold will also follow suit, as I have ripped
nearly a thousand of my cd's in FLAC with the compression at 6, I believe.
Even if hard drive space is cheap, when you got as much music as I have, one wants to squeeze a little.  I bought a FLAC app for my ipad2, and it sounds great!
If Media Monkey Gold doesn't add this, or posts why, I'll put that in this thread.
As for now, I may download a trial version of the new DBPoweramp and see how it sounds.
Lyndon

terrycym

Re: FLAC - Lossless Uncompressed
« Reply #48 on: 3 Oct 2011, 10:10 pm »
I'm new to this app Ive always seen a no compression option didn't realise earlier versions didn't have it

ted_b

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
Re: FLAC - Lossless Uncompressed
« Reply #49 on: 3 Oct 2011, 10:53 pm »
Simply upgrade to R14.1 or higher (it's currently at R14.2).  The uncompressed option will be in the compression pulldown, along with the standard 0-8 compression settings).

Stated earlier in this thread.

Alpha10

Re: FLAC - Lossless Uncompressed
« Reply #50 on: 4 Oct 2011, 06:07 pm »
Stated earlier in this thread.

Thanks, I was at R14.0 I have just updated and presently batch converting some of my favourites...

Cheers

headshrinker2

Re: FLAC - Lossless Uncompressed
« Reply #51 on: 4 Oct 2011, 07:06 pm »
OK guys,
So this thread has now reached three pages... any thoughts, reactions and/or findings? 

Laird

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 5
Re: FLAC - Lossless Uncompressed
« Reply #52 on: 18 Oct 2011, 12:33 am »
I understand your "bits is bits" position, you've made it several times....I just don't agree at all with it...it's clearly debatable (hundreds of posts about wav vs "x" on many sites)..it's not empirical.  I hear cable differences, I hear format differences (as do many others).  And as I said already, they are consistent across hardware sources (i.e. it isn't a BDP-1 bug unless the same bug occurs on every source I've ever tried it on).

And by the way, it's "among" not "between".  :)

I too can hear the difference between cables, well some anyway.  When people don't believe that I usually bring up the idea that we may not be measuring the various electrical characteristics accurately enough, meaning that it is completely possible that what may be small in measurement terms could actually be quite decerable to humans once it goes out a speaker and through the air to our ears.  That or perhaps there is again a very small in measurement terms difference in the two cables but due to the natures of what they are connected to, the interaction they have with one or both ends yeilds something that can be heard.

I don't however understand how you can say you hear lossless compression.  If you have a string of bits, say "101010001100111100010010101110101" that is compressed before storage on disk to be say, "010100010110001000011110",l but is then losslessly uncompressed to once again be "101010001100111100010010101110101", before it is sent to the dac, then there must be a bug in the system somewhere if you can hear a difference. It is completely identical data being sent to the DAC.  It's not as if one of the 1's was a little less 1.  If you hear it identically across many different players then there seem to be only 2 possibilities: 1) They all implement exactly the same bug in electrical isolation or timing of data coming out of the uncompress or 2) imagination.  Is there another possibility?