Just Discovering Lossless Digital

BlueFox

afterburnt wrote: »

You could compare a hybrid SACD no?

A hybrid CD is just regular CD (for the CD portion) at 16/44. However, it might be mastered differently than the version on only a regular CD, so then there could be a difference in sound.

Gatecrasher

tonyb wrote: »

machone wrote: »

I have only ripped to WAV to date.
When ripping cds how does the sound quality compare between WAV and FLAC?

Depends....on if your system is revealing enough to discern those small differences. Wav files take up much more room than Flac or other lossless formats but if you have a nice big external hard drive it shouldn't be an issue.

The reason Wav files take up more room is because they are uncompressed, unlike other lossless formats which are, and then uncompressed at playback. Some say it does make a difference in sound quality, some say not so much. I guess that comes down to your system.

FLAC audio can be set to various levels of compression including zero compression. At FLAC level 8 the audio is not compressed.

Lossless is lossless regardless of the format. If you hear a difference between different formats when comparing equal quality recordings then you have another deficiency in your system to address.

I have been collecting FLAC audio for ten years now. FLAC isn't anything new. It's been around for 20 years. At this time I have over 15 TB of FLAC audio and am still growing. All of my audio files are on Western Digital Caviar Black SATA hard drives in an Addonics hot-swapable tower.

Nightfall

Gatecrasher wrote: »

At this time I have over 15 TB of FLAC audio and am still growing.

Wow, that's a small fortune in music $$$$

Oh, wait... that's right. I meant

Wow, that's several lifetimes in prison if you get caught with all that!

tophatjohnny

Gatecrasher wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

machone wrote: »

I have only ripped to WAV to date.
When ripping cds how does the sound quality compare between WAV and FLAC?

Depends....on if your system is revealing enough to discern those small differences. Wav files take up much more room than Flac or other lossless formats but if you have a nice big external hard drive it shouldn't be an issue.

The reason Wav files take up more room is because they are uncompressed, unlike other lossless formats which are, and then uncompressed at playback. Some say it does make a difference in sound quality, some say not so much. I guess that comes down to your system.

FLAC audio can be set to various levels of compression including zero compression. At FLAC level 8 the audio is not compressed.

Lossless is lossless regardless of the format. If you hear a difference between different formats when comparing equal quality recordings then you have another deficiency in your system to address.

I have been collecting FLAC audio for ten years now. FLAC isn't anything new. It's been around for 20 years. At this time I have over 15 TB of FLAC audio and am still growing. All of my audio files are on Western Digital Caviar Black SATA hard drives in an Addonics hot-swapable tower.

"Lossless is lossless regardless of the format. If you hear a difference between different formats when comparing equal quality recordings then you have another deficiency in your system to address."

Actually if you can't hear the difference you have a deficiency in your system! Whether you address it or not is your choice.

And over 15TB worth of Audio = easily over 25 thousand albums, even at 16bit 441000Hz.......and I Thought I had a ton with 8500 albums??? My formula is working so good, I am now swapping my 2 WD Red 4TB's for 2
Seagate 10TB IronWolf NAS SATA 6Gb/s drives and when the 10TB drive full, it should be a little over 20 thousand albums, artwork and all. Crazy hobby, but a lotta fun.. get down!!!

erniejade

I can hear the difference. I can play a cd, running to a W4S dac2, and then listen to FLAC rip of the same cd running through Jriver to the same w4s dac2 I can pick the cd every time. I have upgraded my usb calbe and that helped bring it closer but the cd still sounds better. From what I have been reading, I might need to try something other then the laptop for my source.

Although reading DarqueKnight threads, his dac and player setup is way above mine and he can also hear the difference unless I am reading his threads wrong.

BlueFox

Sure he can. The rips are always better than the CD.

machone

BlueFox,
Why do you think the rips are better that the CD?

mikeyb128

DSkip wrote: »

machone wrote: »

BlueFox,
Why do you think the rips are better that the CD?

No transport to add noise. It is all about noise reduction, hence why a laptop is normally not a good solution for a source.

How about a lap top with a solid state drive?

txcoastal1

mikeyb128 wrote: »

DSkip wrote: »

machone wrote: »

BlueFox,
Why do you think the rips are better that the CD?

No transport to add noise. It is all about noise reduction, hence why a laptop is normally not a good solution for a source.

How about a lap top with a solid state drive?

Would be an improvement but laptop power supplies is an inherent issue also

machone

I am all in when it comes to reducing any type of noise. That is the reason I go rid on my laptop and went all solid state, Fidelizer, IFI Purifier 2, linear power supply, etc. All of these made improvements.

However, on my system I am not sure that rips sound better than CDs. Both are running through the Marantz SA8005 dac. But one thing that I am guilty of is using Windows Media Player to rip the CDs. Too busy/lazy to re-rip using Jriver.

One other option with the SA8005 is to copy the wav file to a thumb drive and play via the usb port on the front panel.

heiney9

I don't believe Windows Media is bit perfect. Stop being lazy and do it the correct way

BlueFox

machone wrote: »

BlueFox,
Why do you think the rips are better that the CD?

I was referring to the previous post where the poster said DK hears a difference.

One reason might be that while the ripped file is the same as the file on the CD disc, as others mentioned, you do get read jitter using a laser to read pits on a plastic disc.

Personally, I find my file player with built in DAC to be much better than my CD player, which actually is not too bad.

If you are running a file player into your CD player and using the CD player internal DAC then you need to take into account the cable used between the file player and DAC, along with the power supply cable on the file player. Those two cables can make or break the sound quality.

erniejade

I am hopping so skip. I am still waiting for the VI Tube Dac to be built. I was one of the early people who got on board with the pulse dac but opted for the upgraded Vi Tube.

The final piece might be getting the laptop out of the picture.

jeremymarcinko

I stream JRiver via DNLA and use the optical out from a chromecast audio ($35) into the Musical Fidelity DAC. It sounds very good and is very inexpensive. I really do not think I would even consider connecting via usb at this point.

lightman1

DSkip wrote: »

but then again I've got a couple grand into my streamer and USB cable.

StantonZ

A lot of these cables/connections issues are dispensed with if you put a FLASH drive in the USB slot of your AVR; I have pretty much moved from CD -> FLAC with my new AVR (although CDs on my LD player still sound pretty good).

SCompRacer

Gatecrasher wrote: »

FLAC audio can be set to various levels of compression including zero compression. At FLAC level 8 the audio is not compressed.

Level 8 is still compressed. Below level 8 in the dBpoweramp drop down menu is Uncompressed, which is kind of an oxymoron. Uncompressed is a special compression mode which stores 16 bit audio in an uncompressed state.

To me, the important thing with flac using dBpoweramp is tick the 'Verify Written Audio' box after selecting flac level. Then, after encoding and compression is complete, the compressed audio will be read and compared to the source.



http://www.audiostream.com/images/1125flac.jpg

SCompRacer

Oh, if you diy and build your own music server using Vortexbox 2.4 (Linux, PC must be 64 bit), it is designed from the ground up to be a bit perfect CD ripper, server, and player. IIRC V2.4 can handle up to 32/384. Sometimes I rip CD's with my server instead of dBpoweramp and just check/adjust tagging afterward.

I use a Signature Sonore Music Server with Deux power supply. Vortexbox 2.4. You can use internal drives or point your server to an external hard drive array.

http://wiki.vortexbox.org/installation_guide

tonyb

I think you guys are going way over the OP's head here. lol

Ya don't throw a kid who just got his license into a Ferrari, know what I'm sayin' ?

Nightfall

SCompRacer

tonyb wrote: »

I think you guys are going way over the OP's head here. lol

DarqueKnight

erniejade wrote: »

Although reading DarqueKnight threads, his dac and player setup is way above mine and he can also hear the difference unless I am reading his threads wrong.

You read them correctly. Other than when in my car or truck, I don't listen to CDs anymore. Everything is either a download or CD ripped to uncompressed FLAC using dBpoweramp. My SACDs were/are ripped to dsf files using a hacked Sony Playstation.

The only time I buy something in CD or SACD disk format is if it isn't available in digital download format.

machone

heiney9,

I finally took the time and I am a believer.

I have been re-ripping cds to wav files using Jriver and they are better than the same cds ripped to wav using Windows Media Player. I am hearing things in music previously unnoticed.

The Marantz SA-8500 sounds better than ever. I know I keep saying this but I keep tweaking in the right direction.

erniejade

Wav for me was also the big changer as well.

daddyjt

All of the tech aside, can I just say that the thing I love about the FLAC format, is that I have access to my entire music collection without moving my a** off the couch to change discs.

Priceless.

honestaquarian

Okay I just did a 24/96 WAV versus FLAC comparo last night and while FLAC won in the bass,WAV won out everywhere else. The singers voice was more three dimensional and not as forward or had as much of a "biting" sound to it. Both files were downloaded from HDtracks and streamed to my Oppo from my backup hard drive over my wired network.

erniejade

When I did a comparison, I ripped them myself with dbpoweramp. I will agree uncompressed flac had a hair more bass but on my rig, it was a different kind of bass. Almost like bass where bass should not be and not as clean or airy sounding.
I have changed to ripping to uncompressed wav.
cd and lp are still king on my rig though... for now.

honestaquarian

@erniejade
I tried to see if I could hear a difference between FLAC and WAV at CD quality 16bit/44.1khz
I just couldn't.
It was obvious at higher than CD quality 24bit/96khz though.

erniejade

I am on my mobile device, I cannot see if you have equipment listed in your signature. Anyone reading this, please do not take this as a slam on anyone's ears or equipment.

On my w4s dac 2, using my laptop, intona usb filter, wireworld platinum usb cable ( thanks skip!) Jitterbug on the usb drive, Joule preamp, mcintosh mc402 amp, cayin scd50T, MIT digital cable, wireworld eclipse IC, acoustic zen double barrel speaker cables and psb imagine T speakers, the difference to me, my wife and a couple of people who were over ( non audiophile but love music) could pick out the cd, or rip every time. They could also pick out flac and wav every time. This was done by not telling them and askjng what sounds better 1 or 2.

In the livingroom, same test but, pioneer sc27 receiver, polk rti12, using the receivers dac, going to the digital input on the receiver, we could not hear the difference between flac, wav, or the cd. It sounded good on any of the 3 choices.

honestaquarian

Yeah with that caliber of equipment I can see how and why you could hear the difference!