Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Maybe I skimmed it too fast but unsure why ALAC would be any less quality than FLAC (at the same bit depth and sample rate) as they are both lossless codecs.  Must read more carefully

Posted
23 minutes ago, krebetman said:

Maybe I skimmed it too fast but unsure why ALAC would be any less quality than FLAC (at the same bit depth and sample rate) as they are both lossless codecs.  Must read more carefully

It's OK, I read it for you. It doesn't say anything about ALAC other than to place it as a lossless format.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 hour ago, krebetman said:

Maybe I skimmed it too fast but unsure why ALAC would be any less quality than FLAC

 

Probably shouldn't have added Alac to the inferior to Flac list, but it is still down in this area.

 

"As a rule, both FLAC and ALAC are able to compress CD quality files to half the size. In terms of sound quality, FLAC and ALAC are comparable, although compression and decompression is slightly more efficient with FLAC. In a direct test, this means that a FLAC file will decompress more quickly, and therefore by ready for playback more readily than an ALAC file. Again, however, this difference is so marginal that mere mortals will not notice it." 

 

Cheers George

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
On 07/01/2025 at 12:31 PM, georgehifi said:

JA from Stereophile did some tests way back, but it still holds true today a good read 

https://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html

CD or lossless uncompressed FLAC or WAV stream is still the way to listen to the best quality digital, Apples AAC (MP4) or ALAC falls well short, and we won't even mention MP3.

 

Cheers George

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure why the differentiation between "uncompressed FLAC" or compressed FLAC? Apart from a minute decompression delay, which is totally irrelevant to today's equipment and won't even be noticed, they would sound the same. Once the file is decompressed, exactly the same data is sent to the DAC, hence the term "lossless"

 

Edit: I should probably correct my reply here. FLAC file format is actually compressed in the first place anyway. It's the level of compression that differs.

A compression level of 0, is still compressed, but it's the minimum amount of compression applied, as opposed to a level of 9, being the maximum level of compression.

Edited by bob_m_54
correction

Posted
12 hours ago, bob_m_54 said:

I'm not sure why the differentiation between "uncompressed FLAC" or compressed FLAC? Apart from a minute decompression delay, which is totally irrelevant to today's equipment and won't even be noticed, they would sound the same. Once the file is decompressed, exactly the same data is sent to the DAC, hence the term "lossless"

 

Edit: I should probably correct my reply here. FLAC file format is actually compressed in the first place anyway. It's the level of compression that differs.

A compression level of 0, is still compressed, but it's the minimum amount of compression applied, as opposed to a level of 9, being the maximum level of compression.

 

I do remember reading an article some time ago that claimed a SQ difference between various levels of FLAC compression, as well as how much metadata was in the file (particularly cover art).  I seem to recall the idea was that the extra work the computer had to do was correlated with noise due to power consumption and associated switching in the PC.  Surely a small effect, but then again, different linux kernels and music player software also seem to produce different results, too...

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, krebetman said:

Surely a small effect, but then again

This to me with no Meta Data from DE

https://stream-eu.radioparadise.com/mellow-flac

Sounds better than the same but with Meta Data (both are Lossless Flac)

https://radioparadise.com/player/info/mellow-mix

 

None of the streamed stuff sound as pure/sweet and clean as the sound does from my 16/44 CD transport into the same MSB discrete dac & system with the the same music tracks when switched over. I use streamers as all day listening devices, and when hear an album I want, I get earliest CD of it used on eBay for a couple of bucks.

Cheers George

Edited by georgehifi
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, krebetman said:

with noise due to power consumption and associated switching in the PC. 

Just for reference, metadata is typically around 100-200 bytes (!) for title / artist and around 100-200 kilobytes for album art (often not included).

I mean, yeah, one can overload the metadata but typically this isn't done because it defeats the purpose.

So I just want to caution against these assumptions that computers or whatever are leaning more heavily on the power supply etc. while handling sound files.

 

The imagination is a powerful (and noisy) amplifier.

Edited by Steff
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)

And here is wikipedia on FLAC compression levels:

Quote

Regardless of the amount of compression, the original data can always be reconstructed perfectly.

 

Note that this reflects computing capability of the year 2000. 25 years ago. That's like a Pentium III or Athlon, 256MB SDRAM. They might have taken a while to encode .wav to .flac.

Edited by Steff
  • Like 1
Posted
12 hours ago, georgehifi said:

This to me with no Meta Data from DE

https://stream-eu.radioparadise.com/mellow-flac

Sounds better than the same but with Meta Data (both are Lossless Flac)

https://radioparadise.com/player/info/mellow-mix

 

None of the streamed stuff sound as pure/sweet and clean as the sound does from my 16/44 CD transport into the same MSB discrete dac & system with the the same music tracks when switched over. I use streamers as all day listening devices, and when hear an album I want, I get earliest CD of it used on eBay for a couple of bucks.

Cheers George

 And if you ripped those CDs to FLAC files, and streamed them to the same DAC, you could enjoy the same sweet sounds more conveniently, as your all day listening device, and you'll keep your CDs in nice pristine condition.

 

But streaming from streaming services does allow you to listen to new stuff, so I get that.

  • Like 1

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, bob_m_54 said:

And if you ripped those CDs to FLAC files, and streamed them to the same DAC, you could enjoy the same sweet sounds more conveniently, as your all day listening device, and you'll keep your CDs in nice pristine condition.

 

I listen to streaming all day (back ground music) for "new stuff", that I like, and would then get it used on CD, to hear then it at it's very best on a very good CD transport, so then there's "no" SMPS's in the audio chain at all, this is when it sounds to me "purer/sweeter and cleaner, when listening seriously in the man cave. 

 

Cheers George 

Edited by georgehifi
Posted

If one is ever wondering whether today's hardware is struggling to process compressed files, then wonder no more.

 

They can do whatever they have to do in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of ..... what we are probably thinking.

 

Then considering that whole albums can be contained in RAM, conversion is done quicker than a blink of an eye.

 

From the great wide interweb 

 

These days, our mobile devices have more computing power than all the greatest supercomputers through the turn of the 21st century. The Apple iPhone 12, for example, can perform approximately 11 teraflops, or 11 trillion operations per second — more than 5,000 times faster than the CRAY-2.

 

and

 

The most modern hardware on the market use Teraflops or TFLOPS, a parameter which indicates 10¹² of floating point operations per second

  • Like 2
Posted
37 minutes ago, georgehifi said:

 

I listen to streaming all day (back ground music) for "new stuff", that I like, and would then get it used on CD, to hear then it at it's very best on a very good CD transport, so then there's "no" SMPS's in the audio chain at all, this is when it sounds to me "purer/sweeter and cleaner, when listening seriously in the man cave. 

 

Cheers George 

There's no SMPS in the Raspberry Pi streamer I use, and many other streamers you buy don't use a SMPS either, so not an issue, even if you don't believe that lots of SMPS deliver cleaner power than many LPSs.

Posted
40 minutes ago, bob_m_54 said:

There's no SMPS in the Raspberry Pi streamer I use

 

You can't say that about what's feeding it to it from *** knows where???

 

We've done the a/b too many times, a good 16/44.1 CD transport into the same dac & system sounds "purer/sweeter and cleaner" than the same thing streamed to the same dac & system

Cheers George

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, georgehifi said:

You can't say that about what's feeding it to it from *** knows where???

I already told you...

 

11 hours ago, bob_m_54 said:

 And if you ripped those CDs to FLAC files, and streamed them to the same DAC

 FLAC files stored on either a USB drive, or a NAS. Makes little difference from either.

Edited by bob_m_54
more

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, bob_m_54 said:

And if you ripped those CDs to FLAC files, and streamed them to the same DAC

 

Jitter/ error/corrections will build up this way, even if there's no SMPS's involved in the streaming chain.

Not to mention that converting CD to Flac it is compressed 60% more than the WAV files are on CD. They say you can't detect it though, but who are they??

 

Cheers George

Edited by georgehifi
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 minute ago, georgehifi said:

 

Jitter/ error/corrections will build up this way, even if there's no SMPS's involved in the streaming chain.

 

Cheers George

How/Why?

Posted
5 minutes ago, bob_m_54 said:

How/Why?

Once again

"We've done the a/b too many times, a good 16/44.1 CD transport into the same dac & system sounds "purer/sweeter and cleaner" than the original CD copied to and then streamed to the same dac & system"

 

Cheers George

Posted
4 minutes ago, georgehifi said:

Once again

"We've done the a/b too many times, a good 16/44.1 CD transport into the same dac & system sounds "purer/sweeter and cleaner" than the original CD copied to and then streamed to the same dac & system"

 

Cheers George

No, you're avoiding my question.. How or why does

15 minutes ago, georgehifi said:

Jitter/ error/corrections will build up this way, even if there's no SMPS's involved in the streaming chain.

When streaming flac files stored on a USB Drive or a NAS.

 

And

16 minutes ago, georgehifi said:

Not to mention that converting CD to Flac it is compressed 60% more than the WAV files are on CD. They say you can't detect it though, but who are they??

If FLAC compression at, ANY level, is lossless, this means you will deliver EXACTLY the same data to your DAC..

 

Been done to death in your previous thread that ran much along the same lines..

 

So explain how or why you believe this isn't so?

Posted
22 minutes ago, bob_m_54 said:

So explain how or why you believe this isn't so?

I'm not a digital engineer and I don't believe you are either, answer "Ears Bob, Ears"

 

Cheers George

Posted
36 minutes ago, georgehifi said:

They say you can't detect it though, but who are they??

Well for one thing, The National Archives and Records Administration.

 

You seem to be in disbelief at a widely accepted (lossless compression) industry standard.

 

You're now implying that due to compression there is "loss", after all.

Why not convert a .wav file to .flac by yourself, and then BACK to .wav

using flacfrontend? And then compare the original .wav with the reconstituted .wav in a spectrum analyzer?

 

 

 

 

Posted (edited)

"Noticeable" is the operative word here. 

 

"Converting an audio file to FLAC means you are compressing it to occupy less space compared to WAV, but without any noticeable loss in quality.
Read more: https://www.movavi.com/learning-portal/flac-vs-wav.html © Movavi.com"

 

" FLAC is a compressed file, whereas WAV is technically a perfect copy of the original audio file. People often favor FLAC because it takes up significantly less space on their devices."

 

Cheers George

Edited by georgehifi
Posted
7 minutes ago, georgehifi said:

"Noticeable" is the operative word here.

 

No, that's just poorly worded by that one website. You're reading a subtext into something that isn't there.

Lossless compression. Focus on the word "lossless", not on the word "compression".

 

Sure, you're not an audio engineer. But you're also presumably not a medical researcher testing the viability and effectivity of penicilin in a lab. And yet when a medical professional (who also has never tested that stuff in a lab) tells you to take it, you will.

 

The bitter pill here is actually a sweet one. Lossless compression saves on disk space and data transfer load. The sound is the same.

  • Like 3
Posted

Well you hear it as no difference, and I do hear something that's better in a more natural way, we'll just have to disagree on it.

 

Cheers George

Posted
1 hour ago, georgehifi said:

Well you hear it as no difference, and I do hear something that's better in a more natural way, we'll just have to disagree on it.

 

It's not my intention to tell you that I doubt what you hear (I can have no knowledge of that and take your word for it). My intention is to counsel against a misattribution of the cause of the differences you report. Your hypothesis is that this is to do with "compression" and the difference between .wav and .flac - if I understand your contention correctly.

 

The standard CD bitrate of 1411kbps for 16/44.1 redbook we might add is also "compressed" in the sense that these limits answer to the data storage maximum of a redbook CD! We're being robbed! There was much more data available in the studio mastering file. But it was decided to downsample everything to fit onto the redbook CD. Just joking, I love my CDs.

Enjoy the music.

 

  • Like 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...
To Top