o.k are you ready for some truth friends ? flac has compression levels from 0 to 8 with the official flac default level being 5. now flac is lossless compression so there should be no sound loss from the original source no matter what compression level you use however if you encode the same song using every different flac compression level even though they will all be lossless there absolutely is a difference in the overall sound including tone and sound stage from level to level and doing your own test will only prove me right. now here’s where it gets strange? vintage vinyl has stereo + stereo depth perception (3d sound stage).digital audio has stereo + mono depth perception (2d sound stage) and this includes all new remastered vinyl cut from the digital master. this is why digital audio does not sound like vintage vinyl along with brick wall compression.i find it odd that the only flac compression level not recommended as a default no matter what software you use is flac compression level 4 ? it just so happens that re-encoding digital audio to flac with compression level 4 converts digital mono depth perception back into digital stereo depth perception (3d sound stage) just like vintage vinyl! and i don’t think this is by mistake friends ? do your own test and get ready to have your mind blown. here is an audio sample: level 5 http://pc.cd/pCcrtalK level 4 http://pc.cd/iVWrtalK
I haven’t read this whole thread but I have been screaming for years that flac does not sound as good as AIF or WAV. However if I uncompress the flac to WAV it sounds better (Directstream dac fed via Ethernet). WAV also sounds a tiny bit better than AIF, and the reason I’ve read has something to do with album art or metadata that the WAV doesn’t support. Even in the small rig I put together while away from home based on a Hegel H190 fed via Ethernet, setting bubble upnp to uncompress streaming flac from Qobuz to WAV sound significantly better.
There is absolutely no good technical reason to use any compression at all.
There is!! And it's the only one good reason.
The reason it was made for was to save the ipod earbud brigade from getting their eardrums blown out by the loud passages because they cranked up the volume so much during the quiet passages. Make everything the same level and save the young's eardrums. And also save the earbuds themselves from blowing up.
Here is a question for everyone though. In the 21st century, where storage and bandwidth are dirt cheap, why for the love of Mozart, Frank Zappa, and The Who does anyone use ANY form of compression?............There is absolutely no good technical reason to use any compression at all.
....when i made a 1 gb virtual hard drive from my pc’s ram memory and import audio into the virtual ram drive and play the audio from the ram the sound quality is improved 100% like listening to the studio master tape can somebody explain this? This is the same thing when you play a file stored in SSD that isn’t noisy as in HDD. Try to change to SSD and you’ll be impressed even on a noisy computer.
Yes, even FLAC level 0 is compressed.
nor have I heard a difference between WAV (no compression) and FLAC.
As I’ve ripped ~ 120 CD tracks from my ~ 3500 CD collection-but only to uncompressed WAV files using an on version of EAC and mostly before I ever heard of FLAC-like s2000cr and ddafoe I’ve been trying to learn why do so many folks at hydrogenaudio, steve hoffman, audiogon and most everywhere else choose FLAC over WAV for lossless CD ripping.
Deliberately adding compression implies at least a risk of loss in audio dynamic range, clearly taboo among audio enthusiasts, even if applied only after the original analog signal was expertly digitized, ideally, to the highest practical resolution. But I bow to those here and elsewhere with much more technical knowledge who say that so long as the encoding and decodingalgorithms are correctly calculated and implemented in particular software, then the signal your DAC receives will sound in every way as good as an uncompressed WAV rip of the same CD track.
Still, as we three have asked, with TB sized HDD (and even tape based https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/why-the-future-of-data-storage-is-still-magnetic-tape ) storage being relatively cheap, why resort to a file format using any compression? I understand that the advantage of FLAC over WAV is that it internally creates a CRC (?) number upon its being saved, which allows for bit error checking. And that metadata (CD album art?) can be saved to it. But that said, compare an UNcompressed FLAC file, one containing said data plus the entire ripped CD album, with an uncompressed WAV file holding the same CD album, though unable to create and carry a CRC number and metadata. Then, as I often rip and save just three or less songs from an album, we delete 9 of the 12 saved album tracks. How much bigger than the uncompressed WAV file would be the uncompressed FLAC file?
In any case, even if there wasn’t much of a size difference I could see why those who would want to insure bit perfect rips (certainly me) and/or insist on having album art as part of the file would opt for FLAC.
But is FLAC also preferred among most of our community because its checksum capability allows for bit accurate verification via the AccurateRip database? Please confirm and elaborate as I am still a newbie on this.
And what are the user steps-in EAC and/or in dbpoweramp-for doing checksum comparisons of the CRC number of a particular CD track from a particular album you’ve ripped and the CRC number of the track in the AccurateRip database?
Lastly, would asking if there are better sounding FLAC decoders than others be a silly question? That is, while the ubiquitous ProTools DAW platform (with its arguably less than SOTA A/D converters) doesn’t support FLAC https://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=398498 would decoders in JRiver, dbpoweramp and Amarra be identical to those in Samplitude DAW and restoration suites like Izotope RX?
@guitarsam some of it is probably system dependent too. I always thought that the AIFF’s and WAV files sounded better than FLAC on my prior DAC and streamer combo. I’ve upgraded since then. My new DAC seems more or less agnostic to the type of lossless file it’s being fed. I have difficulty telling the difference now. But I do think that FLAC files are a little more computationally intensive to unpack and turn into music.
also when i made a 1 gb virtual hard drive from my pc's ram memory and import audio into the virtual ram drive and play the audio from the ram the sound quality is improved 100% like listening to the studio master tape can somebody explain this? This is the same thing when you play a file stored in SSD that isn't noisy as in HDD. Try to change to SSD and you'll be impressed even on a noisy computer.
The orange juice metaphor is massively flawed. Decompressing a losslessly compressing file leaves you with EXACTLY the same data as before the compression process.
There is absolutely no good technical reason to not use lossless compression. why waste bandwidth and storage needlessly?
The only compression issues with using FLAC versus WAV are what people want to hear.
All: I noticed differences in FLAC. It depends on the system really. I have two high-end systems, where one system is light years more sensitive to any changes in the source, than the other. Like they say, "Your mileage may vary."
Here is a question for everyone though. In the 21st century, where storage and bandwidth are dirt cheap, why for the love of Mozart, Frank Zappa, and The Who does anyone use ANY form of compression?
That's like saying . . . here's some fresh squeezed juice, but wait you can't have yet. I must remove the water, freeze it, thaw it, and add the water back, only then can you have it. Not to worry, because it will taste
exactly
the same as fresh squeezed. Ya think? Weird, but that analogy is what FLAC does.
There is absolutely no good technical reason to use any compression at all.
Eliminating all compression surprisingly eliminates any compression related issues. Amazing that. :)
Qobuz is better than anything on a CD when truly hi-res, but if you have a really good CD quality stream, you are not going to notice anyway. Either way, Qoboz, Tidal CD quality (not MQA), etc. are all not compressed.
Given this statement, you are pretty much saying that even when you don't hear a difference, there is a difference, so how will you know either way?
people who have streamers I have heard do not have systems that show these flaws.
Maybe I was not clear enough. I agree that their may be streaming formats that play back exactly what is sent, but it is still compressed before sending. That is why I favor D to D LP's, and even it is mixed down in the console before the cutting head, even if it is mainly for the the RIAA curve. I would love to be proven wrong, then I would buy a streamer, but so far, people who have streamers I have heard do not have systems that show these flaws. Garbage into the internet; garbage out. I would love to hear streamed music that is beyond excellent, but even the stereo stores have not demonstrated it sufficiently for me. Close is certainly not better, and if it isn't better, what good is it? We don't all just want the algorithms used to suggest music for the masses to define our listening experience.
If you use a lossless compression format to store a file and compare that to a format like does not compress like WAV, the data in the files is bit for bit identical. Only the wrapper has changed. Again, the DAC gets the same exact data, bit for bit, using either type of lossless format. In other words, you are getting 100% of the music either way....
If you read up on FLAC, you will discover that all the hard work is done on the compression side. Decompressing the FLAC file doesn’t really change the CPU load much even comparing level 0 to level 8. Yes, even FLAC level 0 is compressed. There is uncompressed FLAC but it appears you that has not been tried here based on what I have read. The DAC never sees the compressed music data. The CPU load is not all that different at any level of compression so what is asserted by the OP here is really far out there. I have never heard any difference in sound quality in FLAC compression levels.
For my ears, all streamed audio sounds compressed. Calling it "Lossless" means that it is streamed with all the compression put into the server where it is stored. "Lossless" means that after the recording was mixed to save space through compression, what is left is broadcast, even if the stream loses no info. This reminds me of food labels that proclaim, "Made with 100%" whatever. Sure, it might have a tenth of a percent of 100 percent something, but that tenth of a percent was made with 100% whatever.
It is very easy to test this hypothesis - take WAV audio file, compress into FLAC, decompress back to WAV and then compare two WAV files. Other than metadata header, they should match bit to bit.
sam here as misstl pointed out if he does a vinyl to digital transfer it sounds the same however when the record company does the same thing with the master source the sound is not there? and to suggest the finest producers in the world are not aware of this is pure crap! they don't get to play the stupid card
guitarsam here and i am not an audiophile and i realize that it makes no sense that flac with compression level 4 should sound any different than any other level. i can accept that i’m fooling myself and my ears maybe fooling me.
she by gram parsons ripped from cd with jriver media center 23 to flac (0) and flac (4) what i believe i hear is a more open soundstage with more stereoness to the music on flac (4)
I have a question about this flac format since I haven’t used it yet. Is there a significant difference between Flac and Alac (apple lossless...)? If you think I owe to try it, which one would you recommend as a flac ripper? My tuner/media player has a flac capability just checked it.
My conversion project started in the early 2000s and was finished eight or nine years ago. My equipment wasn't all that fancy - a Dual turntable with an Ortofon cartridge, and a Conrad Johnson preamp that fed a Dell PC with an aftermarket sound card (Creative Tech, as I recall.) Software used was Adobe Audition with recordings saved to flac file format at CD rates (16/44.1KHz.)
Just a side note. I do not consider myself an "audiophile" -- the term has acquired way too much pretense over the years for me. I am just a music lover who also enjoys quality sound. I'm only describing what works for me. As they say, take what you want and leave the rest.
Just a comment to point out that there is a BIG difference between comparing a LP against the commercial CD or hi-rez release versus comparing the LP against a digital copy of the LP made using your own equipment.
Anyone who has ever looked into what it takes to make a LP will understand why vinyl playback can be so unique. First, the RIAA curve used when cutting the LP has a 40 dB swing from bass to treble. This curve must be matched exactly on an inverse mirror image basis for playback. Second, phono cartridges are a mechanical device that have just as much variability as speakers. When was the last time anyone thought two different brands of speakers sounded identical? Add to that the unique technical constraints involved in cutting an LP and the trade-offs involved (time on each side versus amplitude, groove variability, etc.) and it is no wonder that LPs offer such fertile ground for searching out a unique sound.
Digital recording certainly has its own unique considerations, but they are on a completely different plane. Given that, it is no surprise that the LP release almost never sounds the same as the commercial CD or digital download.
However, when I make my own digital copy of an LP, using my own equipment, I find the digital version is very difficult to distinguish from the vinyl. The digital version has done an excellent job of capturing the quirks and traits of the LP, so much so that I cannot reliably tell the difference between the two versions if I have been careful in my transfer (no clipping, etc.) As noted earlier, I spent about ten years transferring over 1,000 LPs to digital and was so consistenly pleased with the results that I gave away most of that collection several years ago. I still don't miss having the vinyl. Nowadays, my turntable sits on a top shelf, unused, except for the rare occasion when I bring it out to transfer a LP for a friend or something unique that I've stumbled across.
This is my first post guys, but I found this discussion interesting, and compelling on a few levels, so had to chime in.I believe it's clearly a fact that a digital file will sound different than it's vinyl counterpart. There are so many variables involved, with the playback equipment being only one of the reasons for the music to sound different.I have a few hi res digital albums that I also own on vinyl. I obtain the digital files from places like HDTracks and Quobuz, and I trust that they are obtaining them from sources that take care in the quality of the product. These all sound (to me) very good. But not the same as their vinyl counterpart. It's pretty easy to A-B these for very close listening. I don't have "top of the line" equipment, but consider it "very good" equipment. But I would have to think there's more to the differences than just the playback path, as the source creation paths are very different as well.I have master files of my niece's (a recording artist) latest album destined for CD release. These were sent to me via internet by my brother. They now reside on my music server, and I play them back via a Pro-ject DS2 T via a Jolida Glass FX Tube DAC. I burned a cd using these files and play them on my Oppo BDP-83SE. These sound very slightly different to me, even though they came from the same source at the same resolution (32/88.2k). In this case, it has to be the playback path since that's the only difference.I'm currently looking for a phono preamp that I can use to transfer some of my vinyl collection to digital at high resolution. It'll be interesting to see (hear) how resulting files compare with the vinyl sources in this very closely controlled environment.
Regarding the difference in sound between vinyl and digital, what you are really hearing is a whole constellation of differences between your turntable and your digital player/converter. To start with it is highly likely that there is a frequency response difference between your cartridge and your digital gear. Cartridges are notoriously not flat in frequency response. This alone could explain what you are hearing. I've never encountered your theory (second vs. third soundstage) in all my years of geeking out on such things. In my own case my vinyl rig sounds remarkably similar to my digital rig with excellent imaging in both formats.
I'm about 2/3 through ripping my 4000+ CD collection. I decided at the outset to use dbPoweramp with no compression. Hard drive space is cheap and I wanted to make life as easy as possible on my digital gear. I did this even though I ripped a couple of CDs at different compression levels to see if I could hear the difference between compression level 5 and no compression. I couldn't hear any difference (files played through Foobar on i7 laptop, Windows 7, USB cable, PS Audio PerfectWave Mk II DAC, Krell pre and amp, Thiel CS6 speakers).
IMO what you are hearing on your system is unusual and bears further investigation. I think it's likely that different gear, including your computer, would alter this situation. FWIW I don't agree with your theories of why this is happening but I don't doubt that you hear what you claim.
Digital has come a long way in a relatively short time. Older digital isn't anywhere as good as what we are offered now. My favourite recent example is The Beatle's remixes. It is possibly not the file compression but the original source.
At some point, I compared AIFF, WAV, FLAC (even a few levels), and a format or two more. I thought I could relatively consistently notice difference between DSD and others except 24/192 PCM (like from DVD-Audio). It was not a blind test of any sorts, but just a casual comparison in some spare time. I could not discern between AIFF, WAV, and any of the FLACs with any consistency. There were differences, but I could not be sure next time around so it is not worth mentioning.
What I did, and still do, notice is that CD always sounds "better" in its physical format when compared to the FLAC rip of itself played from a dedicated music server via the same DAC.
I fixed that problem by not playing CDs anymore so I do not compare anymore. The difference, if it actually exists in reality, is small enough that, without comparison, I do not feel I am missing anything while convenience is incomparably on the side of rips.
Older vinyl records do sound different to me, at least most of the time, but is it better depends on how much you like that particular "sound signature". I happen to like it on some of the days and cannot care less about it on other days. It may be my hardware, but vinyl transferred into a digital format never sounds the same as the original. But, it fits in a Walkman, SD card, and wherever else, while not being horrible. What is there not to like?
I am embroiled with someone on Facebook that says there are differences between FLAC, WAV and AIFF. I say no, and opined that if he did hear a difference it was because he had to in order to fly his audio cognoscenti flag high, and to justify his expensive equipment. He said I couldn’t hear a difference because the Signal to Noise ratio of my Schitt DAC wasn’t good enough. I gave up on the blockhead.
Guitarsam - Some years ago I made tests comparing same track/file with different levels of compression and comparing to AIFF format. I did not get any difference. That is a fact for my equipment and ears as I am sure that you have really heard differences.I made this because in old posts and reviews there were a strong advice to use AIFF / WAV formats. This is my opinion: I think the quality of digital music regarding the “computer” where the player runs depends strongly on the “silence” of the hardware: RAM, hard disk, processor usage, power supply, USB cards, etc. I think that your computer is old and could be “overcharged” with normal operation A lot of tweaks can be made and if you look into the dedicated hardware to play / serve music to DAC, you will realize it is always based in these tweaks adding in most cases a very “light” operating system that does not charge the processor (Aurender, Innuos, Antipodes, 432evo, ...) There is also a lot of literature regarding that playing from RAM increases the sound quality: you can find it easily (forums about Euphony operating system are a good example as they recommend this)There are also places where you can find ways to make your computer less noisy but I do not know anyone for Windows. I have been thru all this for some years and I am slowly increasing the sound quality when using my Mac mini as source. .
I think he is speaking of DP Poweramp ,that has 8 settings for Flac files as I mentioned the highest #8 Flac is loss less. And totally uncompressed but also there are variables, you have ripping speeds , or safe ripping which’s checks and rereads CD song for song for accuracy , he didnot mention how fast the rip was .Which has at least 10 speeds ,I rip recommended around 6. that has everything to do with sonic accuracy.
I didn't hear any differences in the two files. I listened carefully and switched back and forth every few seconds. It's possible there is a slight difference since I didn't expect to hear any and it wasn't a controlled test.
Guitarsam - the levels have to do with the level of compression achieved, but all are lossless. The more convoluted (literally!) a code you use, or the more passes, the longer it takes,and the better the compression will be. In fact the differences are HUGE, like 15:1 worst case, so it matters to anyone who cares about time invested. It does not change the digital output one bit (also literally). Nothing new to see here, move on. Well, maybe something new to learn here, read on.
What is also not new is that someone heard differences, where none exist, because they expected to hear differences.
I have had this hit me in reverse as well. I just **knew** the cables made no difference so i ascribed a difference to components. until i switched the cables and the sound differences also switched. Damn.
So don’t feel too bad about it, but recognize what you just learned.
sam here and i'm not saying there is anything wrong with flac
please listen to these two cd audio samples re-encoded using Aul converteR 48x44 sample 1 is flac compression level 0 sample 2 is flac compression level 4.same source
also when i made a 1 gb virtual hard drive from my pc's ram memory and
import audio into the virtual ram drive and play the audio from the ram
the sound quality is improved 100% like listening to the studio master
tape can somebody explain this?
That sounds like you have a slow over-taxed computer, that is also possibly noisy. Given you said you are running Window7, I am going to guess it is rather old? Something that old may need a lot more processor % horsepower (comparatively) to decode FLAC, and with rotating media, it would be pulling somewhat at random from the drive to fill the buffer, with whatever other hard-drive thrashing it is doing.
I've never had a problem with any of my flac files. Flac is the musical equivalent of the zip file used for compressing computer program and data files. There is no data lost or changed. Higher compression levels for flac (which makes for smaller file size) do require more processor work to decode, but I doubt that has been a problem for most modern PCs for a decade or more.
I converted most of my vinyl (well over a thousand albums) to digital over a ten year period, so there was a lot of material I was able to compare back-to-back. I've found a careful digital conversion of a LP sounds just as good as the vinyl.
IMO, most of the complaints about digital music have to do with the fashions and fads of the time period when the recording was made -- think of the "loudness wars". Due to the technical limitations of cutting vinyl, it is much easier to pull off a loudness war recording with digital. That's just one example. Digital recording has a lot of "toys" available, and if you give toys to boys, they will play with them. That said, digital, and the flac format, is perfectly capable of outstanding recordings -- there are plenty out there if one looks for them.
sam here thanks for all the input.i am by no means an audiophile and i don't mind someone saying i'm full of crap?
i understand how crazy this sounds however there is a noticeable difference between vintage vinyl and digital audio and i believe that difference can be greatly reduced by re-encoding to flac with compression level 4 my test prove it to my ears perhaps somebody could do a quick re-encode and do there own a/b test?
also when i made a 1 gb virtual hard drive from my pc's ram memory and import audio into the virtual ram drive and play the audio from the ram the sound quality is improved 100% like listening to the studio master tape can somebody explain this?
heaudio123"I can’t say this in a nice way, but this statement is made up. There is no basis for making it and absolutely no way to justify it."
There is every reasonable, practical, and justifiable basis for this person to have made his statements and that is that he is reporting what he hears. No one hear has to "justify" making they’re listening results here, except perhaps to the group’s moderators but in this example there is nothing objectionable, offensive, or inappropriate about this post except you happen to not like it. Just because you do not agree with a statement or are unable to understand the statement or it’s background does not mean that the statement is "made up."
"I have to assume it comes from a lack of understanding of digitized and reconstructed analog signals, and a belief in the perfection of vinyl (which it most certainly is not)." That is a remarkable, notable, and "impressive" set of assumptions and "leaps of faith" in reasoning but I guess that is something you are allowed to do. So I will assume that you make this statement because you are unable to process the information offered in a way other than to reject, attack, or dismiss it without reasonable explanation.
1) You are making absolute statements about sound quality based solely on your personal experience which may or may not be limited. That is a mistake.
2) digital sound stage is not 2-D. If that is what you are experiencing see 1).
3) Compressed file formats be they lossy or in this case lossless do require additional processing on the streamer to decompress before streaming. That might produce different noise levels with some devices. So I can see where more compressed lossless flac might be at a disadvantage but results will still depend on how well the streamer is able to do its job.
This might be a published fake FLAC file generation. Really, the only way for you to personally validate this FLAC compression difference is to buy your own audio file converter (such as Aul Converter 48x44) and compress some WAV files YOURSELF. Then test them and see if you can hear any difference. Not saying this phenomenon is untrue, just difficult to prove.
I know that there are some older media player software that just do not playback FLAC files with good quality. This has to do with having to uncompress the FLAC data on the fly. I think it was Monkey Media Player that really sounded crappy with FLAC files. I have had no problems with Jriver playing back FLAC and quality, soundstage, stereo imaging and depth has always been excellent. I know JRiver uncompresses "ahead" and caches data before it's clocked and sent to the DAC.
I can’t say this in a nice way, but this statement is made up. There is no basis for making it and absolutely no way to justify it. I have to assume it comes from a lack of understanding of digitized and reconstructed analog signals, and a belief in the perfection of vinyl (which it most certainly is not).
vintage vinyl has stereo + stereo depth perception (3d sound stage).digital audio has stereo + mono depth perception (2d sound stage) and this includes all new remastered vinyl cut from the digital master. this is why digital audio does not sound like vintage vinyl along with brick wall compression.
Unless someone has screwed up the code, which is possible, but unlikely, or you are using software that does loudness levelling or something like that, then there should be no difference in the files, and it is relatively easy to see if they are bit-perfect. I have not delved deep into the algorithms for playback, but it is my understanding that compression level can impact the amount of processing required to decompress, and if you are playing on a noisy computer, the added processor load and added memory usage, especially if you have other things running, could result in "noisier" playback, but that is unlikely to happen on any dedicated hardware, or a computer not overly burdened.
vintage vinyl has stereo + stereo depth perception (3d sound stage).digital audio has stereo + mono depth perception (2d sound stage) and this includes all new remastered vinyl cut from the digital master.
It sounds as though something is amiss with your digital if you are unable to get a 3-D soundstage from it.
... this is why digital audio does not sound like vintage vinyl along with brick wall compression.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
