OT - Headphone (Can) Shopping

Sounds like a good experiment. Please inform us of your results

Haemphyst: I've looked into it. There's another option you didn't consider. The flac compression level is a result of the time and cpu power the algorithm spends searching for the best compressions means. Remember the probability driven schemes I was talking about earlier. There are an infinite number of ways to compress a file. Compression level 8 "best" has no effect on quality of the underlying data. It simply takes the LONGEST to compress resulting in the BEST compression level. Compression level 1 compresses very fast, but results in larger file size. Again, it has no effect on the resulting data. None. If you are honestly concerned use FLAC with the -v option. It verifies the audio data against the original wave file, and will stop encoding if it encounters an error. If you still aren't satisfied with -v, decompress the flac and use Exact Audio Copy to compare the audio content of the two wave files. I've done this using compression levels 0-8 and there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the audio content. Why might the sizes be different? Flac and your wave ripping software may encode file headers and tagging information differently. The audio data can still be the same even if the file sizes are different. Again. Absolutely no difference in the resulting audio regardless of the compression setting used. I've tested this with every compression level. If anyone is having trouble with this concept remember that Winzip and most other programs or the sort use the exact same technique. You can change the compression level : time ratio in those compression programs too. More processing on the front end can make the file size smaller with NO EFFECT on the underlying data. New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

Oh, thank you. SO you're saying that there is a difference, right. <-Sarcasm Ok, I do quite a bit of video compression and converting. What I've found is that you can use lossless compression, but like you said it takes alot longer. I have found that on some programs there is an option to do multiple "analysis" of the file before it ever even starts to compress it. This allows it to more easily discern what can be compressed, and how much. Sorry for giving you the "hassle" before

Sorry? Don't be sorry. I was completely wrong about excursion and efficiency in that thread with Steven. We're all trying to learn here. :-) To your post. Yes - the pre-compression analysis can happen any number of ways. Some will simply multiply the usual percentage by a file size, others will actually calculate the estimate based on a sample. It just depends on what the programmer decided to use. New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

This is a good discussion. I agree that there is no difference between a .zip and the orignal binary, but I really don't see (I do see, but it still seems wrong) how any compression can NOT hurt the quality of the audio signal. I understand lossless, and I understand it SHOULD NOT hurt the integrity if the original signal, but neither should SACD (and it does, BTW). (Incedentally, Sony referrs to SACD as a "distribution format" - which, translated from Japanese, means "Good enough for the public". Sony themselves do not archive their recordings in DSD. They use 24/192 PCM files. DSD is mathematically as good as it can EVER get, where PCM can be and is (theoretically) infinitely perfectable.) If FLAC is indeed lossless, why are the recording companies not using it for "distribution formatting" of their audio... Couldn't they get smaller, more "perfect" music on a CD, and thus charge more? (Is the RIAA listening right now? You BAStards!) Why are there so few portable and NO home (none that I have seen anyway) audio players capable of direct playback of FLAC files? This overwhelming preponderance of evidence tells me there is something different about the files. I know, they are willing to distribute in MP3, (another discussion altogether) just because of the industry support, but I will continue to buy the CD, because of the HIGHLY INFERIOR quality of even 320k MP3s - I want the perfect recording. It would seem to me, that in the same respect as password protecting a zip file, without affecting whatsoever the original binary, the industry would LOVE the FLAC format, as they could watermark the audio file with absolutely no affect on the audio quality itself. How does this argument fit in with lossless vs. "lossless"? One last thing. If the format is indeed lossless, then I should not be able to hear the difference on my home system, but why can I? This is good stuff! Keep it coming. We may actually get you some new headphones, after all! It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."

"overwhelming preponderance of the evidence" ...? Which evidence is this again? 1) Recording companies don't use FLAC because it isn't a standard they've agreed on. 2) Recording companies WON'T use it because it isn't popular enough. 3) It isn't popular enough because the file size is still much too large for consumers who love their mp3s. 4) There ARE home audio players being developed that support FLAC. ---> http://www.slimdevices.com/ ---> and "the Zensonic Z500 Networked DVD Media Player, Escient's new FireBall E2-40, E2-160, and DVDM-300, the M300A Digital Music Player from Digital Techniques (see manual), Meda Systems' Bravo servers (more info), and the MS300 Music Server by McIntosh Laboratory." Dude. McIntosh. :-) There aren't portables yet because large file sizes and more necessary processing power isn't too compatible with the concept of mass market portable. These are _business_ decisions. NOT evidence of the quality of the compression method. One thing to remember about ALL compression methods is that they take processing power on both the front end AND the back end to complete encoding. Processing power costs money to implement. Unless a firm feels like it can add value that will increase its profits over its costs - IT WON'T DO IT. :-) Anyway. There IS adoption of the FLAC format coming. It is VERY new compared to MP3. Even if it wasn't new, you know more than anyone (as someone who has tracked dvda v. sacd), that format decisions are driven by profit and politics; NOT the superior format. If the format is indeed lossless, you should not be able to hear any difference. HOWEVER, even this isn't evidence of, well, anything. Just like anything else that decodes to an audio stream, the real time decoding player might not be implemented perfectly. The encoder you use might add options you aren't aware of too. Does either the decoder or encoder use replaygain? Does either the decoder or encoder do any dithering? Did the plug-in author code the player correctly? Does the plug-in run past errors in decoding if it must? Does your waveform decoder do something differently? Does your cd player do something differently? Anyway, this list can do on and on. Any number of variables can influence sound, as you know. These variables, while they can influence the sound, say nothing about the validity of the lossless nature of the format. New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

kfr01 wrote: "overwhelming preponderance of the evidence" ...? Which evidence is this again?

OK, so maybe there was a "little artistic license" taken here... LOL

kfr01 wrote: 1) Recording companies don't use FLAC because it isn't a standard they've agreed on.

I know, this is what I'm saying... The MP3 is known as a highly inferior format, yet it is accepted as a "distribution format". Why not realize, and accept, a superior format? I think the RIAA just needs to pull their thumbs out their asses...

kfr01 wrote: 2) Recording companies WON'T use it because it isn't popular enough.

I know this also. MP3 beat the compression "schemers" to the punch.

kfr01 wrote: 3) It isn't popular enough because the file size is still much too large for consumers who love their mp3s.

Losers... LOL No, really... How cheap is space today? I am referring to both hard drive AND flash media... A 40G 2.5 inch drive can be had for less than a C-note at retail. You CANNOT tell me that, giving the success of the iPod, people are not willing to give up a few songs worth of space - especially those people like you and me who really enjoy their music, and are actually looking for fidelity, in favor of number of songs.

kfr01 wrote: 4) There ARE home audio players being developed that support FLAC. ---> http://www.slimdevices.com/ ---> and "the Zensonic Z500 Networked DVD Media Player, Escient's new FireBall E2-40, E2-160, and DVDM-300, the M300A Digital Music Player from Digital Techniques (see manual), Meda Systems' Bravo servers (more info), and the MS300 Music Server by McIntosh Laboratory." Dude. McIntosh. :-)

I stand HAPPILY corrected! Finally, I can look forward to putting all of my music collection on DVD, in FLAC, and have only 75 DVD's instead of 500 CD's... OK, not really, but there you are. Do you know of any way to extract 24/96 from a DVD-A? LOL

kfr01 wrote: There aren't portables yet because large file sizes and more necessary processing power isn't too compatible with the concept of mass market portable. These are _business_ decisions. NOT evidence of the quality of the compression method. One thing to remember about ALL compression methods is that they take processing power on both the front end AND the back end to complete encoding. Processing power costs money to implement. Unless a firm feels like it can add value that will increase its profits over its costs - IT WON'T DO IT. :-) Anyway. There IS adoption of the FLAC format coming. It is VERY new compared to MP3. Even if it wasn't new, you know more than anyone (as someone who has tracked dvda v. sacd), that format decisions are driven by profit and politics; NOT the superior format.

Processing power, I can understand - in addition to processing power, there is actual power consumption to consider, which I had not done until now. Since most of these things run off even as small a power supply as one AAA cell, power consumption is an important design factor.

kfr01 wrote: If the format is indeed lossless, you should not be able to hear any difference. HOWEVER, even this isn't evidence of, well, anything.

Well, at least I got an "If the format is indeed lossless" out of you... LOL   It should be evidence (as I see it) of the loss(es) involved in compression of any sort.

kfr01 wrote: Just like anything else that decodes to an audio stream, the real time decoding player might not be implemented perfectly. The encoder you use might add options you aren't aware of too.

This is absolutely true. Generally speaking, I shy away from software decoding of ANY format. Who knows what the hell the software designer put in there, but the same really applies to hardware decoding, for the most part. Hardware decoding, AFAIAC, because of the expense, SHOULD have as little effect on the signal as possible.

kfr01 wrote: Does either the decoder or encoder use replaygain? Does either the decoder or encoder do any dithering? Did the plug-in author code the player correctly? Does the plug-in run past errors in decoding if it must? Does your waveform decoder do something differently? Does your cd player do something differently? Anyway, this list can do on and on. Any number of variables can influence sound, as you know. These variables, while they can influence the sound, say nothing about the validity of the lossless nature of the format.

Again, you are correct, and I agree with you on nearly all of your points. As I said, the "lossless" nature is out still, until I can draw my own scientific and empirical conclusions. I am not discounting you point of view, I just take a little more convincing than some people - especially when it comes to my music. To address your questions above, however, being as I have used the same software to rip, encode to FLAC, decode to WAV, burn to CD, I have tried simultaneos rip/encode, I have tried rip to temp file then encode, all of the software options available to me in my software. This should prevent any of the above problems from showing up as differences, as the commom elements can all be "removed from the equation". I have definitely heard a difference. Granted, the difference is SMALL, even minute, compared to even a 320 MP3, but the differences are present. I will also mention the differences between the compression levels is also EXCEPTIONALLY slight, but it is there, usually in the highest registers. This is why I suggested the test above. I have not been able to actually set down to do it, yet, but I do have the wav files encoded, just need to convert them to FLAC. While I am at it, I am going to do some similar experiments on MP3 encoded files as well. I already know they are going to be abysmal results, but, what the hell, the rig will already be all setup, so why not?It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."

:::::UPDATE::::: I just did a quick test. I have a duplicate file detector, which scans a list of selected files to the checksum level. I took one wav file, converted it to FLAC at all compression levels, and using the same encoding software, I decoded all of those files BACK to wav, then ran the duplicate file detector on the directory. It did indeed detect ALL of the converted/backconverted files as EXACT DUPLICATE FILES. I do ABSOLUTELY stand corrected. The compression is indeed completely lossless, (now I can stop using "lossless" in my texts LOL) but now I need to figure out the audible differences I am hearing... kfr01 is right, there should be no differences... Back to the ORIGINAL question - the one that started all this discussion... I would stick with the Grados, and use a good external soundcard, with high-end DACS, and good quality amplification...It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."

Just to add to this discussion of why FLAC isn't really popular in audio equipment. My PS2 now supports FLAC, but not natively. I had to download, and install to the memory card, a FLAC decoder. That's pretty neat. Anyway, I think that companies SHOULD start straying from the MP3 format because of the now imposed royalties.