IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Apparently FLAC noticably degrades sound quality, You just can't make this stuff up!
probedb
post Jun 13 2012, 13:52
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 1245
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



I apologise if this it the wrong sub-forum but it relates directly to FLAC so I figured I'd post it here.

You really have to wonder where people get their information from?

I quote from http://www.avforums.com/forums/17108414-post52.html

QUOTE
FLAC should sound the same as the wave file but it doesn't. It is lossless, which is great, but, unlike Wave it is not a native format to Windows (or Mac) and as such it makes the CPU work much harder than wave does. Resulting, depending on your PC/Mac's spec in noticeable degradation compared to Wave.


Sigh rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Jun 13 2012, 14:50
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 3412
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



While in theory it may be possible for CPU loading to affect the audio, the claim of "noticeable degradation compared to Wave" is highly unlikely in any modern hardware.

Edit: It is also theoretical possible for disc access to affect audio, but in this case FLAC has less disc access than wav.

This post has been edited by pdq: Jun 13 2012, 14:52
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tuffy
post Jun 13 2012, 15:13
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 111
Joined: 20-August 07
Member No.: 46367



More CPU usage means the gerbil has to run much faster in order to generate more power, and that means you won't be able to hear your music over the sound of its wheel spinning. Therefore wav sounds better.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
extrabigmehdi
post Jun 13 2012, 15:36
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 408
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 72330



Here's how to degrade the audio of your player:
run a ton of cpu/memory intensive software in background (3d studiomax, photoshop, etc...) , until your pc becomes sluggish. You can also overload the hard drive you use for playing music (defragment, antivirus scan etc). Now you can forget about the additional cpu work that flac adds.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rotareneg
post Jun 13 2012, 15:46
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 194
Joined: 18-March 05
From: Non-Euclidean
Member No.: 20701



I use an analytical engine running VirtualBox to run Windows to listen to music, so any excessive processor usage is directly audible.

This post has been edited by Rotareneg: Jun 13 2012, 15:47
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dhromed
post Jun 13 2012, 15:52
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 1316
Joined: 16-February 08
From: NL
Member No.: 51347



When my CPU works hard the fan spins up and strictly speaking that's very much audible.

Fortunately I usually only play music from a variety of formats such as FLAC and as such my CPU doesn't work very hard.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Jun 13 2012, 16:11
Post #7





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1060
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



QUOTE
However, if you have a good quad core Intel or AMD CPU you shouldn't notice anything beyond a very (very) slight hardness.

This sentence is even more evidence that this is just audiophool nonsense.


--------------------
Ceterum censeo Masterdiskem esse delendam.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nessuno
post Jun 13 2012, 17:18
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 423
Joined: 16-December 10
From: Palermo
Member No.: 86562



QUOTE (Rotareneg @ Jun 13 2012, 16:46) *
I use an analytical engine running VirtualBox to run Windows to listen to music, so any excessive processor usage is directly audible.

Once I tried to drive an USB DAC from inside a VBox machine and

[TOS#8 compliance OFF]
the result was a load of real garbage mixed with some barely audible musical content in the background.
[TOS#8 compliance ON]

It was a couple of years ago, I actually don't know if USB management in VB has somewhat improved in the meanwhile, but I'm leaded to think that If I had used Hi-Rez material instead of RedBook standard even that audible music in the background would have disappeared!

By the way: that same argument (increased sys load) could as well be used against this audiophoolish Hi-Rez mania! wink.gif


--------------------
... I live by long distance.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zarggg
post Jun 13 2012, 17:42
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 18-January 04
From: bethlehem.pa.us
Member No.: 11318



Apologies in advance if this violates TOS8 somehow, but I have to say that people who make statements like the original quote understand neither how audio encoding, lossless compression, nor even a computer works.

Theoretically possible? Yes, for extreme values of "theoretical." Likely noticeable if it happens? No.

This post has been edited by Zarggg: Jun 13 2012, 17:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Jun 13 2012, 17:54
Post #10





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1060
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



QUOTE (Zarggg @ Jun 13 2012, 18:42) *
Apologies in advance if this violates TOS8 somehow, but I have to say that people who make statements like the original quote understand neither how audio encoding, lossless compression, nor even a computer works.

From my experience with interest groups and politicians, those who know the least about a topic have the most vocal opinions about it. If I was Randall Munroe I would draw up a nice, witty graph now.


--------------------
Ceterum censeo Masterdiskem esse delendam.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hotsoup
post Jun 13 2012, 18:28
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 16-March 12
From: Bellingham, WA
Member No.: 97852



QUOTE (Nessuno @ Jun 13 2012, 09:18) *
By the way: that same argument (increased sys load) could as well be used against this audiophoolish Hi-Rez mania! wink.gif


I've never heard anyone make that point, actually. Would playback of 24/192, for example, be proportionally more CPU-taxing than FLAC versus WAV?

This post has been edited by Hotsoup: Jun 13 2012, 18:29
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Jun 13 2012, 19:27
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 1245
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



This is why I like this forum smile.gif

Normally I wouldn't make a point of this, but avforums is a general forum and that guy is an idiot, you just have to find some of his other posts. Zarggg, you're spot on, the guy is accusing me of not knowing how something as simple as the Task Manager in Windows works yet clearly has no idea what he's talking about.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post Jun 13 2012, 19:33
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 1783
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



Sincerely. It is far easier to hear noise when moving the mouse, or reading/writing to the hard drive than hearing noise by playing a FLAC file.

Even with an old Pentium 4, the cpu usage of playing an MP3 file is less than 1%, and obviously, playing a FLAC file is much faster. And with such low CPU usage, it is absurd to talk about increased fan noise.


I would qualify the sentence as a lie. It specifically tells that he's talking about computers, the degradation never is "noticeable degradation" (where noticeable = important) and 0.0001 versus 0.000001 might be "Much bigger", but... compared to 100 both are WAY small.

This post has been edited by [JAZ]: Jun 13 2012, 19:34
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
extrabigmehdi
post Jun 13 2012, 19:59
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 408
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 72330



I'm sure the degradation wouldn't be measurable either.
As long the the task of decoding flac is nowhere near the limit of what the computer is able to handle, it should have zero impact.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ouroboros
post Jun 13 2012, 20:08
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 30-May 08
From: UK
Member No.: 53927



The offending statements in the quoted post have been removed by one of the Moderators over at AVForums. It is still full of subjective opinion, but at least the technical nonsense has been excised. Small steps......smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Jun 13 2012, 20:51
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 1245
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



QUOTE (Ouroboros @ Jun 13 2012, 20:08) *
The offending statements in the quoted post have been removed by one of the Moderators over at AVForums. It is still full of subjective opinion, but at least the technical nonsense has been excised. Small steps......smile.gif


Ahh good smile.gif Small steps indeed wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andy o
post Jun 14 2012, 06:08
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 1325
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68950



I've had more trouble with the processor not being taxed enough, because the of the switch between power states/frequencies. Well, technically speaking it was with the GPU, but the same principle applies.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bubbleguuum
post Jun 14 2012, 13:16
Post #18





Group: Developer
Posts: 1112
Joined: 13-November 05
Member No.: 25748



WAV sounding better than FLAC is a classic topic between audiophools. You can find it on almost all HiFi brand forums.
And since there is no TOS #8 there, people can make the wildest claims.

There's other amusing variations of this topic with "lossless codec X" sounding better than "lossless codec Y".

This post has been edited by bubbleguuum: Jun 14 2012, 13:19
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd October 2014 - 04:50