IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Cryptic claims made elsewhere (so-called, audible differences between FLAC & WAVE)
Jebus
post May 24 2006, 23:38
Post #26





Group: Developer
Posts: 1294
Joined: 17-March 03
From: Calgary, AB
Member No.: 5541



QUOTE (Firon @ May 24 2006, 12:41) *
FLAC doesn't really use any significant amount of RAM, but it will cause your HDD to read LESS, since it's smaller. wink.gif


But "less" still means it could be different. So FLAC could arguably sound better than Wave smile.gif

QUOTE (Firon @ May 24 2006, 12:41) *
FLAC doesn't really use any significant amount of RAM, but it will cause your HDD to read LESS, since it's smaller. wink.gif


But "less" still means it could be different. So FLAC could arguably sound better than Wave smile.gif

I guess HDD activity makes more sense than CPU activity, because we're talking about moving magnets. Id take this machine appart right now and check, but the boss might think i'm stealing RAM.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
porky_pig_jr
post May 24 2006, 23:41
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 98
Joined: 6-October 01
Member No.: 225



I had a similar dialog. The guy claimed he could hear the difference between the original audio and the losslessly compressed one. Pressed further, he has explained he could hear the difference between the original audio played on high-quality stereo and the losslessly compressed copy encoded and played on iPod.

It has never come into his mind that the difference are due to iPod, not to lossless compression. Still he was 100% confident it was due to lossless compression and I wasn't able to convince him otherwise.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinnie97
post May 25 2006, 06:44
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 472
Joined: 6-March 03
Member No.: 5360



Yea, Porky...sounds like an equally frustratingly equivalent experience. wink.gif

I just made my first post on the musepack forum...and probably my last! It's no wonder that place is dead.

I'm having a fair amount of forum strife lately...may be time to take a vacation. sweat.gif

This post has been edited by vinnie97: May 25 2006, 06:44
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Never_Again
post May 26 2006, 15:13
Post #29





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 698
Joined: 31-March 04
From: NYC
Member No.: 13152



Jebus wrote:
>But "less" still means it could be different. So FLAC could arguably sound better than Wave

There is little point in playing the devil's advocate with such speculations; this way you could "prove" anything. Stick to common sense, and let the devil prove that FLAC sounds better than the source WAV.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
molnart
post May 26 2006, 17:51
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 322
Joined: 25-March 06
From: Slovakia
Member No.: 28819



A little more provocation: i don't think claiming that FLAC sounds better than WAV is negative in any way. The guy on that forum had convincing (altough worng) arguments. So what can be the result? People will prefer FLAC over WAV? Is that wrong? I don't think so.

I think Stalin said something like "The Goal sactifies the instruments"...


--------------------
www.last.fm/user/molnart
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post May 26 2006, 19:22
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



I never knew that Josh idolizes Stalin... huh.gif

Just Kidding! laugh.gif


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Axon
post May 26 2006, 19:22
Post #32





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



Beliefs like that don't have super bad consequences, except that they waste everybody's real time, CPU time and disk space, and can hide real issues.

There's a closely related belief, that I've actually had people tell me to my face, that decoding MP3s to WAVs makes them sound better. Now, strictly speaking, nobody's getting hurt quality-wise because of this. But it means people are wasting disk space on WAVs they don't need, and wasting the time needed to do the conversion, instead of performing more meaningful improvements. And this can blind them from improvements that would make more of a difference - ie, thinking that decoding to WAV is comparable to increasing your bitrate, or making trivial but costly improvements to sources/amplifiers at the expense of speakers and headphones.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: 18th September 2014 - 21:35