[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[PhilNYC]

m1abrams Wrote: 
> 
> Bits are Bits, either they make it or they dont.  You would have to
> have some serious amount of noise coming from that expensive equipment
> of yours to cause the bits to be scambled, yet your equipment can still
> sync on it AMAZING. .

Bits are bits, but in the end, the digital to analog conversion process
is still an electrical/analog process.  Variations in the squarewave
voltage that represents a bit, while accurately representing a 1 or 0
within the tolerance of a computer's design, can introduce variances in
the analog waveform.  Resulting effects include jitter (timing errors)
and amplitude errors.  Is it audible?  Depends on the system, the
amount of jitter, etc.  I've done double-blind tests on things like
transports...both of which delivered identical bits, but had
measureable differences in jitter, and resulted in audible (sometimes
significant) differences in sound.  And this was done using a DAC that
had a very sophisticated buffering and re-clocking design...


-- 
PhilNYC

Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[void]

John Stimson Wrote: 
> The time that the data arrives on the input pin does not affect the time
> that the output pin switches.  The same clock signal is used to drive
> the clock input of every gate in the circuit, so the jitter between
> gates does not influence the timing of the signal at the final output
> -- only the jitter on the clock.
In a perfect world... This is how is supposed to work, and it does for
most part, but in practice a small amount of jitter/noise leaks through
and is difficult to get rid off. The same jitter pattern can be
recognised on the output, and it's not coming from the clock. 

John Stimson Wrote: 
> If jitter at the data input of a circuit influences the timing of the
> output data, then something is corrupting the clock -- excessive
> impedance in the power and ground planes, bad signal routing, poor
> grounding scheme, etc.
Remember that no design or no individual component is 100% perfect (a
flip-flop gate is not totally insensitive for noise and voltage
fluctuations, etc.). At these high switching frequencies the signals
don't look 'digital'.

It's easy to get rid off most jitter, but we heaven't seen or heard any
device yet which could get rid off all jitter that you put on its input
(I'm not talking about the clock). Several people and manufacturers
claim that they can, but each solution we've tried was another
dissapointment.
It must be possible though, in theory it seems so easy! It would be
nice if someone succeeded because it's this last bit of jitter which
seems to corrupt the sound the most.


-- 
void
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[John Stimson]

void Wrote: 
> I'm not an expert, but the jittery data signal has to pass the 'master
> clock gate' at the DAC. What comes out of the gate is jittery/noisy
> again.
> A flip-flop gate has a data input, a clock input, and a data output. 
Here's how it operates: any time the clock input switches from low to
high, the data output is switched to match the level of the data input
at that instant.  The data output remains at that level until the next
low-high clock transition.  The time that the data arrives on the input
pin does not affect the time that the output pin switches.  The same
clock signal is used to drive the clock input of every gate in the
circuit, so the jitter between gates does not influence the timing of
the signal at the final output -- only the jitter on the clock.

Basically, the only thing that affects the signal that you hear is the
jitter in the clock at the DAC output.  If the clock signal is
generated right there, then jitter in earlier stages doesn't cause
jitter at the output.

The reason that with SPDIF, jitter in the transport induces jitter in
the DAC, if because with SPDIF the clock is generated in the
transport.

If jitter at the data input of a circuit influences the timing of the
output data, then something is corrupting the clock -- excessive
impedance in the power and ground planes, bad signal routing, poor
grounding scheme, etc.


-- 
John Stimson
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[void]

John Stimson Wrote: 
> What is the mechanism for upstream jitter to affect the DAC, when the
> master clock for the system is located at the DAC, on its own power
> supply?

I'm not an expert, but the jittery data signal has to pass the 'master
clock gate' at the DAC. What comes out of the gate is jittery/noisy
again.
I guess it's difficult to put high frequency signals together in one
chip, without interacting on each other.


-- 
void
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[John Stimson]

void Wrote: 
> I tried many jitter correction devices/solutions including
> masterclocking from the DAC, etc. but they don't bring the magic, the
> DAC keeps getting infected.What is the mechanism for upstream jitter to 
> affect the DAC, when the
master clock for the system is located at the DAC, on its own power
supply?


-- 
John Stimson
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[seanadams]

There isn't really a significant difference in total CPU usage for FLAC
versus AIFF, or even MP3 for that matter (keep in mind there is a LOT
of other stuff going on in the system). The only real difference would
be in memory access patterns - here differences is jitter (see other
thread - we are talking a change on the order of one PICOsecond) could
be explained by power drawn since the IO and memory systems share the
rail with the digital audio logic. The CPU core does not - it runs at
1.2V on a separate supply.


-- 
seanadams
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[void]

Andrew L. Weekes Wrote: 
> -The only plausible reason I can imagine for any audible difference is
> that increased stress to the PSU affects the voltage or noise to the
> clocks, which in turn produces jitter. Then again, I'm no electrical
> engineer, and might be talking out of my ass.-
> 
> You may not be an EE, but you are smart and logical ;)
> 
> Andy.

He's on the right track. I'll explain why I think it's almost
impossible that FLAC and WAV sound identical with onboard decoding:

Remember that in digital equipment millions of voltage changes occur
each second. All parts generate electromagnetic fields,
radiofrequencies, causing a lot interference (EMI, RF). Measurments
usually show total chaos. Even the most carefully designed equipment
still has noise, interferences all over the circuit board(s) and even
across equipment.  Digital switching puts an aggressive load on power
supplies, modulations are unavoidable. Even if all stages are separated
and heavily filtered you can still see the digital 'ripples'. These
interferences, signal injections and power supply ripples change the
switching point (timing) of each bit, which is called jitter. Extremely
complex patterns of timing errors (jitter) can be seen over a very wide
frequency spectrum.

Now all this noise and jitter isn't a problem at all as long as
everything remains 'bitperfect', only for digital audio there's a more
serious problem: bits have to be converted to analogue and the audio
signal gets distorted when even the smallest amount of jitter reaches
the audio conversion. It's not only the clock that gets infected, but
the power supply of the DAC and the DAC directly by EMI, RF, remember
that it's coupled with the rest of the circuit too (even when using a
pulse transformer, etc.).

There's no DAC which can do a jitterless conversion. Even buffering and
reclocking isn't a solution, the process itself creates new jitter
spectrum that is very similar to the original jitter spectrum, jitter
is like a highly infective virus.

I tried many jitter correction devices/solutions including
masterclocking from the DAC, etc. but they don't bring the magic, the
DAC keeps getting infected. 
That's why a very simple DAC can sound very good (my filterless,
non-oversampling DAC sounds way better than the very expensive high-end
DAC's I used before). That's also why many external superclocks and
superregulators are not always the perfect solution, they improve some
aspects but very often also introduce new problems. A properly
implemented and carefully tuned simple design often sounds (and
measures) best.
That's also why good CD-transports are very expensive, it's impossible
to get everything right from the optical readout (every correction adds
jitter too) to the digital output.

Onboard FLAC conversion has an effect on the jitter pattern/spectrum,
but does it sound worse?
The kinds of jitter which vary along with the music signal sound worse
than random jitter. I can imagine the FLAC conversion causes a bit
pattern which can be correlated to the music signal, so causing a
jitter pattern which sounds worse.
(Some designers actually listen to jitter patterns by connecting a
small speaker, the correlation easily can be heard because the jitter
noise sounds like the music that's played! (heavily distorted).)

Some modifications on the SB2 will decrease jitter (not necessarily
clock modifications). However because of the increased resolution it
could be that the difference will be even easier to detect. Luckily
there's the option of server side decoding.


-- 
void
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Andrew L . Weekes]

-The only plausible reason I can imagine for any audible difference is
that increased stress to the PSU affects the voltage or noise to the
clocks, which in turn produces jitter. Then again, I'm no electrical
engineer, and might be talking out of my ass.-

You may not be an EE, but you are smart and logical ;)

Andy.


-- 
Andrew L. Weekes
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[DrNic]

Mike Hanson Wrote: 
>  Sharing ideas is a good thing, but trying to do "online comparisons" is
> a virtual waste of time.  (Or should that be "a waste of virtual
> time"?)
> 
> -=> Mike Hanson <=-

He he!!
Love it!
Nay probs there Mike.

Nic

Now - letting thread "stay on topic"...


-- 
DrNic
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Yannzola]

Here's a thought: Could it be something like ReplayGain or some such tag
info gumming up the works? I hear that server side FLAC's can be "gain
adjusted" while onboard decoded FLAC's cannot. Could this be an issue
=somehow= although I realize that in this instance it doesn't make
sense (since the server side WAV and FLAC are identical).

I suggest making certain that the test FLAC's are absolutely tag free
during blind testing.

y.


-- 
Yannzola
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Mike Hanson]

m1abrams Wrote: 
> No contest my apple was the shiniest!  But the free pony ate it :(
My apple will always be shinier, because it's -imaginary-!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-


-- 
Mike Hanson
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[m1abrams]

Mike Hanson Wrote: 
> Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of being heavy-handed or over
> emotional.   I was merely trying to add some perspective to the
> situation.  We may as well be having a conversation about who has the
> shiniest apple.  Of course, it depends on the ambient light, the
> viewer's sensitivity to the color red, what they ate for breakfast that
> morning, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> We love waxing euphoric about the relative performance of this and
> that, and I believe we often lose sight of the fact that it's all moot.
> Sharing ideas is a good thing, but trying to do "online comparisons" is
> a virtual waste of time.  (Or should that be "a waste of virtual
> time"?)
> 
> -=> Mike Hanson <=-

No contest my apple was the shiniest!  But the free pony ate it :(


-- 
m1abrams
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Mike Hanson]

DrNic Wrote: 
> I was not intending to start a "rant" either back or forth!! Just (like
> everyone else) putting in another view point/opinion... :)
Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of being heavy-handed or over
emotional.   I was merely trying to add some perspective to the
situation.  We may as well be having a conversation about who has the
shiniest apple.  Of course, it depends on the ambient light, the
viewer's sensitivity to the color red, what they ate for breakfast that
morning, etc., etc., etc.

We love waxing euphoric about the relative performance of this and
that, and I believe we often lose sight of the fact that it's all moot.
Sharing ideas is a good thing, but trying to do "online comparisons" is
a virtual waste of time.  (Or should that be "a waste of virtual
time"?)

-=> Mike Hanson <=-


-- 
Mike Hanson
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[DrNic]

lostboy Wrote: 
> Just in case DrNic's language has confused the non British English users
> of this forum.  The phrase "As for FLAC - its the dogs" is (I think)
> meant to be short for " ... it's the dog's bollocks" -
> http://english2american.com/dictionary/b.html refers.  Of course I
> maybe wrong here :-), but I agree with the sentiment as interpreted.
> 
> Chris

Yep - the sentiment is correct!!

And to Mike Hanson - I was not intending to start a "rant" either back
or forth!! Just (like everyone else) putting in another view
point/opinion... :)
Though human frequency response is fundamental to interpreting music,
as a partially deaf person would be hard pushed to detect any
difference if they only had a range of 5kHz to 15kHz!! But I agree that
the end point is so personal and there is no perfect system for
reproducing music (unless we all get a bit acoustic and have the
musicians in our rooms - of course setup just as the artist wanted
-joke :) )

Nic


-- 
DrNic
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Mike Hanson]

DrNic Wrote: 
> I would love to see the spectral map of hearing for the audiophile set
> (and for the techs too) and then lets comment on how good the real
> "final stage" is in their systems... ! :)
Unfortunately, it's not just frequency response that counts here. 
There's also the sensitivy to the temporal (i.e. timing) elements of
the music.  Also, a system with a flat frequency response that can't
handle dynamics will still sound awful.

Some people are more senstive to the various aspects of music playback
than others.  Call them "goldears" or whatever.  Also, different people
will value different aspects in the musical playback (due to their
personal sensitivities and expectations, no doubt).  As they say,
"There no accounting for taste!" 

So I don't believe there's a perfect system that would satisfy
everyone.  We just have to try things out, and decide for ourselves. 
Ranting back and forth to each other on this board may be entertaining,
but beyond that it's pretty useless.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-


-- 
Mike Hanson
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[lostboy]

Just in case DrNic's language has confused the non British English users
of this forum.  The phrase "As for FLAC - its the dogs" is (I think)
meant to be short for " ... it's the dog's bollocks" -
http://english2american.com/dictionary/b.html refers.  Of course I
maybe wrong here :-), but I agree with the sentiment as interpreted.

Chris


-- 
lostboy
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[DrNic]

Okay - a lurker posting here. But not one who isn't interested in
attaining the highest quality sound for the most reasonable (wife
friendly) cost!!!

Coming from a scientific background (father electronic engineer) myself
an orthopaedic surgeon I think you may gather the slant I will have on
this thread. But to throw in the curve ball, have any of the
audiophiles gone to an audiometrist to have their hearing checked? I
mean, alot of the threads I read (here and elsewhere) that insight
controversy between "techies" and audiophiles generally end with the
statement that "I CAN hear the difference but just can't prove it
exists..." This is the whole beauty of music, as it sounds different to
us ALL (regardless of system being played back on). Yeah the notes are
the same etc but individual perception will never be.
Spending more money on the hardware certainly "levels the playing
field" but after a threshold the perceived differences seem to come
down to blind faith or the latest fad amongst of the scene.

I would love to see the spectral map of hearing for the audiophile set
(and for the techs too) and then lets comment on how good the real
"final stage" is in their systems... ! :)

As for FLAC - its the dogs, 
server side vs onboard SB2 decoding - still needing the consent to swap
out the old SB1!!

Nic

PS: m1abrams - liking your home built speakers BTW!


-- 
DrNic
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Aylwin]

Triode Wrote: 
> Now if this thread had been about the visualizer or scrolling text
> impacting the sound quality then it would be more interesting 
> [withdrawing quietly to see if this sparks some more comparison
> threads...]Well now that you mention it, I've noticed between the analog and
digital VU meter display that... ;)

Actually, this has been a very interesting thread.  When I started out
on this journey to audio madness, I was very much into measurements and
technical explanations.  Over time though I've become less and less so
inclined.  In the end, what matters is the sound.  

I can surely understand Timbo's view point.  You try something, you
hear a difference, then you try to find out why.  Some things you just
can't measure or explain but it doesn't mean nothing's actually
happening.  Personally, I can see no reason why there should be any
difference between FLAC vs. WAV or SB2-side vs. server-side decoding. 
But until I test it myself (maybe one of these days), I can't say for
sure.

It should be easy enough to do a blind test:
1. Pick a good quality track and convert to WAV.
2. Using that WAV, convert to FLAC.
3. As suggested by m1abrams, create 5 copies of each.  
4. Put them in the same folder.
5. Set the SB2 to play tracks randomly.
6. Browse folder and press play.
7. When you've heard enough, skip to the next track.
IMPORTANT:
8. Only note if the current track is different from the previous.
9. At the end, you should have 9 answers.
10. Go to the PC and check your answers.

Did I miss anything?  By the way, this test is based on an article
posted by Pat in another thread:
http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/

Aylwin


-- 
Aylwin
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Triode]

The theory being that the microprocessor executes sufficiently different
instructions between decompressing flac and wav to impact the psu in a
way that impacts the rest of the player?  I believe the processor uses
a 1.6V rail and the oscillator impacting jitter is 3.3V so there is
little chance of this [even if we believed the first assersion] 

Now if this thread had been about the visualizer or scrolling text
impacting the sound quality then it would be more interesting 
[withdrawing quietly to see if this sparks some more comparison
threads...]


-- 
Triode
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Yannzola]

from styx's ass Wrote: 
> The only plausible reason I can imagine for any audible difference is
> that increased stress to the PSU affects the voltage or noise to the
> clocks, which in turn produces jitter. Then again, I'm no electrical
> engineer, and might be talking out of my ass.

To me this sounds like a good challenge to all the 'lectrical engineers
out there. Are there any =measurable= differences in PSU voltage, clock
noise, etc, when the SB decodes a FLAC onboard vs. PCM streamed from
the server?

Get out your oscilloscopes, boys.

y. 

(definitely talking out of my ass... which, BTW is =not= a good way to
break the ice at parties)


-- 
Yannzola
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[m1abrams]

Patrick Dixon Wrote: 
> I understood that there were a number of tracks in the playlist, each in
> WAV/FLAC, and then randomly shuffled.  Seems 'blind' to me.

But then how would he quickly switch between the 2 same songs that have
one as flac and one as wav quickly without looking at the display? 
Unless he had more than just 1 of each of the same track, that might
work.  Have like 5 copies of the wav song and 5 copies of the flac
song, shuffle them, then play them through and vote on each one.  The
go back and compare results, however it may be tricky keeping track of
which song you voted on, this is why having a second person easier
cause then you can label the songs 1,2,3,4,5,etc and then give the
tester a sheet labeled accordingly.
This can not be done by the tester because he/she will know that 1 is
FLAC, etc.


-- 
m1abrams
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Patrick Dixon]

> Also when he loads up the playlist, how does he not know which track is
> which? If he only has two tracks I guess he could select shuffle, but
> you always will know which track you started with, and with just 2
> tracks not hard to figure which is which.I understood that there were a 
> number of tracks in the playlist, each in
WAV/FLAC, and then randomly shuffled.  Seems 'blind' to me.


-- 
Patrick Dixon

www.at-view.co.uk
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Pat Farrell]

On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 08:14 -0700, m1abrams wrote:
>  But it is generally consider not a true ABX test if done solo.

Good science usually requires a double blind test, where both the
person doing the test and person administering the test do
not know what is real and what is a placebo.

It would be possible, with enough effort, to make a machine
that could make the randomizing switches, record it, but
it wouldn't be trivial.



-- 
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html


___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[m1abrams]

Patrick Dixon Wrote: 
> Indeed.  All you need to do is to figure out exactly what measurements
> are required, and then what instruments and techniques you'll need to
> make them with.  As it happens, when it comes to equipment designed to
> reproduce music, I always reckon your ears are are pretty good
> substitute.
> 
> It sounded pretty good to me.  Why do you think it wasn't blind then?

My only real concern is he did not say wether he used the same wav rip
for both the wav sample and the flac sample.  Also when he loads up the
playlist, how does he not know which track is which?  If he only has two
tracks I guess he could select shuffle, but you always will know which
track you started with, and with just 2 tracks not hard to figure which
is which.  Not saying he did not truly know.  But it is generally
consider not a true ABX test if done solo.


-- 
m1abrams
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Patrick Dixon]

> Yes measurements are ALL that is needed,Indeed.  All you need to do is to 
> figure out exactly what measurements
are required, and then what instruments and techniques you'll need to
make them with.  As it happens, when it comes to equipment designed to
reproduce music, I always reckon your ears are are pretty good
substitute.

> However just a point of reference it is pretty much impossible to do a
> true blind test without assistance, yours is close but not truly blind.It 
> sounded pretty good to me.  Why do you think it wasn't blind then?


-- 
Patrick Dixon

www.at-view.co.uk
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[styx]

Please read his reply again!

m1abrams Wrote: 
> My complaint is your argument that by decoding FLAC to PCM (on any
> correctly working decoder) there is some how a change in the quality of
> the data.  Which it is just that DATA, and it is been proved over and
> over that it is the EXACT same data.  I do not care what the format
> original was in, if the data is exactly the same going into the DAC it
> will produce the same audio out of the DAC.  Any difference you can
> hear is placebo.

Timbo Wrote: 
> No, no, no - please, the bits are fine, the noise from the digital
> source (not the rest of the equipment) would effect the analogue
> circuitry (in the rest of the equipment). - doh!
The only plausible reason I can imagine for any audible difference is
that increased stress to the PSU affects the voltage or noise to the
clocks, which in turn produces jitter. Then again, I'm no electrical
engineer, and might be talking out of my ass.


-- 
styx
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[m1abrams]

> Please guys don’t try to ridicule me for wasting space - it’s my space
> and it is cheap and who knows what compression format will be with us
> in five years time - I am happy uncompressed WAV - you choose FLAC I
> will choose WAV - no problem.

This is my exact reason for using FLAC, because I can easily transcode
my entire collection to the next best codec (actually I already
transcode to mp3 for use on portables), yes you can do this with WAV
but as you have seen tagging WAV is not exactly easy and for my
collection having good tags is a requirement which i would assume would
be for anyone with a decent collection.

Sorry if I got a little ruffled.  You may have found a problem with the
SB2 FLAC decoder, however I can not test that because I only have a SQ1.
Work with the dev team about resolving the problem, they have been very
good at handling such items.  However just a point of reference it is
pretty much impossible to do a true blind test without assistance,
yours is close but not truly blind.  Also your tracks used, you had a
FLAC and WAV of each track right?

My complaint is your argument that by decoding FLAC to PCM (on any
correctly working decoder) there is some how a change in the quality of
the data.  Which it is just that DATA, and it is been proved over and
over that it is the EXACT same data.  I do not care what the format
original was in, if the data is exactly the same going into the DAC it
will produce the same audio out of the DAC.  Any difference you can
hear is placebo.

> What you mean there isn’t a measurable difference when you take two
> dissimilar metals (or whatever conductor you like) and join them (as in
> cable to connector via solder to circuit), no impedance change? No
> reverse electrons zooming back up the wire colliding with those coming
> down - in that case obviously there is also no advantage from a better
> or easy conductive load and no need to play with cable structure and
> build (as in Kimber cables excellent RFI dumping weave) or materials
> (as in carbon fibre mix or silver for vdh). Good luck with your
> speakers - try a bit of wet string to connect them to the amp
A marketing persons dream here.  Yes measurements are ALL that is
needed, their is no voodoo magic in audio or electronics.

My speakers actually are quite good, hooked them up with nice 14ga 2
conductor power cord, used bananna plugs just to make connecting easier
since I swap speakers out alot.  I have pics of the first set I built,
which are based on a design by another fellow.  These do not go very
low ~80 Hz (small drivers), however the are very precise in the vocal
range and highs.  Which is good since I made these for my Home Theatre
and use a subwoofer to cver the areas below what these speakers can
drive.  I had to use small drivers because I am married and the wife
has final word what can go in the living room, and she does not value
function of form as much as I do.  My next project will be a pair of
nice 2-way bookshelf speakers for the "listening" room.

http://www.thetank.org/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=speakerproj


-- 
m1abrams
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Timbo]

Oh dear well - I think it’s best if I leave this particular topic alone
as it seems my audiophile type ‘discussion’ has riled a few folk here
and I can really do without that and I know everyone else can as well.
I am very happy with my choice of formats (for me) and I was only
contributing to what I thought was a interesting thread and offering up
my personal findings. So final post...

>there's little to talk about here without a blind comparison being
done
>Do a true blind test and post the results
>As of your last post, I don't recall a true blind test having been
conducted. Have you had the chance to do that yet?

OK - playlist of comparison tracks - various formats (not just FLAC and
WAV) all with same title, sorted into track order (not format). Sit on
sofa with SB display turned off, listen to tracks, ‘zapp’ to zapped
playlist tracks I feel don’t make the grade (when switching backwards
and forwards doing typical comparison as I would do with new piece of
equipment or whatever). What’s left was WAV - 100%. This was with
built-in decoding. I can ‘barely’ hear any difference (and perhaps
there isn’t any difference) when doing this with PC side decoding - but
can’t do that blind as need another pair of hands which I don’t have.

>store it as FLAC and stream it as PCM (server side decoding).

That’s actually a very good idea - I did try it and like I said in an
earlier post I ‘thought’ I could still tell a difference but wasn’t
sure - probably placebo - but space is cheap and honestly, really I
don’t mind using the extra space. 

> It is just plain silly and wasteful to use WAV when a solution like
FLAC is available regardless of how much money you can spend on gear

Please guys don’t try to ridicule me for wasting space - it’s my space
and it is cheap and who knows what compression format will be with us
in five years time - I am happy uncompressed WAV - you choose FLAC I
will choose WAV - no problem.

>Bits are Bits, either they make it or they don’t. You would have to
have some serious amount of noise coming from that expensive equipment
of yours to cause the bits to be scambled

No, no, no - please, the bits are fine, the noise from the digital
source (not the rest of the equipment) would effect the analogue
circuitry (in the rest of the equipment). - doh!  

> And my favorite you mention exotic cable, LMAO. Sorry its the
engineer in me. Not that this means anything on the Big internet, but I
have a degree in Electrical Engineering, currently a software developer,
and build my own speakers, and speakers for friends. I build my own
speakers not because I am cheap, but because I can

What you mean there isn’t a measurable difference when you take two
dissimilar metals (or whatever conductor you like) and join them (as in
cable to connector via solder to circuit), no impedance change? No
reverse electrons zooming back up the wire colliding with those coming
down - in that case obviously there is also no advantage from a better
or easy conductive load and no need to play with cable structure and
build (as in Kimber cables excellent RFI dumping weave) or materials
(as in carbon fibre mix or silver for vdh). Good luck with your
speakers - try a bit of wet string to connect them to the amp

> The reason I can't hear any difference between FLAC->WAV and WAV is
that there IS no difference, it's nothing to do with how much my
speakers cost. Mathematics trumps placebo every time.

Rubbish! Math is a tool used to prove a theory - all you have proved is
the theory that a WAV file is bit identical to a decoded FLAC file. Now
use math to prove that a WAV file decoded on the PC ‘sounds’ exactly
the same as one decoded on the SB2. You might have to think out of the
box here.

Ok - I'm outa here...:-) 

(PS thanks to those who saw I wasn't trying to rock any boats - just
stating my findings... :-)


-- 
Timbo
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Mitch Harding]

I don't think he is claiming that the bits are getting changed en
route to the SB2.

He is claiming that when the SB2 has to do the decoding itself,
perhaps this results in some interference that is audible.

However, I agree that a blind test is required in order to establish this.

On 7/19/05, m1abrams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Timbo Wrote:
> > Hi there - I hear what you say and agree that if space is an issue (or
> > bandwidth if you are wireless) then FLAC certainly adds up to a good
> > idea - but - in my case, in my system, with my ears, I don't *hear*
> > EXACTLY the same quality (and I am not alone) - when it comes to audio
> > quality a few extra quid spent on more HD space (under £70 for a 250gb
> > HD!) is not an issue here.
> >
> > What goes in may be what comes out when you compare 'bits' - but I have
> > played with this some more over the last few days (I don't take lightly
> > the format I will choose to archive some hundreds of CDs) and on a well
> > recorded CD track I can spot a FLAC decode instantly on the first few
> > bars. This means for me it's a no-brainer.
> >
> > Just let me say obviously if your system isn't able to deliver the
> > subtle nuances involved you will of course not hear any difference -
> > and the system is only as good as it's weakest link - which might be
> > our ears of course (I know mine aren't what they were after 35 years of
> > interest in the hobby!).
> >
> > I am not sure what is going on here, but perhaps the analogue audio
> > circuits in my pre-amp may be ultra sensitive to digital noise
> > generated by the SB2 doing it's internal decoding of FLAC sat just
> > above it (it would be interesting to measure this against the same
> > noise generated by internal WAV decoding?). I know that Meridian all
> > digital systems support the digital domain right up until the last
> > moment, only converting to the delicate analogue domain (with all it's
> > susceptibilities to outside interference) at the very last minute. I
> > prefer the analogue sound however, so my Meridian system contains
> > mostly analogue components.
> >
> > Who knows the exact reason why I can hear the difference between WAV
> > and FLAC, I certainly don't, but it doesn't worry me or cause me
> > anxiety. I am not one of those technical guys who can't envisage
> > anything effecting sound other than that which can be measured - we are
> > talking Hi-Fi here remember. Technical measurements are what design the
> > goods and get us to the gate - but to go through the gate every hi-fi
> > manufacturer understands you have to listen and then fine tune the
> > product with your ears.
> >
> > If technical measurements were all that mattered in hi-fi then we
> > wouldn't bother upgrading cables with exotic mixes (and even stranger -
> > exotic cable insulating materials!). We wouldn't be discussing whether a
> > CD sounds better if you don't pause it during replay (ok that's really
> > weird but just ask Jimmy Hughes!), there wouldn't be such things as
> > turntables with cartridge and arm combinations costing more than my car
> > - and there wouldn't be those who still prefer glowing valves and a nice
> > set of horn speakers! And I wouldn't be able to hear a better sounding
> > system after running the Denson De Magic CD - but I can :-)
> >
> > But please let's not forget we are talking about a £150 box with an
> > Ethernet adapter sat on top of my hi-fi, streaming digital  data from
> > my PC - and it wasn't long ago I would turn off my PC to listen to my
> > hi-fi as the digital noise down the mains had a negative effect on the
> > sound (this is common practice and if you have one of Russ Andrews
> > mains sniffers you will actually 'hear' the noise yourself).
> >
> > No - this Squeezebox (V2) is unbelievably good and in every respects
> > approaching audiophile quality (and not by accident either if I read
> > the specs right!)  so a little debate about file encoding preferences
> > is to be expected in the audiophile forum. Oops, and I have just
> > noticed how long this 'little debate' post is - please forgive my rants
> > and I hope at least someone might find my remarks of interest :-)
> 
> I am sorry but you have to be kidding me right, is this a troll?  Cause
> it is a good one if it is.
> 
> Bits are Bits, either they make it or they dont.  You would have to
> have some serious amount of noise coming from that expensive equipment
> of yours to cause the bits to be scambled, yet your equipment can still
> sync on it AMAZING.  I am not defending SB right now, just plain old
> common sense.  FLAC is a lossless compresion format and a very good one
> at that.  The author and community take great pride in making sure the
> codecs for it are up to snuff.  Lossless is just that NO LOSS, what
> goes in comes out the same.  It is just plain silly and wasteful to use
> WAV when a solution like FLAC is available regardless of how much money
> you can spend on gear.
> 
> And my favorite y

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Jacob Potter]

On 7/19/05, m1abrams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am sorry but you have to be kidding me right, is this a troll?  Cause
> it is a good one if it is.
> 
> Bits are Bits, either they make it or they dont.  You would have to
> have some serious amount of noise coming from that expensive equipment
> of yours to cause the bits to be scambled, yet your equipment can still
> sync on it AMAZING.  I am not defending SB right now, just plain old
> common sense.  FLAC is a lossless compresion format and a very good one
> at that.  The author and community take great pride in making sure the
> codecs for it are up to snuff.  Lossless is just that NO LOSS, what
> goes in comes out the same.  It is just plain silly and wasteful to use
> WAV when a solution like FLAC is available regardless of how much money
> you can spend on gear.

In his defense, I will admit that there is a remote possibility that
there could be an audible difference between client-side FLAC decode
and server-side FLAC decode. Higher CPU usage on the SB2 -> higher
power draw -> higher noise -> jitter? Not saying I think it's the
case, just that it's concievable.

But you're right, it is flat-out IMPOSSIBLE for how the data is stored
on the hard drive to make a difference in the sound.

- Jacob
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[m1abrams]

Timbo Wrote: 
> Hi there - I hear what you say and agree that if space is an issue (or
> bandwidth if you are wireless) then FLAC certainly adds up to a good
> idea - but - in my case, in my system, with my ears, I don't *hear*
> EXACTLY the same quality (and I am not alone) - when it comes to audio
> quality a few extra quid spent on more HD space (under £70 for a 250gb
> HD!) is not an issue here.
> 
> What goes in may be what comes out when you compare 'bits' - but I have
> played with this some more over the last few days (I don’t take lightly
> the format I will choose to archive some hundreds of CDs) and on a well
> recorded CD track I can spot a FLAC decode instantly on the first few
> bars. This means for me it’s a no-brainer.
> 
> Just let me say obviously if your system isn't able to deliver the
> subtle nuances involved you will of course not hear any difference -
> and the system is only as good as it's weakest link - which might be
> our ears of course (I know mine aren’t what they were after 35 years of
> interest in the hobby!).
> 
> I am not sure what is going on here, but perhaps the analogue audio
> circuits in my pre-amp may be ultra sensitive to digital noise
> generated by the SB2 doing it's internal decoding of FLAC sat just
> above it (it would be interesting to measure this against the same
> noise generated by internal WAV decoding?). I know that Meridian all
> digital systems support the digital domain right up until the last
> moment, only converting to the delicate analogue domain (with all it’s
> susceptibilities to outside interference) at the very last minute. I
> prefer the analogue sound however, so my Meridian system contains
> mostly analogue components.
> 
> Who knows the exact reason why I can hear the difference between WAV
> and FLAC, I certainly don’t, but it doesn’t worry me or cause me
> anxiety. I am not one of those technical guys who can't envisage
> anything effecting sound other than that which can be measured - we are
> talking Hi-Fi here remember. Technical measurements are what design the
> goods and get us to the gate - but to go through the gate every hi-fi
> manufacturer understands you have to listen and then fine tune the
> product with your ears.
> 
> If technical measurements were all that mattered in hi-fi then we
> wouldn’t bother upgrading cables with exotic mixes (and even stranger -
> exotic cable insulating materials!). We wouldn’t be discussing whether a
> CD sounds better if you don’t pause it during replay (ok that’s really
> weird but just ask Jimmy Hughes!), there wouldn’t be such things as
> turntables with cartridge and arm combinations costing more than my car
> - and there wouldn’t be those who still prefer glowing valves and a nice
> set of horn speakers! And I wouldn’t be able to hear a better sounding
> system after running the Denson De Magic CD - but I can :-)
> 
> But please let’s not forget we are talking about a £150 box with an
> Ethernet adapter sat on top of my hi-fi, streaming digital  data from
> my PC - and it wasn’t long ago I would turn off my PC to listen to my
> hi-fi as the digital noise down the mains had a negative effect on the
> sound (this is common practice and if you have one of Russ Andrews
> mains sniffers you will actually ‘hear’ the noise yourself).
> 
> No - this Squeezebox (V2) is unbelievably good and in every respects
> approaching audiophile quality (and not by accident either if I read
> the specs right!)  so a little debate about file encoding preferences
> is to be expected in the audiophile forum. Oops, and I have just
> noticed how long this ‘little debate’ post is - please forgive my rants
> and I hope at least someone might find my remarks of interest :-)

I am sorry but you have to be kidding me right, is this a troll?  Cause
it is a good one if it is.

Bits are Bits, either they make it or they dont.  You would have to
have some serious amount of noise coming from that expensive equipment
of yours to cause the bits to be scambled, yet your equipment can still
sync on it AMAZING.  I am not defending SB right now, just plain old
common sense.  FLAC is a lossless compresion format and a very good one
at that.  The author and community take great pride in making sure the
codecs for it are up to snuff.  Lossless is just that NO LOSS, what
goes in comes out the same.  It is just plain silly and wasteful to use
WAV when a solution like FLAC is available regardless of how much money
you can spend on gear.

And my favorite you mention exotic cable, LMAO.  Sorry its the engineer
in me.  Not that this means anything on the Big internet, but I have a
degree in Electrical Engineering, currently a software developer, and
build my own speakers, and speakers for friends.  I build my own
speakers not because I am cheap, but because I can.

Do a true blind test and post the results.


-- 
m1abrams
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http:/

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[radish]

So store it as FLAC and stream it as PCM (server side decoding). Then
you're getting exactly the same data going to the SB2, thus negating
any differences caused by RF coming out of the processor (!?!), but
with the addition of easy tagging and 30-40% more available storage.
Bargain!

> Just let me say obviously if your system isn't able to deliver the
> subtle nuances involved you will of course not hear any difference 

And I'd like to say that I found this phrase rather obnoxious - though
I'm sure it was unintentional. The reason I can't hear any difference
between FLAC->WAV and WAV is that there IS no difference, it's nothing
to do with how much my speakers cost. Mathematics trumps placebo every
time.


-- 
radish
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Mitch Harding]

As of your last post, I don't recall a true blind test having been
conducted.  Have you had the chance to do that yet?

On 7/19/05, Timbo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> m1abrams Wrote:
> > Why?  FLAC produces bit for bit identical to the WAV file, you can test
> > this by ripping a CD to PCM wav, then taking that wav encoding it to
> > flac but save the original wave.  Now decode the flac back to wav and
> > perform an md5sum of the two wave files, unless your encoder/decoder is
> > broken they will be identical.  This is the procedure that is even on
> > the FLAC website on how to verfiy the encoder/decoder.
> >
> > With FLAC you get the quality EXACLY the same as WAV plus you get
> > about 2x the storage and 1/2 the needed bandwidth, and you get TAG
> > support.
> 
> Hi there - I hear what you say and agree that if space is an issue (or
> bandwidth if you are wireless) then FLAC certainly adds up to a good
> idea - but - in my case, in my system, with my ears, I don't *hear*
> EXACTLY the same quality (and I am not alone) - when it comes to audio
> quality a few extra quid spent on more HD space (under £70 for a 250gb
> HD!) is not an issue here.
> 
> What goes in may be what comes out when you compare 'bits' - but I have
> played with this some more over the last few days (I don't take lightly
> the format I will choose to archive some hundreds of CDs) and on a well
> recorded CD track I can spot a FLAC decode instantly on the first few
> bars. This means for me it's a no-brainer.
> 
> Just let me say obviously if your system isn't able to deliver the
> subtle nuances involved you will of course not hear any difference -
> and the system is only as good as it's weakest link - which might be
> our ears of course (I know mine aren't what they were after 35 years of
> interest in the hobby!).
> 
> I am not sure what is going on here, but perhaps the analogue audio
> circuits in my pre-amp may be ultra sensitive to digital noise
> generated by the SB2 doing it's internal decoding of FLAC sat just
> above it (it would be interesting to measure this against the same
> noise generated by internal WAV decoding?). I know that Meridian all
> digital systems support the digital domain right up until the last
> moment, only converting to the delicate analogue domain (with all it's
> susceptibilities to outside interference) at the very last minute. I
> prefer the analogue sound however, so my Meridian system contains
> mostly analogue components.
> 
> Who knows the exact reason why I can hear the difference between WAV
> and FLAC, I certainly don't, but it doesn't worry me or cause me
> anxiety. I am not one of those technical guys who can't envisage
> anything effecting sound other than that which can be measured - we are
> talking Hi-Fi here remember. Technical measurements are what design the
> goods and get us to the gate - but to go through the gate every hi-fi
> manufacturer understands you have to listen and then fine tune the
> product with your ears.
> 
> If technical measurements were all that mattered in hi-fi then we
> wouldn't bother upgrading cables with exotic mixes (and even stranger -
> exotic cable insulating materials!). We wouldn't be discussing whether a
> CD sounds better if you don't pause it during replay (ok that's really
> weird but just ask Jimmy Hughes!), there wouldn't be such things as
> turntables with cartridge and arm combinations costing more than my car
> - and there wouldn't be those who still prefer glowing valves and a nice
> set of horn speakers! And I wouldn't be able to hear a better sounding
> system after running the Denson De Magic CD - but I can :-)
> 
> But please let's not forget we are talking about a £150 box with an
> Ethernet adapter sat on top of my hi-fi, streaming digital  data from
> my PC - and it wasn't long ago I would turn off my PC to listen to my
> hi-fi as the digital noise down the mains had a negative effect on the
> sound (this is common practice and if you have one of Russ Andrews
> mains sniffers you will actually 'hear' the noise yourself).
> 
> No - this Squeezebox (V2) is unbelievably good and in every respects
> approaching audiophile quality (and not by accident either if I read
> the specs right!)  so a little debate about file encoding preferences
> is to be expected in the audiophile forum. Oops, and I have just
> noticed how long this 'little debate' post is - please forgive my rants
> and I hope at least someone might find my remarks of interest :-)
> 
> 
> --
> Timbo
> ___
> audiophiles mailing list
> audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
> http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
>
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Timbo]

m1abrams Wrote: 
> Why?  FLAC produces bit for bit identical to the WAV file, you can test
> this by ripping a CD to PCM wav, then taking that wav encoding it to
> flac but save the original wave.  Now decode the flac back to wav and
> perform an md5sum of the two wave files, unless your encoder/decoder is
> broken they will be identical.  This is the procedure that is even on
> the FLAC website on how to verfiy the encoder/decoder.
> 
> With FLAC you get the quality EXACLY the same as WAV plus you get 
> about 2x the storage and 1/2 the needed bandwidth, and you get TAG
> support.

Hi there - I hear what you say and agree that if space is an issue (or
bandwidth if you are wireless) then FLAC certainly adds up to a good
idea - but - in my case, in my system, with my ears, I don't *hear*
EXACTLY the same quality (and I am not alone) - when it comes to audio
quality a few extra quid spent on more HD space (under £70 for a 250gb
HD!) is not an issue here.

What goes in may be what comes out when you compare 'bits' - but I have
played with this some more over the last few days (I don’t take lightly
the format I will choose to archive some hundreds of CDs) and on a well
recorded CD track I can spot a FLAC decode instantly on the first few
bars. This means for me it’s a no-brainer.

Just let me say obviously if your system isn't able to deliver the
subtle nuances involved you will of course not hear any difference -
and the system is only as good as it's weakest link - which might be
our ears of course (I know mine aren’t what they were after 35 years of
interest in the hobby!).

I am not sure what is going on here, but perhaps the analogue audio
circuits in my pre-amp may be ultra sensitive to digital noise
generated by the SB2 doing it's internal decoding of FLAC sat just
above it (it would be interesting to measure this against the same
noise generated by internal WAV decoding?). I know that Meridian all
digital systems support the digital domain right up until the last
moment, only converting to the delicate analogue domain (with all it’s
susceptibilities to outside interference) at the very last minute. I
prefer the analogue sound however, so my Meridian system contains
mostly analogue components.

Who knows the exact reason why I can hear the difference between WAV
and FLAC, I certainly don’t, but it doesn’t worry me or cause me
anxiety. I am not one of those technical guys who can't envisage
anything effecting sound other than that which can be measured - we are
talking Hi-Fi here remember. Technical measurements are what design the
goods and get us to the gate - but to go through the gate every hi-fi
manufacturer understands you have to listen and then fine tune the
product with your ears.

If technical measurements were all that mattered in hi-fi then we
wouldn’t bother upgrading cables with exotic mixes (and even stranger -
exotic cable insulating materials!). We wouldn’t be discussing whether a
CD sounds better if you don’t pause it during replay (ok that’s really
weird but just ask Jimmy Hughes!), there wouldn’t be such things as
turntables with cartridge and arm combinations costing more than my car
- and there wouldn’t be those who still prefer glowing valves and a nice
set of horn speakers! And I wouldn’t be able to hear a better sounding
system after running the Denson De Magic CD - but I can :-)

But please let’s not forget we are talking about a £150 box with an
Ethernet adapter sat on top of my hi-fi, streaming digital  data from
my PC - and it wasn’t long ago I would turn off my PC to listen to my
hi-fi as the digital noise down the mains had a negative effect on the
sound (this is common practice and if you have one of Russ Andrews
mains sniffers you will actually ‘hear’ the noise yourself).

No - this Squeezebox (V2) is unbelievably good and in every respects
approaching audiophile quality (and not by accident either if I read
the specs right!)  so a little debate about file encoding preferences
is to be expected in the audiophile forum. Oops, and I have just
noticed how long this ‘little debate’ post is - please forgive my rants
and I hope at least someone might find my remarks of interest :-)


-- 
Timbo
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[julian2002]

tried it on a few songs (not blind though) and couldn;t hear any
difference between internal and external. actually my server is so poor
there was a stutter on external (server side) decoding so i'm sticking
with internal.
cheers


julian.


-- 
julian2002
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[m1abrams]

Timbo Wrote: 
> 
> 
> What I would like to know from someone however is - bearing in mind I
> would really like to store my sound files uncompressed - then how do I
> get EAC to do this and not end up with a WAV file I can’t tag :-/

Why?  FLAC produces bit for bit identical to the WAV file, you can test
this by ripping a CD to PCM wav, then taking that wav encoding it to
flac but save the original wave.  Now decode the flac back to wav and
perform an md5sum of the two wave files, unless your encoder/decoder is
broken they will be identical.  This is the procedure that is even on
the FLAC website on how to verfiy the encoder/decoder.

With FLAC you get the quality EXACLY the same as WAV plus you get 
about 2x the storage and 1/2 the needed bandwidth, and you get TAG
support.


-- 
m1abrams
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Mitch Harding]

I have to agree with Sean and some of the others -- there's little to
talk about here without a blind comparison being done.  Without that,
there is too much room for error.

On 7/11/05, Timbo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> seanadams Wrote:
> > please back up these claims. You are saying that based on a non-blind
> > subjective listen, our FLAC implementation is *broken*. The correctness
> > of our FLAC decoder is empirical and all you need to do is save the bits
> > at the output to test it.
> >
> > Please note that our implementation:
> >
> > 1) is based on the official FLAC sources - it is the exact same code
> > base as the one that's running on your computer.
> > 2) has been tested by us for bit-perfect output, by recording PCM
> > output back into a computer
> > 3) has also been confirmed by us and others to pass through non-PCM
> > bitstreams correctly
> > 4) has also be tested by the author of FLAC, Josh Coalson, for
> > compatibility with the included test suite
> >
> > There are a couple known bugs and feature requests but none concerning
> > accuracy, which is the entire point of using FLAC!
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/ak3vc
> 
> Hi Sean - well first of all am I correct in thinking that by
> deselecting the FLAC -> FLAC (built-in) and leaving FLAC -> WAV (flac)
> ticked that I am getting PC server side decoding anyway? I could be
> hearing anything making a difference if that isn't the reason?
> 
> Secondly who said anything about your decoding implementation being
> *broken*, me-thinks you might be a tad overreacting here. I am really
> talking about the FLAC as compared to WAV issue - just thought the tick
> box made a difference that's all - will test again in a moment.
> 
> Rest assured no criticism was intended of the most excellent SB2 -
> after all I have raved about it elsewhere and it is undeniably far too
> good for the price point (put one in a silver hi-fi box with half a
> brick to make it heavier and I would probably have paid 4 times the
> price - and still be amazed at the sound!! :-)
> 
> Anyway, sorry if my initial long post seemed griping, not intentional I
> assure you - you're the technician and know about these things - I just
> listen to what my ears tell me and thought someone might be able to
> tell me why they seemed to be hearing what they were hearing?
> 
> OK - I am doing this as I write so this is fresh - I won't get into
> built-in v server side decoding yet as I need to make sure I am hearing
> something real...so with all conversion tick boxes as they arrived first
> I compare FLAC to WAV.
> 
> I play a FLAC track (Kate Melua - Crawling up a Hill from Call of the
> Search) and it sounds great, nicely turned out and generally fine. I
> rewind and play the first few bars again and then immediately flick on
> to the WAV version that sits below in the playlist (I know, I know but
> I tried doing this blind and just kept ending up playing the wrong
> track!). The difference is harder to describe than I seemed to hear
> last night - there's just slightly more, it's slightly more impressive.
> The best way to describe it is after listening all the way through the
> FLAC track and feeling fine, then the WAV track starts to play and it's
> as though your ears prick-up and take notice - I like it, I can't
> rationalise exactly why but to me there just seems 'more'. Ok so that
> shouldn't be if bits are just bits and data is just data - but to my
> ears and in my system FLAC doesn't do for me what WAV does.
> 
> Right - now let's flick the switch on those conversions (leaving only
> FLAC -> WAV flac ticked in the FLAC options) and see what happens
> now...
> 
> OK this is more difficult, immediately I thought the FLAC track was the
> WAV track, then I checked and it wasn't, then I rewound and listened to
> the first few bars again and flicked to the WAV track. Now I find it
> more difficult to tell the two apart. So I sit back and listen without
> trying to judge...and my foot is tapping to both tracks, maybe a slight
> edge to the WAV track but this is so slight now as to be easily
> dismissed as placebo...sorry.
> 
> OK that's me done...will leave it to the rest of you guys to sort out
> why I am hearing what I think I am hearing - except to say maybe the
> SB2 decoding means the circuit is working harder and so the audio is a
> little less relaxed - I know it's just digits..but..?
> 
> All I need to do now is find out how to tag WAV's from EAC so I can see
> them on my SB2? Sorry to cause a stir :-)
> 
> 
> --
> Timbo
> ___
> audiophiles mailing list
> audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
> http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
>
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Yannzola]

Tried it again... and still can't hear a diffrence. Any others care to
give it a go?

y.


-- 
Yannzola
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[John Gorst]

Yannzola wrote:

Okay...
So I listened to the same track over and over and over again with
FLAC>>WAV vs. FLAC>>(onboard). Tried it blind (had my wife induge me by
engaging/disengaing the toggle and rstarting the track.

Result: I couldn't honestly hear any diffrence. But... I'm not certain
that the track was being re-sent to the SB each time. Is there a way to
tell what is being sent (WAV or FLAC)?


If you are converting to wav on the server side then falc should appear 
in the process list whilst playing the track.


___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Yannzola]

Okay...
So I listened to the same track over and over and over again with
FLAC>>WAV vs. FLAC>>(onboard). Tried it blind (had my wife induge me by
engaging/disengaing the toggle and rstarting the track.

Result: I couldn't honestly hear any diffrence. But... I'm not certain
that the track was being re-sent to the SB each time. Is there a way to
tell what is being sent (WAV or FLAC)?

y.


-- 
Yannzola
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[seanadams]

Yannzola Wrote: 
> Okay,
> I'm game. I'll try a HEARING test this eve... Sean, are the steps Timbo
> performed (deselecting all FLAC>XXX conversion options except for
> FLAC>WAV) the correct way to test for this?
> 
> y.

That should do it.


-- 
seanadams
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Yannzola]

Okay,
I'm game. I'll try a HEARING test this eve... Sean, are the steps Timbo
performed (deselecting all FLAC>XXX conversion options except for
FLAC>WAV) the correct way to test for this?

y.

seanadams Wrote: 
> Like I said in the wired vs wireless topic: I am not going to entertain
> the idea that there's a problem until someone can either HEAR or
> MEASURE it. Either of those tests is extremely easy to perform.


-- 
Yannzola
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[seanadams]

Yannzola Wrote: 
> Can the process involved in converting the FLAC onboard somehow effect
> the sound? 

Like I said in the wired vs wireless topic: I am not going to entertain
the idea that there's a problem until someone can either HEAR or MEASURE
it. Either of those tests is extremely easy to perform.


-- 
seanadams
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Timbo]

Yannzola Wrote: 
> I don't think Timbo is claiming that he isn't getting the same data out
> (bit wise)... only that he is hearing a difference between a raw WAV
> file sent directly to the SB vs. the same info sent as a FLAC file
> decoded onboard.y.

Exactly - thanks...:-)


-- 
Timbo
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Timbo]

seanadams Wrote: 
> FLAC is by definition lossless. If you're not getting the same data out
> that you put in, then it's broken in every sense of the word.
You said you tested your implementation (which after all is the same
standard code in software regardless of where it is implemented) and
you get out what you put in - so - it isn't broke. 

Maybe what we measure is not all that is there? Or maybe what we do
measure is not effecting the sound - maybe it is the actual act of
deconstruction and reconstruction that effects something indefinable
that we cannot measure - and perhaps when this is performed on a
separate CPU a long way away from the audio circuits things sound
better...?

Anyway, nuff of all this audiophile stuff - it doesn’t matter because
your product is performing to specification and that specification is
excellent!

What I would like to know from someone however is - bearing in mind I
would really like to store my sound files uncompressed - then how do I
get EAC to do this and not end up with a WAV file I can’t tag :-/


-- 
Timbo
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Yannzola]

I don't think Timbo is claiming that he isn't getting the same data out
(bit wise)... only that he is hearing a difference between a raw WAV
file sent directly to the SB vs. the same info sent as a FLAC file
decoded onboard. 

>From my reading of Timbo's post, it seems he agrees that both the FLAC
and the raw WAV file when sent as a WAV to the SB (bypassing the
internal FLAC decoding) both sound essentially identical.

So... it seems to me the question not that the FLAC and WAV contain
diffrent data, but how the process of onboard decoding potentially
effects the output. Can the process involved in converting the FLAC
onboard somehow effect the sound? 

y.

seanadams Wrote: 
> FLAC is by definition lossless. If you're not getting the same data out
> that you put in, then it's broken in every sense of the word.


-- 
Yannzola
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[seanadams]

Timbo Wrote: 
> 
> Secondly who said anything about your decoding implementation being
> *broken*, me-thinks you might be a tad overreacting here.

FLAC is by definition lossless. If you're not getting the same data out
that you put in, then it's broken in every sense of the word.


-- 
seanadams
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Timbo]

>Two last trick: you need bubbles in the water (so you have to change it
quite frequently) and the glass need a tuning period. It wont work out
of the box (and don't clean it to often).

You jest, but how true your words - the bubbles would no doubt oscilate
at approx. 50-60khz and have an effect - however reflections from the
glass itself would make measurement difficultnow maybe if we drink
the wine instead of trying to place it on the SB2.aah that sounds
better already...now wheres my large spoon;-)


-- 
Timbo
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Timbo]

seanadams Wrote: 
> please back up these claims. You are saying that based on a non-blind
> subjective listen, our FLAC implementation is *broken*. The correctness
> of our FLAC decoder is empirical and all you need to do is save the bits
> at the output to test it.
> 
> Please note that our implementation:
> 
> 1) is based on the official FLAC sources - it is the exact same code
> base as the one that's running on your computer.
> 2) has been tested by us for bit-perfect output, by recording PCM
> output back into a computer
> 3) has also been confirmed by us and others to pass through non-PCM
> bitstreams correctly
> 4) has also be tested by the author of FLAC, Josh Coalson, for
> compatibility with the included test suite
> 
> There are a couple known bugs and feature requests but none concerning
> accuracy, which is the entire point of using FLAC!
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/ak3vc

Hi Sean - well first of all am I correct in thinking that by
deselecting the FLAC -> FLAC (built-in) and leaving FLAC -> WAV (flac)
ticked that I am getting PC server side decoding anyway? I could be
hearing anything making a difference if that isn’t the reason?

Secondly who said anything about your decoding implementation being
*broken*, me-thinks you might be a tad overreacting here. I am really
talking about the FLAC as compared to WAV issue - just thought the tick
box made a difference that’s all - will test again in a moment. 

Rest assured no criticism was intended of the most excellent SB2 -
after all I have raved about it elsewhere and it is undeniably far too
good for the price point (put one in a silver hi-fi box with half a
brick to make it heavier and I would probably have paid 4 times the
price - and still be amazed at the sound!! :-)

Anyway, sorry if my initial long post seemed griping, not intentional I
assure you - you’re the technician and know about these things - I just
listen to what my ears tell me and thought someone might be able to
tell me why they seemed to be hearing what they were hearing?

OK - I am doing this as I write so this is fresh - I won’t get into
built-in v server side decoding yet as I need to make sure I am hearing
something real...so with all conversion tick boxes as they arrived first
I compare FLAC to WAV.

I play a FLAC track (Kate Melua - Crawling up a Hill from Call of the
Search) and it sounds great, nicely turned out and generally fine. I
rewind and play the first few bars again and then immediately flick on
to the WAV version that sits below in the playlist (I know, I know but
I tried doing this blind and just kept ending up playing the wrong
track!). The difference is harder to describe than I seemed to hear
last night - there’s just slightly more, it’s slightly more impressive.
The best way to describe it is after listening all the way through the
FLAC track and feeling fine, then the WAV track starts to play and it’s
as though your ears prick-up and take notice - I like it, I can’t
rationalise exactly why but to me there just seems ‘more’. Ok so that
shouldn’t be if bits are just bits and data is just data - but to my
ears and in my system FLAC doesn’t do for me what WAV does.

Right - now let’s flick the switch on those conversions (leaving only
FLAC -> WAV flac ticked in the FLAC options) and see what happens
now...

OK this is more difficult, immediately I thought the FLAC track was the
WAV track, then I checked and it wasn’t, then I rewound and listened to
the first few bars again and flicked to the WAV track. Now I find it
more difficult to tell the two apart. So I sit back and listen without
trying to judge...and my foot is tapping to both tracks, maybe a slight
edge to the WAV track but this is so slight now as to be easily
dismissed as placebo...sorry.

OK that’s me done...will leave it to the rest of you guys to sort out
why I am hearing what I think I am hearing - except to say maybe the
SB2 decoding means the circuit is working harder and so the audio is a
little less relaxed - I know it’s just digits..but..?

All I need to do now is find out how to tag WAV’s from EAC so I can see
them on my SB2? Sorry to cause a stir :-)


-- 
Timbo
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Fabrice Rossi]

Fifer a écrit :

There's a good reason for this effect. If you read the label, you'll
find that San Pellegrino is a mild diuretic and the perceived
improvement is a result of taking the p**s.


Great explanation (as a poor French I dad to google a little bit to 
really understand it...). But I thought that driking the wine would also 
help in improving the sound, and it seems it does not. Being an 
audiophile is really tough.


Fabrice
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Fifer]

There's a good reason for this effect. If you read the label, you'll
find that San Pellegrino is a mild diuretic and the perceived
improvement is a result of taking the p**s.


-- 
Fifer
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[seanadams]

please back up these claims. You are saying that based on a non-blind
subjective listen, our FLAC implementation is *broken*. The correctness
of our FLAC decoder is empirical and all you need to do is save the bits
at the output to test it.

Please note that our implementation:

1) is based on the official FLAC sources - it is the exact same code
base as the one that's running on your computer.
2) has been tested by us for bit-perfect output, by recording PCM
output back into a computer
3) has also been confirmed by us and others to pass through non-PCM
bitstreams correctly
4) has also be tested by the author of FLAC, Josh Coalson, for
compatibility with the included test suite

There are a couple known bugs and feature requests but none concerning
accuracy, which is the entire point of using FLAC!

http://tinyurl.com/ak3vc


-- 
seanadams
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[Ken]

Timbo wrote:


Hi there folks - I wonder if anyone can comment on my findings here as I
think my brain has seized (well it is 1:30am and I shouldn’t be playing
with my Squeezebox at this time of night...;-)

Anyway after reading all the advice on the forum I eventually settled
(after much trial and error!) on EAC for ripping and FLAC for
compression (I would prefer to use totally uncompressed WAV or AIFF as
I have loads of space and a wired connection to the SB2 - but obviously
no tags for WAV show through in SlimServer and as far as I can make out
there is no native support in EAC for making AIFF files (unless I
missed something?)

Anyway, just to check that FLAC really is no different to streaming the
uncompressed WAV/AIFF file, I made a FLAC copy of an album (using
external compression option in EAC) and a WAV copy (just clicking the
WAV button in EAC) so I could compare the audio quality of each.

I cued the tracks in FLAC/WAV alternate order in SlimServer and went to
have a listen. Instantly I played the first track and then it’s WAV
counterpart it was obvious the WAV copy was better!

Now I have made sure SlimServer Player Settings/Audio/Bitrate Limiting
is on ‘Unlimited’ (see I do read all the posts :-) - but I can tell the
difference easily, no lengthy comparison required (although I did plenty
of backwards and forwards testing on each track to make sure!) - the WAV
file sounds more detailed within the first few seconds of listening.

Now as I see here posted (and on Hydrogenaudio) lots of times that
‘lossless’ means ‘lossless and no messing’ so I thought I better look
into this a bit further. Obviously one of SB2’s new features is
built-in hardware decoding of FLAC on the fly, so looking in Server
Settings/File Types I came across lots of ‘convert this to that’ type
tick box options - so - I un-ticked FLAC -> FLAC (built-in) and made
sure FLAC -> WAV  (flac) was ticked (WAV -> WAV ticked also of
course).

Another set of listening tests later and now I really am confused,
there might be a tiny difference, my ears are getting tired now, but it
would appear to all intents and purposes that FLAC sounds pretty much
the same as WAV...which of course it should really.

My conclusion is this (bearing in mind it is late and I might be
hearing strange things!) - server side decoding of FLAC and then
SlimServer sending the WAV down the line sounds better than SB2
decoding of FLAC on the fly. 


Anyone else care to try this and let me know what they think?

PS. This SB2 is an amazing piece of kit - I have SB2/Chord 64 DAC
feeding Meridian 502/557 into Ruark speakers and I am hearing things in
the mix I didn’t with my Meridian 508.24 - missing a little subtlety and
airiness perhaps but that could be the DAC being a bit forward -
Meridian 566.24 DAC on it’s way to check this out :-)


 



Timbo,

I discovered this as well a while back and have since used PCM rather 
than FLAC streaming with my unit. I find that at times the differences 
are quite apparent, and at others not so much so. Its hard to draw 
distinct conclusions from less than reproducible results. A more 
definitive test might be to capture and record the PCM output of the 
Squeezebox using both types of streaming and then compare the results. I 
believe that there are PC sound cards that can do this (MAudio is one I 
believe), but I unfortunately don't own one with such capabilities.


At the time I discovered this difference, I posted this result to the 
newsgroup but was unable to provide anything but a subjective evaluation 
so the thread quietly died out. However, it's good to know that others 
can hear the same differences.


- Ken

___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: FLAC onboard decoding v. server side in SB2

[sleepysurf]

Well, I felt exactly the same way about audio quality comparing Wired
vs. Wireless SB2.  Finally conducted a BLIND listening test, which
showed NO difference.  See thread...
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=14811

Now, if you can score 70+% correct on a BLIND test, that would be
significant.


-- 
sleepysurf

aerius i, nht sub two, yamaha rx-v1000 (pre/pro), sunfire cinema grand
200 ~five (vertically bi-amped), squeezebox2 (streaming cd-quality
audio), 300gb buffalo linkstation (remote flac audio file storage),
blue jeans cables.

'Click to see pix of my system'
(http://www.martinloganowners.com/~tdacquis/forum/showthread.php?t=732)
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles