Just like football…..
1 Like
Many years ago I transitioned from an HDX to an NDX and got the HDX to convert the files. As a result my storage now has a WAV and FLAC of every album sided by side in the library. They sound identical to me on the 333. Certainly a much less noticeable difference than the one apparent when either serving direct from the Core via S/PDIF vs streaming over my network.
G
2 Likes
As in flack, or sometimes mis spelled as flak (which is anti aircraft fire)… meaning public criticism… a term developed in the 1930s
1 Like
I have to admit, when I read threads like this a big part of me wants to say “For god’s sake, just enjoy the music”.
I know. I’m a heathen.
5 Likes
But where would all the amusing reads be 
On a more focussed note.. I guess if you find yourself obsessing over this.. it may point to an underlying dis satisfaction with your current setup for what ever reason that is distracting you away from enjoying your recordings .. we have probably all been there at some point. Also if your audio replay / hifi system response is so fragile with such a narrow sweet spot, that perhaps also suggests something is not optimal somewhere… and that can even include room reflections and room speaker matching, but you are looking at the wrong area.
I think the so called ‘source first’ mis placed mantra has got a lot to answer for….
3 Likes
Usually the result of people getting excessively agitated and unpleasant either when the science and engineering causations of any real differences in sound are being discussed and explored, or before that when it is suggested that claimed differences need to be verified objectively to ensure they are real where no scientific/engineering cause is evident, to rule out psychological bias before exploring possible causes, some people even claiming immunity to any possible psychological influences.
I agree and disagree with this. For many decades, I have believed in source first and likely will for the foreseeable future. Also, for the same length of time, I believed that if the rest of the components in a system don’t give you the sound you want, then having a brilliant source is a futile exercise. It is about achieving a system where the whole is better than the parts to your ears, in my admittedly biased opinion.
4 Likes
The Melco D100 is a physical device.
Compression level in a ripped FLAC is determined by the software/encoder at any level from 0 to 8 (maximum compression). The physical device used is irrelevant to compression level.
Even FLAC level 0 is compressed, but by the fastest way possible. It reduces raw audio by about 20-30%. The difference in file size between 1 and 5 is so small (no more than 5%) that higher compression levels are rarely used.
I could connect up the Melco drive to a PC and rip a CD track to a FLAC at any compression level from 0 to 8 as I prefer.
Maybe people are hearing a difference between level 0 FLAC and higher compressed level 1 or 5 FLAC. These might generate very slightly different streamer loads.
We are lucky - separate streamer/DAC and every test we’ve done in our setup showed no audible difference. So we simply dump files on our NAS and enjoy.
With our 272 there was an audible difference between FLAC and WAV, so we had Asset set to transcode. No more.
1 Like
By ‘The Melco’ I’m meaning one of their servers with a D100. Does anyone use the drive attached to a PC? I saw a thread elsewhere which showed that at a data level the rips were identical once unpacked, but the Melco FLAC I think was something like 60MB vs 40MB for the non-Melco one. I don’t know if part of their secret sauce was to experiment to see if varying the compression level impacted sound.
Interestingly dBpoweramp offers an uncompressed option for FLAC (not level 0)…
This happens a lot. Frequently along the lines of “I am an engineer and I know this cannot make a difference.” Applied to mains cables the argument might go “provided that the cable can carry the required current at the required voltage then nothing else can possibly affect the sound of it. I’m an engineer so I know this to be the case”. In some (many?) cases like this the people making these claims haven’t even listened to any expensive mains cables. They don’t need to as they “just know” that they can’t sound different and even if they did they also know that such differences would definitely not be real and would be purely the result of “expectation bias” or similar.
Personally I have never claimed immunity from pschological infuences. We all all equally potentially subject to them. It’s this that makes the whole psychological argument invalid. By which I mean for example when I say that a CD that I ripped on my Melco D100 drive sounded better than the same CD ripped via my MacBook someone will inevitably claim that it’s just “expectation bias” and that they in fact sound identical and that they can hear no difference. The ludicrous nature of this argument totally escapes them. Ludicrous because they fail to realise that they will be equally subject to “expectation bias”, or whatever you want to label it. So their observations are no more (or less) valid than mine. That’s the problem with the psychological approach. The lack of any valid reference point. So to argue that a psychological reason lies behind an observed effect is an impotent argument totally lacking in any logical basis. Which isn’t the same as saying that a psychological effect can’t occur. But to use it to justify a conflicting view and to dismiss the view of the person claiming to have observed a difference in the first place is nonsensical. It would make more sense for someone to say “yes I find that CD’s ripped on my Melco D100 sound better than CD’s ripped on my Macbook as well but it’s possible that we are both just imagining it”. That makes perfect sense.
1 Like
From what I’ve seen the agitation and unpleasantness most commonly tends not to come from those querying or exploring claims, rather from those who don’t like being asked for some verification of something they claim to hear even when it may be a hitherto unknown or not widely reported phenomenon, and/or from those who seem not to like the possible causes of audible effects being explored.
As for psychological effects like bias, any sound (pun not intended) scientist, and I assume engineer, will be aware that it works both ways and should take steps to be objective and keep their own possible biases out of discussions of audio phenomena.
3 Likes
I see it as two distinct things. The observation of an effect and the scientific cause of it. The problem is that there are those who will not accept that an effect can occur unless it is backed up by a scientific explanation. If humanity as a whole had taken this line then we would likely still be living in caves. Of course there will always be a scientifc reason but it won’t always be known or obvious. Does that mean that an observed effect cannot occur? Of course not.
1 Like
That should be the case but more often than not it isn’t as evidenced by many of the past threads here,
Anyway I’m reluctant to say any more - I’ve probably got carried away and said too much already. I don’t want to be held responsible for getting this thread closed down and I sense it’s heading that way.
1 Like
And there has to be objective verification of the effect before there is any point investigating the cause,
1 Like
The issue of shielding and grounding Ethernet cables at one end only (ie a floating shield) is a point repeatedly made by Nigel Ball of Reiki Audio. His whole product range is designed to eliminate network noise in the path to the streamer. I have purchased his X Superswitch and PSU and used his Jundostream network cable. The introduction of these components has completely transformed the listening experience via streaming, both local from my CD rips and digital downloads on my QNAP NAS drive, and via TIDAL, streamed from the internet. I’d experimented with a variety of switches and cabling - Cisco 2960, EE8, Catsnake, Melco etc., but the improvements were relatively slight, if I’m honest. The Reiki kit brought serious benefits.
3 Likes
If we were in a university science or engineering department then I would agree. But we’re on a hi-fi forum so as much as it might be entirely sensible to apply the rigours of scientific methodology bear in mind that many here probably have no scientific training and no interest in science. So it’s never going to happen like that. And even for those of us that do have a scientific background then the means of objective verification will likely be beyond the facilities we have available to us.
1 Like
I guess the flip side is also refusal to accept ruling out a reason because you can see it’s not the cause and also accepting there’s something else happening that we don’t yet know the answer to.
3 Likes
I am not advocating triple-blind testing here, the rigours of that going way beyond what is reasonable or, in my view, necessary to establish reasonable grounds that a heard effect is real, but much simpler verification such as single blind testing in many (but not all) situations is neither difficult nor challenging IF people are willing to accept doing it - but unfortunately all too many seem to see it either as a personal affront or simply pointless. As for investigating things, there will always be those of us who want to understand the world around us, including whatever the hi-fi does, and whenever some new aural phenomenon crops up in hifi the first stage of understanding it, let alone investigating it, is being sure that it is a real effect within the listening room. Those who are not interested in understanding need not participate at all, but those who report something unexplained should not find it unexpected or unreasonable if others ask questions about it, which quite reasonably might include trying to know if it is real or just perceived.
A few years back I had all my CDs ripped onto the Naim HDX as WAV files. When I had to replace the HDX (with Innuos Zenith mk3 and Chord Qutest) I listened to a number of CDs on both WAV and FLAC but could hear no discernible difference with my ears and system.
All my CDs are now stored in FLAC. Once I get the 252/SC/300/PS back from dealer I will try a few tests to see if I can hear any difference between WAV and FLAC. The difference since last test being different DAC (Holo Audio KTE) and some new interconnects
3 Likes
How did you do that? When the HDX converts to FLAC (either during the ripping process or later) it doesn’t keep the WAV. Did you keep a copy of the original rips elsewhere?