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 > [email protected] > http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles > _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
