I am a bit slow tonight, explain it to me please.
If I in the SlimServer tick only the file converting box saying : Apple
Lossles WAV alac
then the SlimServer will send my Apple Lossless ripped music to SB3 in
WAV ?
Tried this but I still get Apple AAC or film in the display of SB3
--
Anne
Anne;187912 Wrote:
Tried this but I still get Apple AAC or film in the display of SB3
I still get FLAC in the display when streaming wav. To be sure I
usually uncheck everything but the file format+stream format I use (i
have all FLAC which makes it easy). The wav dialog boxes don't affect
Just a quick test. The FF didnt work, also not when playing a WAV ripped
song.
Unchecked almost all boxes, ended up with leaving 3 boxes checkedfor
the moment.
Apple Lossless flac alac/flac
Flacflac flac builtin
WAV WAVbuiltin
Now I can FF on the WAV song, but
Anne;187933 Wrote:
Just a quick test. The FF didnt work, also not when playing a WAV ripped
song.
Ok, sorry to give you the runaround. Here's some official info:
__
from:
pablolie;185888 Wrote:
That doesn't make sense. If the SB CPU couldn't keep up, drop-outs would
be the effect, not ever so slightly and subtly affected audio quality of
the room resolution type.
For the fourth and last time, this isn't about overloading the CPU -
obviously that doesn't
Actually, it is within the realm of the possible that there could be
audible differences between WAV and FLAC just because the CPU
processing patterns are different; it need not be because of different
CPU loads. Of course, Opaqueice's hypothetical phases of the moon
effect is also possible.
jeffmeh;185954 Wrote:
Actually, it is within the realm of the possible that there could be
audible differences between WAV and FLAC just because the CPU
processing patterns are different; it need not be because of different
CPU loads. Of course, Opaqueice's hypothetical phases of the moon
Anne;185572 Wrote:
A bit OT, but why would wireless sound worse than wired ?
It won't, Skunk was just trying to dig up obscure examples. :-)
The Squeezebox works by TCP/IP. -How- the packets get there won't
alter the sound one iota. It doesn't matter how they get there: wired,
wireless,
Mark Lanctot;185668 Wrote:
As Skunk pointed out, what is going on if you're receiveing wireless is
that the wireless card is active and (potentially) emitting
electromagnetic interference which could (potentially) be picked up in
the audio circuits. It's as likely as the Squeezebox
AndyC_772;185674 Wrote:
There's no 'potentially' about it - an 802.11g interface is a radio
transmitter - plenty powerful enough to be picked up by your WAP on the
other side of the house, and undoubtedly going to be picked up as
interference by analogue circuits inside the same box.
I'm
Skunk;185576 Wrote:
Please Anne, we're up to our knees in BS already! There is no reason
that I know of, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Truth be told I wanted it to be easier to modify.
Besides, why would I want a wireless device in such a sensitive stage
of the
Listener;185577 Wrote:
If the OP or Skunk or others are concerned about processor load in the
Squeezebox, they should investigate the effect of turning off any VU
meter type stuff and even the status display.
Bill
Hi Bill.
I'm still trying to decide if your post is well crafted
P Floding;185689 Wrote:
Anne had a perfectly legitimate question.
You're right. We should keep all the conjecture in one place.
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this
Actually, this has been discussed before:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=14811
I especially recommend reading posts #1 and #35.
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Profile:
AndyC_772;185674 Wrote:
There's no 'potentially' about it - an 802.11g interface is a radio
transmitter - plenty powerful enough to be picked up by your WAP on the
other side of the house, and undoubtedly going to be picked up as
interference by analogue circuits inside the same box.
I'm
opaqueice;185707 Wrote:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=14811
I especially recommend reading posts #1 and #35.
But don't forget:
'_21_'
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=43696postcount=21)
'_30_'
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=43822postcount=30)
opaqueice;185562 Wrote:
OK, well, for starters we don't know whether processing load (defined
somehow) is higher for FLAC. The CPU has many tasks to perform related
to TCP/IP ...
Decoding straightforward algorithms is nothing for a modern CPU
loadwise. This stuff is merely a matter of never
IMHO the idea that jitter can be eliminated purely by buffering is not
correct. It can be ameliorated to some extent but a wordclock link
between transport and DAC is the best method (as was used in the
studios that mixed and mastered the CD's in the first place). An
alternative method that works
Phil Leigh;185818 Wrote:
IMHO the idea that jitter can be eliminated purely by buffering is not
correct. It can be ameliorated to some extent but a wordclock link
between transport and DAC is the best method (as was used in the
studios that mixed and mastered the CD's in the first place). An
pablolie;185824 Wrote:
Well, you are right, and it goes beyond the depth I intended. I know
Accuphase now uses a new interface between their top performing CD
transport and DA combo, which several mags now declare their absolute
reference.
I read the Altmann stuff, it makes for
pablolie;185812 Wrote:
Decoding straightforward algorithms is nothing for a modern CPU
loadwise. This stuff is merely a matter of never starving the buffer of
the unit that truly converts things into sound, i.e. analog
You seem to be missing the point entirely - did you read the thread?
opaqueice;185832 Wrote:
You seem to be missing the point entirely - did you read the thread? I
fully agree with you that there is almost certainly no such effect, but
some people regard as reasonable the possibility that the increased CPU
load due to processing FLAC could cause EMI which
pablolie;185839 Wrote:
Then moving the computer away should provide an easy way of reducing the
effect, or investing in a computer with a good enclosure (and there are
many available). Computer can be build to pass extremely demanding EMI
specs for some applications without a lot of money.
opaqueice;185842 Wrote:
You're just not getting it - this has nothing to do with the server.
Decoding is done on the SB's CPU when you stream FLAC, and the claim
was that the increased load on the *CPU of the squeezebox* was
responsible for the worse sound.
That doesn't make sense. If the
Skunk;185515 Wrote:
I call, and raise you a doughnut.
Dismissing the effect of the processor outright seems foolhardy when
one of the fundamental benefits of Sb3 (IMO) is considered- getting the
sound out of the electrically noisy PC.
Not dismissing the effect of electrical noise in
snarlydwarf;185530 Wrote:
You must have not read the original post:
And you must have ignored the fact that he still preferred one over the
other:
With that knowledge I switched back
to FLAC and left it that way for several weeks. In that time, however,
the sound still didn't seem quite
opaqueice;185548 Wrote:
Not dismissing the effect of electrical noise in the SB is a far cry
from positing that WAV sounds better than FLAC.
Then don't use those terms. Use minimum vs. maximum processing load,
then investigate effects.
The fact that WAV==FLAC in most people's mind, is
Skunk;185552 Wrote:
Then don't use those terms. Use minimum vs. maximum processing load,
then investigate effects.
The fact that WAV==FLAC in most people's mind, is clouding the debate
IMO.
OK, well, for starters we don't know whether processing load (defined
somehow) is higher for FLAC.
opaqueice;185562 Wrote:
So why, for example, are people obsessed with this and not concerned
that wireless sounds worse than wired?
I'm not sure but that's why I bought wired, even having a wireless
network.
I would love to have an approximation in difference of processor load.
As you
A bit OT, but why would wireless sound worse than wired ?
I dont have a wireless card on my computer, I have ethernet cable to my
router and this goes wireless to SB3.
I have never experienced a single dropout or anything.
--
Anne
Anne;185572 Wrote:
A bit OT, but why would wireless sound worse than wired ?
Please Anne, we're up to our knees in BS already! There is no reason
that I know of, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Truth be told I wanted it to be easier to modify.
Besides, why would I want a
OK, well, for starters we don't know whether processing
load (defined somehow) is higher for FLAC.
If the OP or Skunk or others are concerned about processor load in the
Squeezebox, they should investigate the effect of turning off any VU
meter type stuff and even the status display.
Bill
The only things that I can think of as to why some can hear a difference
and some can't must be down to the matching of:
Electronics,
Cables,
Ears,
Layout of all above
I guess the only way is to take someone, who does hear a difference to
someones place who does not hear a difference and
Ken;185202 Wrote:
It's hard to say if the testing we did has its limitations or if my
head
just keeps playing tricks on me. But FLAC and WAV streaming do sound
different to my ears, and I'm pleased that Slim provides us with both
options :).
My bet is that it's your head. Take that
snarlydwarf;185495 Wrote:
My bet is that it's your head.
I call, and raise you a doughnut.
Dismissing the effect of the processor outright seems foolhardy when
one of the fundamental benefits of Sb3 (IMO) is considered- getting the
sound out of the electrically noisy PC.
Here's a thought;
Skunk;185515 Wrote:
I call, and raise you a doughnut.
You must have not read the original post:
kjg Wrote:
Out of curiosity, I had
him run a blind comparison of the two streaming methods for me and he
tallied the results. After about 10 rounds of ABX comparisons between
FLAC and WAV
jeffmeh;184633 Wrote:
One hypothesis is that the act of the SB decoding the FLAC to WAV
changes something in the SB (perhaps causes it to generate additional
electromagnetic interference)such that it is audible on some systems to
some people.
I have to say that I'm highly sceptical about
jeffmeh;184633 Wrote:
However, some people have claimed that they can hear a difference and
that WAV sounds better. One hypothesis is that the act of the SB
decoding the FLAC to WAV changes something in the SB (perhaps causes it
to generate additional electromagnetic interference)such that
Hey, I'm pretty much of an audio objectivist, so I share your
skepticism. However, I cannot categorically rule out that someone
might be able to hear a difference on some system. An ABX test would
be pretty enlightening. :-P
--
jeffmeh
jeffmeh;184924 Wrote:
Hey, I'm pretty much of an audio objectivist, so I share your
skepticism. However, I cannot categorically rule out that someone
might be able to hear a difference on some system. An ABX test would
be pretty enlightening. :-P
How dare you, sir, ask people to prove
Codmate;184863 Wrote:
Have any actual sonic differences have been measured?
Didn't you see the 'Actual Jitter Measurements!'
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=15882) thread I linked
to a page back?
Playback of various formats was =3ps difference between playing and
paused.
Skunk;184936 Wrote:
Didn't you see the 'Actual Jitter Measurements!'
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=15882) thread I linked
to a page back?
Playback of various formats was =3ps difference between playing and
paused. Now if wav had less jitter than a paused state- that
Codmate;184950 Wrote:
Is what is actually emanating from the driver measurably different?
More importantly, is what is actually emanating from the driver audibly
different?
Ok, so say we have difference that is subjectively/objectively
audible.
I suppose that's good for forming an
Skunk;184960 Wrote:
Ok, so say we have difference that is subjectively/objectively audible.
I suppose that's good for forming an opinion, but wouldn't you then
form a hypothesis as to why it's audible, and wouldn't it be a
hypothesis of electrical change inside the box?
I'm not an
Absolutely ZEROaudible difference between WAV and FLAC here...(and
yes my ears are fine)
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread:
Deaf Cat;184555 Wrote:
Just tried streaming FLAC and then streaming WAV, (all my files are
stored in FLAC).
Believe it or not I too could hear a slight difference.
Streamed flac's seemed to have slightly sharper sounding edges to each
sound, where as the streamed wav's seem to have
Phil Leigh;185014 Wrote:
Absolutely ZEROaudible difference between WAV and FLAC here...(and
yes my ears are fine)
And our ears are VERY good at perceiving direction otherwise we'd all
have been eaten by lions/bears/whatever... fortunately large omnivorous
mammals don't have access to
Codmate;185013 Wrote:
It's up to the people claiming that it's audible to explain the
differences they are hearing with a bit more precision IMO.
Is it a dynamic difference? Does it effect a certain frequency range?
Can people hear artifacts and pinpoint them in time, so that the rest
of
Codmate;185019 Wrote:
Nah - they're not nearly so finely tuned to direction as other animals.
It's really really easy to fool the human ear direction-wise, which is
why stereo works.
Well, we're still on the planet - and how many animals do you come
across in hi-fi shops?
Last time I saw
Codmate;185013 Wrote:
It's up to the people claiming that it's audible to explain the
differences they are hearing with a bit more precision IMO.
Of course differences in a chamber would prove something. All I was
trying to say was, 'lets imagine these people heard and measured a
difference,
I also am not really sure about FLAC being the same as WAV.
sure the 0 and 1s should be the same, but I can also think of EMI
emitation due to harder processing of the flac stream.
I also get bad sound (in terms of speaking of the very fine details) ,
when leaving my laptop on (its the switched
Just tried streaming FLAC and then streaming WAV, (all my files are
stored in FLAC).
Believe it or not I too could hear a slight difference.
Streamed flac's seemed to have slightly sharper sounding edges to each
sound, where as the streamed wav's seem to have softer edges to each
sound, even
FLAC and WAV sound identical.
FLAC takes up less space and can support useful tags.
--
Codmate
Codmate's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7154
View this thread:
Codmate;184629 Wrote:
FLAC and WAV sound identical.
FLAC takes up less space and can support useful tags.
How about, FLAC takes up less space and can support useful tags. Once
it is decoded, it is bit-identical to the WAV file, so it should sound
indentical. However, some people have
could be a start ... :)
--
truckfighters
| Transporter | REDGUM RGASil OCC Silver Interconnects | REDGUM
RGi120ENR AMP | REDGUM LS Cable | BW Nautilus 802 D |
Live musicians at the end of my room!
truckfighters's
I made the same experiences some weeks ago and wrote a short description
at http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32661page=3 .
I have enough disk place, therefore I store both formats and use
them both with my SB3, but I prefere WAV. It seems to me that the major
tags I add with the
Wonderfull Stuff :)
SOLD - I'll remain in FLAC :)
I often have drop outs around 1300hrs and 1500hrs when working from
home, and guess streaming WAV's would not help :)
The odd time I do use something that does not understand FLAC files,
the odd FLAC is just decoded back to WAV and into what is
A month or so ago I did a test on this, I took some tracks ripped to wav
and converted to FLAC. I tried all the combinations, wav file wave
stream, wave file, FLAC stream etc.
The results were that I could definately hear a degradation in sound
when streaming FLAC, whether it was a FLAC file or
Hiya,
I'm a bit slow I know :-O
Just discovered that SS can be set to recognise WAV file names instead
of tagging a FLAC file for example, and have my SB display a WAV file
as Track No - Title - Artist - etc etc. which is cool :)
Are there any advantages to having a tagged FLAC, OR, a WAV file
1 - FLAC files are smaller. Spend less on discs.
2 - You can save network bandwidth without having to transcode from WAV
to FLAC at the server.
3 - You can get more esoteric tags in if you want to (eg ReplayGain,
multiple Genre values, unusual tags like Composer or Conductor,
nonstandard tags
ceejay;182540 Wrote:
3 - You can get more esoteric tags in if you want to (eg ReplayGain,
multiple Genre values, unusual tags like Composer or Conductor,
nonstandard tags like Performer).
And you can have illegal characters in your tags. Colons and such on
Windows, slashes on I think
I use both. FLAC has obvious benifits as stated.
One FLAC con would be if you use any other application to listen to
your music such as DJ mixing software that cannot decode FLAC
files.
Cheers,
--
sfraser
sfraser's
Since we're in the audiophile forum, you can have the server transcode
the flac to wav before sending, which would be the same as having wav
stored, should you wish to test it. Same as wav, however, doesn't mean
different from FLAC, at least not to my ears. One possible difference
would be in Sb
Skunk;182639 Wrote:
It seems like power would be demanded by processor spikes in the Sb3,
thus robbing it from somewhere further up/down the chain, surely
someone here can refute that if need be.
Oops, remembered this thread*- where sean basically refutes the
importance of processing
64 matches
Mail list logo
