Which HD Audio Format Should I Go With?

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by CasualKiller

After some Googling last night I found threads on all sorts of AV sites that are along my same line of thought and have been able explain why it makes a difference etc.

So given the fact this thread and my opinions have more potential for disaster than I thought, I'm just going to bow out of this one and continue the discussion elsewhere.

I wish you wouldn't do that CK, because I think it's a really interesting discussion.

John

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by naturephoto1

Steve,

But, don't the Hard Drives also rotate?

Rich

Isn't that what I said in my opening sentence?

The nature of a hard drive alone is far different from an open tray with a piece of plastic in it. Open up a hard drive...one spec of dirt can kill it. It's far more secure againt the elements and anything else affecting the medium itself than a CD is.

[Arcam_or_bust]

Hello;

Just been sitting back taking this all in. To all those who think for some reason that a higher end cd player will somehow make a difference I don't think you understand what is being offered.

I was deciding what player I was going to get. I had a Creek Evo at $1200, and an Arcam FMJ $1400 and a Cyrus $1800. One of these where going to be my digital media but that all came to an end when I discovered FLAC.

I downloaded for FREE a program called Exact Audio Copy and then through a modem connected my computer directly to my PS3, then passed it though a high end $110 digital optical cable (Analysis Plus) to use the DAC in my Arcam AVR 350.

The FLAC beat even the $1800 dedicated High-end award winning Cyrus.

The reason is very simple.... all forms of information has been gathered to a file that can not be corrupted as it is sourced to the DAC.

Realistically the only thing that will make a difference at this point is the quality of the drive that is in the computer at the time of exctracting...

So all you "experts" take the FREE trial and then comment...

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by Arcam_or_bust

Hello;

Just been sitting back taking this all in. To all those who think for some reason that a higher end cd player will somehow make a difference I don't think you understand what is being offered.

I was deciding what player I was going to get. I had a Creek Evo at $1200, and an Arcam FMJ $1400 and a Cyrus $1800. One of these where going to be my digital media but that all came to an end when I discovered FLAC.

I downloaded for FREE a program called Exact Audio Copy and then through a modem connected my computer directly to my PS3, then passed it though a high end $110 digital optical cable (Analysis Plus) to use the DAC in my Arcam AVR 350.

The FLAC beat even the $1800 dedicated High-end award winning Cyrus.

The reason is very simple.... all forms of information has been gathered to a file that can not be corrupted as it is sourced to the DAC.

Realistically the only thing that will make a difference at this point is the quality of the drive that is in the computer at the time of exctracting...

So all you "experts" take the FREE trial and then comment...

Why don't you edit your post and take out that last bit of sarcasm?

No one (and I read every post) has said conclusively that FLAC doesn't beat or at least stay on par with higher-end CD players. All anyone has done here is question. According to you we shouldn't be doing that, unless and only if we try it first. You may be blessed in having the convenience to connect your computer to your PS3, but I don't, and I'll comment as much I like in trying to gain some knowledge.

John

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Arcam_or_bust

So all you "experts" take the FREE trial and then comment...

It's not a free trial, it's freeware...it's always free.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by Arcam_or_bust

The reason is very simple.... all forms of information has been gathered to a file that can not be corrupted as it is sourced to the DAC.

Actually, if you research the technical details, that's not the reason. It has nothing to do data corruption and everything to do with jitter.

But the tone of your post has really made me want to go out and try it immediately.

[scanachick]

Originally Posted by Arcam_or_bust

Hello;

Just been sitting back taking this all in. To all those who think for some reason that a higher end cd player will somehow make a difference I don't think you understand what is being offered.

I was deciding what player I was going to get. I had a Creek Evo at $1200, and an Arcam FMJ $1400 and a Cyrus $1800. One of these where going to be my digital media but that all came to an end when I discovered FLAC.

I downloaded for FREE a program called Exact Audio Copy and then through a modem connected my computer directly to my PS3, then passed it though a high end $110 digital optical cable (Analysis Plus) to use the DAC in my Arcam AVR 350.

The FLAC beat even the $1800 dedicated High-end award winning Cyrus.

The reason is very simple.... all forms of information has been gathered to a file that can not be corrupted as it is sourced to the DAC.

Realistically the only thing that will make a difference at this point is the quality of the drive that is in the computer at the time of exctracting...

So all you "experts" take the FREE trial and then comment...

As I've stated before, how do you know that you are not just preferring the sound of the AVR 350 DACs over those of the Cyrus CD player? I never disputed the fact that moving parts will introduce errors but rather that you could hear the difference when making an A/B blind test on exactly the same setup (including DACs). Regards, Scan

[Yautja]

Too easy go with the SACD can't go wrong with it

[Arcam_or_bust]

Why don't you edit your post and take out that last bit of sarcasm?

No one (and I read every post) has said conclusively that FLAC doesn't beat or at least stay on par with higher-end CD players. All anyone has done here is question. According to you we shouldn't be doing that, unless and only if we try it first. You may be blessed in having the convenience to connect your computer to your PS3, but I don't, and I'll comment as much I like in trying to gain some knowledge.

John

That little bit of sarcasm wasn't directed at someone interested in understanding the idea but is directed at the "experts" who haven't tried it and are saying why it just can't make a difference.

Actually, if you research the technical details, that's not the reason. It has nothing to do data corruption and everything to do with jitter.

But the tone of your post has really made me want to go out and try it immediately.

My point is, if it's a computer file you get no jitter, no corruption of any type. No tracking errors, no jitter, no sloppy laser imaging, no data transfer slipage. If it's a file everything in the file is replayed without any type of data corruption or nothing plays.

"It's not a free trial, it's freeware...it's always free.

True True!!

As I've stated before, how do you know that you are not just preferring the sound of the AVR 350 DACs over those of the Cyrus CD player? I never disputed the fact that moving parts will introduce errors but rather that you could hear the difference when making an A/B blind test on exactly the same setup (including DACs). Regards, Scan

This is what you don't understand. It's not about the DAC preference, it's about actuall information. It's not sound it's substance. There is literally more information. Even the $1800 Cyrus still has a transport and a laser and a processor and then a DAC. The laser needs to read the info everytime and if a grain of dust gains access you will loose information, as a file, impossible. The transport jitters are gone, everything is accounted for.

The A/B blind is what will get you into FLAC. I have ripped CD's and litterally heard things I have never heard before, even when going back and forth using the same DAC between CD and FLAC.

The DAC comes later, as far as deciding which flavor you want. The intregrity of the information is what I am talking about. Are you getting the whole pie, or just a couple peices.

As far as SACD, rip them to FLAC, got Pink Floyd Dark Side, it too sounds better after entering into FLAC because the whole SACD still needs a laser and a transport and a processor....


FLAC... the only way to listen to Digital.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Arcam_or_bust

My point is, if it's a computer file you get no jitter, no corruption of any type. No tracking errors, no jitter, no sloppy laser imaging, no data transfer slipage. If it's a file everything in the file is replayed without any type of data corruption or nothing plays.

Not entirely true - processor speed will affect playback and sometimes if your PC starts a scan, or any other scheduled tasks, you can have playback interruption.

As far as SACD, rip them to FLAC, got Pink Floyd Dark Side, it too sounds better after entering into FLAC because the whole SACD still needs a laser and a transport and a processor....

You've pretty much invalidated your entire argument here because the only way to "rip" an SACD to .flac is by using analog outputs and as such you're capturing the response of the player which is what you've been trying to avoid. Not to mention you've decimated to PCM and as a result lose all the advantages of DSD. The best way to listen to SACD is through a DSD>Analog signal path. FLAC doesn't support 1-bit audio at SACD's sampling rate. If you think the .flacs you ripped sound better then there is something wrong with your SACD set-up.

Sorry, but this is now an "epic fail" as they say.

FLAC... the only way to listen to Digital.

That's a pretty absurd statement, there are plenty of great ways to listen to digital. .flac is the most widely supported lossless digital format for PC's thanks to the taping communities which were using .flac long before anyone was ripping CD's to .flac...but .shn was the predecessor used for a long time before .flac and is of identical quality, as is .ape and many other lossless encoding options.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by Arcam_or_bust

My point is, if it's a computer file you get no jitter, no corruption of any type. No tracking errors, no jitter, no sloppy laser imaging, no data transfer slipage. If it's a file everything in the file is replayed without any type of data corruption or nothing plays.

This is what you don't understand. It's not about the DAC preference, it's about actuall information. It's not sound it's substance. There is literally more information. Even the $1800 Cyrus still has a transport and a laser and a processor and then a DAC. The laser needs to read the info everytime and if a grain of dust gains access you will loose information, as a file, impossible. The transport jitters are gone, everything is accounted for.

It's clear from these two paragraphs that you don't understand what jitter is, nor how CD playback works. There is not "literally more information" when you play ripped FLAC files from your computer. See the following excerpt from this Stereophile article (bolding by me):

CD data errors: Any digital storage medium is prone to data errors, and the CD is no exception. An error occurs when a binary one is mistakenly read as a binary zero (or vice versa), or when the data flow is momentarily interrupted. The latter, more common in CDs, is caused by manufacturing defects, surface scratches, and dirt or other foreign particles on the disc. Fortunately, the CD format incorporates extremely powerful error detection and correction codes that can completely correct a burst error of up to 4000 successive bits. The reconstructed data are identical to what was missing. This is called error correction. If the data loss exceeds the player's ability to correctly replace missing data, the player makes a best-guess estimate of the missing data and inserts this approximation into the data stream. This is called error concealment, or interpolation.

It is important to make the distinction between correction and concealment: correction is perfect and inaudible, while concealment has the potential for a momentary sonic degradation where the interpolation occurs.

[...]

There are two general misconceptions about CD errors and sound quality: 1) errors are the primary source of sonic degradation; and 2) if there are no uncorrectable errors, there can be no difference in sound.

The first conclusion is largely due to the marketing programs of CD-accessory manufacturers who claim their products reduce error rates. Many of the devices tested claim to improve sound quality by reducing the amount of error concealment performed by the CD player. In fact, interpolations (error concealment) rarely occur. In the unlikely event that concealment is performed, it will be momentary and thus have no effect on the overall sound. At worst, a transient tick or glitch would be audible.

It is apparent that uncorrected data errors are infrequent, and certainly not the cause of sonic degradation from CDs. Consequently, certain products' claims of enhanced musicality through reduced error rates do not stand up under close scrutiny.

There's plenty of interesting information about jitter in there too, but the gist is that jitter is about errors in timing of the information, not the amount of information.

[Arcam_or_bust]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcam_or_bust
My point is, if it's a computer file you get no jitter, no corruption of any type. No tracking errors, no jitter, no sloppy laser imaging, no data transfer slipage. If it's a file everything in the file is replayed without any type of data corruption or nothing plays.

Not entirely true - processor speed will affect playback and sometimes if your PC starts a scan, or any other scheduled tasks, you can have playback interruption.


Quote:
As far as SACD, rip them to FLAC, got Pink Floyd Dark Side, it too sounds better after entering into FLAC because the whole SACD still needs a laser and a transport and a processor....

You've pretty much invalidated your entire argument here because the only way to "rip" an SACD to .flac is by using analog outputs and as such you're capturing the response of the player which is what you've been trying to avoid. Not to mention you've decimated to PCM and as a result lose all the advantages of DSD. The best way to listen to SACD is through a DSD>Analog signal path. FLAC doesn't support 1-bit audio at SACD's sampling rate. If you think the .flacs you ripped sound better then there is something wrong with your SACD set-up.

Sorry, but this is now an "epic fail" as they say.



Quote:
FLAC... the only way to listen to Digital.

That's a pretty absurd statement, there are plenty of great ways to listen to digital. .flac is the most widely supported lossless digital format for PC's thanks to the taping communities which were using .flac long before anyone was ripping CD's to .flac...but .shn was the predecessor used for a long time before .flac and is of identical quality, as is .ape and many other lossless encoding options.

Not sure about the SACD ripping thing, I down loaded it, compared it with the cd, the flac, a vinyl flac rip, the actual vinyl, and dvd audio...

My point was simply, a SACD player will still suffer just as a cd player does from the physical limitations of the technology.

An SACD will sound better than a cd... however a cd ripped to flac does sound better by eliminating the problem therefore the same probably is true for SACD.


kefrank

I know enough that every so called expert writes these type things. If cd's have such error correction then why does it sound better even going from cd player to player.

By that logic i should get the same sound quality from a $10 wal-mart cd player as the cyrus $1800 cd player...

kefrank... try it out, it's free.

[Gremal]

Arcam or bust, there are more variables than you are acknowledging--features that theoretically shouldn't make a difference in sound quality but do make a difference in the real world. The uncomfortable fact is that every single part in the signal path and the player's power supply play a role. You have hit upon error correction as the only relevant criterion, but think about all the physical criteria that affect the performance of error correction--e.g., isolation and power. When a manufacturer designs a player or when you set one up in your system, proper attention to these criteria can ensure that error correction is performing optimally. So don't write off what other people are hearing in their system, just as you don't want them to write off what you're hearing.

And ripping SACDs defeats the whole purpose. You want the processing to be the 1-bit 2.4 MHz technology behind DSD.

[krazeyeyez]

sorry to bust in to this VERY interesting conversation and read, but rather then start a new thread figured i would just ask this very simple question here. Can someone break down for me the audio formats from best to worst and those that equal others. Waiting on BDAudio but curious about sacd v cd v vinyl v dvd audio etc....

[Halcro 1]

Originally Posted by CasualKiller

Google around, you'll find tons of carbon fiber discs, glow in the dark disks, cd rings , sand boxes, isolation platforms all designed to eliminate vibration, cure cd wobble and improve cd audio. Some extremists even go all the way and bevel the edges of their cds.

A computer doesn't care about high frequencies, low frequencies, warmth or any of that audio jargon. It's job is to rip the data with the utmost of accuracy and relay it. Is it really that hard to believe that the best way to get info off a cd is not a cd player?

My CDPlayer uses a computer drive to read the discs... It takes about 30 seconds to play a disc... and it upsamples...Bust still has a laser ....I woud love to have a server with a server a my Halcro DAC it would be probabally better than my Meridian....Music servers are silly expensive

[Halcro 1]

By that logic i should get the same sound quality from a $10 wal-mart cd player as the cyrus $1800 cd player...
QUOTE]The DAC Makes alot of the difference in a 10 dollar to an 1800 dollar player If I use the FLAC and have a crap DAC the results wont be as great as a better DAC after all you still have to convert the "pure digital" sound back to Analog...But Im in agreement with you on a server based system being superior .... When CD was interduced it was at first a convience over vinyl no flipping a CD over ,, size,,,And since the masses had crap for a record player , in most cases a CD sounded better ......

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by Arcam_or_bust

kefrank

I know enough that every so called expert writes these type things. If cd's have such error correction then why does it sound better even going from cd player to player.

Because there are plenty of other variables that play into sound quality beyond error correction.

By that logic i should get the same sound quality from a $10 wal-mart cd player as the cyrus $1800 cd player...

No, not at all. Do they have the same DACs? Do they both address potential jitter issues exactly the same way? Do they use the same quality of internal components and connectors? And perhaps most interestingly, is the listener being influenced by psychoacoustics?

[Halcro 1]

Originally Posted by kefrank

Because there are plenty of other variables that play into sound quality beyond error correction.


No, not at all. Do they have the same DACs? Do they both address potential jitter issues exactly the same way? Do they use the same quality of internal components and connectors? And perhaps most interestingly, is the listener being influenced by psychoacoustics?

+1

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Arcam_or_bust

Not sure about the SACD ripping thing, I down loaded it, compared it with the cd, the flac, a vinyl flac rip, the actual vinyl, and dvd audio...

My point was simply, a SACD player will still suffer just as a cd player does from the physical limitations of the technology.

An SACD will sound better than a cd... however a cd ripped to flac does sound better by eliminating the problem therefore the same probably is true for SACD.

You can't rip an SACD, you're comparing a PCM rip from the analogue outputs which defeats the purpose of SACD and the 1-bit DSD encoding.

You're taking 1-bit/2,822,400Hz DSD and decimating it to 24-bit/96,000Hz (likely) PCM, so comparisons from that point are invalid. You need a DSD>Analog direct conversion with no PCM to experience the full fidelity of SACD.

Again a CD ripped and encoded to .flac will only sound better than a CD if your PC>Speaker chain is better than your CD>Speaker chain.

[Arcam_or_bust]

dobyblue

Again a CD ripped and encoded to .flac will only sound better than a CD if your PC>Speaker chain is better than your CD>Speaker chain.

First off, thanks for the info on the SACD thing...

on the other, Like I have said earlier, I have used a Creek Evo, a Arcam FMJ, and a Cyrus decdicated... all through the same set up and compared to the flac file side by side with the same system it's not even close.

All the computer does is stream through the ps3, which doesn't touch it it simply passes it through to my Arcam AVR350's DAC.

So I am saying, my Arcam AVR 350 now retails around $1800-2000, origionally it was around $2700-$3000.

The DAC in it should be beat up by a dedicated $1800 DAC... I am stating that there may be a dedicated cd player out there that would represent the sound equally as good or even better than streaming the FLAC however, the price on that thing is really outside the picture of nomality... *&^%$ all my friends already say I have gone past the world of normality anyway at this price point... LOL


Gremal-

Arcam or bust, there are more variables than you are acknowledging--features that theoretically shouldn't make a difference in sound quality but do make a difference in the real world. The uncomfortable fact is that every single part in the signal path and the player's power supply play a role. You have hit upon error correction as the only relevant criterion, but think about all the physical criteria that affect the performance of error correction--e.g., isolation and power. When a manufacturer designs a player or when you set one up in your system, proper attention to these criteria can ensure that error correction is performing optimally. So don't write off what other people are hearing in their system, just as you don't want them to write off what you're hearing.

Halcro1

The DAC Makes alot of the difference in a 10 dollar to an 1800 dollar player If I use the FLAC and have a crap DAC the results wont be as great as a better DAC after all you still have to convert the "pure digital" sound back to Analog...But Im in agreement with you on a server based system being superior .... When CD was interduced it was at first a convience over vinyl no flipping a CD over ,, size,,,And since the masses had crap for a record player , in most cases a CD sounded better ......

That's my point, read all the posts up to this point, then comment. I was suggesting that simply saying a cd "expert" claiming error correction technology equals cd players is a weak statement, something that is an all inclusive statement.