krabapple

And our host labels *me* sophomoric (/rolleyes) It looks like there is a reality-based community here, along with an 'audiophool' cadre -- which for example equates standard research methods with 'religion', and embraces pseudoscience. Often on audio forums the audiophools outnumber the R-BC. So to the latter I say: good luck. If you aren't already members of Hydrogenaudio, come on over. (The crazier claims made on this group tend to find their way over there anyway, from CA'ers seeking to know if the craziness is *really* true.) (/exit)

I wrote *Axon*, not 'Axom'.

Poo, It's not hard to do 'in depth' analysis of this. I'd wager *anyone* here could do an ABX of FLAC vs wav if they want to. Those of us who already believe there is no difference, would have their negative results waved away for that reason. So those who are claiming there's an audible difference, are the ones who should be doing good-faith ABX tests. Signficant measured output difference would be good evidence for an audible difference too. But simply measuring a differences is not a *sufficient* condition of audibility. Plenty of measured differneces -- even some that 'look' big, as in mp3s - can be inaudible. I wonder if anyone here has followed ABX tests of mp3s over the years. Hydrogenaudio is a good repository. Over and over again, at higher bitrates and with good codecs (LAME 3.9X for example) mp3s are typically indistinguishable from source , in ABX tests. (Typically means the *rare* person or sample can produce a 'positive' ABX. Persons trained specifically to hear mp3 artifacts will do better at this than others, but even they will have a hard time with the highest bitrates on most samples) Given this, debate over whether lossless and source files sound different seems almost perverse. btw you remind me of Axon ;>

"No. Based on direct compare listening tests - ABx in my case, and I am sure at least one other here. It doesn't seem to effect all files played back though. Quite perplexing really. It shouldn't be this way, but seems to be. Therefore we look for more data." Dear 'marky' You should describe your ABX data *first* -- setup, how the ABX was implemented, how many trials, how many positive identifications. Why you wouldn't have done this *first*, is perplexing. It would be rather stunning evidence if real. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Instead, you've 'proceeded' as if the phenomenon had already been demonstrated to exist. It hasn't. So I still call bullshit. Meanwhile, Mr. Rankin, who some here seem to think is an authority on the matter, wrote, "Flat PCM files like WAV and AIFF will always sound better than Lossless files (FLAC, ALAC=Apple Lossless, etc...)." *THAT* is where I 'get off' suggesting that some are promoting such memes. Care to correct his 'monologueing'?

bottlerocket: amazing that you don't get my point from what I wrote, but I'll condense it here again for you: - my point is that your evidence for this phenomenon , is weak (putting it mildly); there is a good explanation for it at hand that you are ignoring , probably because the explanation is that *you're imagining the difference*. - where's my empirical evidence? Empirical evidence that sighted listening is prone to bias is available in *any* published study of perception that involves blind vs. nonblind evaluation. It's hardly an unknown thing, it is the very REASON why scientific experiments involve controls. Where's YOUR empirical evidence that this isn't the case here? If you haven't ruled out the well-known causes for imagining 'differences' like this, then you are still at square one.

John, So, you assume there's 'absolutely no reason' to believe that lossless compressed audio should sound the same as source - just because *I* didn't spell it out the reasons again for you? Hilarious. *I* need to reinvent the wheel because *you* don't believe they exist. The reasons for *my* belief are technically very well-grounded; not my fault that you seem to be totally unaware of that. 'You can look it up' as they used to say. Lossless compression 'technology' is not a black box. The science is on the side of those who say there should be no audible difference. Contrast that to the claims your guys are making -- you're the ones challenging the 'dominant paradigm', you're basically making up the technical reasons as you go along, *AND* your subjective evidence appears to be completely non-controlled (though I see one guy is now claiming he did ABX -- no data provided). So the onus is on *you* to prove with good ABX tests, described in methodological detail with results and stats, that you can hear this supposed difference. *That's* the way it works.

So, lossless compressed sounds different from source? REALLY? Based on "I heard it/me 'n my buddies heard it/ even my wife heard it/we here at our vacuum tube company hear it'" testimony? REALLY?? "Science doesn't know everything, so even though I can't explain why this is happening, I know it is happening." REALLY??? "We have some secret tests we did that show it's not jitter or THD, but it's something?" REALLY???? That's all you got? There's an elephant in the room and some of you are going to hilarious lengths to ignore it. "Hmm, when I enter this room I find I'm suddenly less comfortable...even my wife feels it. What in the world could be causing this? Maybe the dimensions of this room are shifting between quantum states. Or maybe the air is collecting more in one corner than the other. Yeah, I bet it's something like that, I'll put a team of engineers on it." Before jumping to that extremely poorly supported, wildly unlikely hypotheticals, how about establishing that the phenomenon is real and not, like, *all in your head*? So far none of you has. "I changed something and heard a difference" isn't evidence. Please, at least for a moment, consider something that is totally uncontroversial in science: how very *fallible* our perceptions -- from 'eyewitness testimony' on down to wine tasting and yes, audio comparison -- can be?. Consider why double blind methods are *required* in scientifically valid studies of difference perception. It's not because it's more fun to set them up that way. It's easy for even self-professed 'golden ears' to fool themselves; no one is 'immune' to such biases. When you are 'primed' to hear a difference -- in this case, because you know that one file is compressed, the other not -- you probably will. (I might add that the vaunted SACD and DVD-A audio formats are usually, wait for it *losslessly compressed* on those shiny discs.) Before setting a team of 'serious engineers' on this supposed 'problem' how about conducting some good bias-controlled listening tests first to make sure you're hearing something real? Or providing some properly-collected measurement data that show differences very likely to be above audible threshold? That's what distinguishes actual science from the 'sciency' bushwa that infests the audiophile culture. There are already enough damn fool memes circulating in the audio hobby, thanks to 'audiophile' myth-making. "Everyone knows lossless compressed files don't sound as good as wavs/AIFF" would be another one. Yeah, this is my first post. I read about this ridiculous thread on Hydrogenaudio. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=70950&view=findpost&p=625553