JNavas

You made a sweeping claim. I showed it to be only a partial truth. You're now trying to move the goal posts, obfuscating with more insults. Sorry, no cigar. Have a nice day.

1/7. Digital audio with identical checksums are not necessarily identical, because no checksum can catch all differences -- only bit-for-bit comparison can guarantee that files are actually identical. 2/8. Decoded digital output from WAV or FLAC to optical S/PDIF or CDDA (recordable CD) is not affected by "timing" issues. 3/9. Decoding of both WAV and FLAC is precisely specified and will be identical from any bug-free decoder-player absent manipulation of the decoded data. 4/10. Different operating systems will have no effect on decoded of WAV and FLAC output; i.e., absent bugs, optical S/PDIF or CDDA from either source will always be identical. 5/11. Different device drivers will have no effect on decoded WAV and FLAC files; i.e., absent bugs, optical S/PDIF or CDDA from either source will always be identical. 6/12. While analog cables and devices can affect sound quality, properly functioning digital cables and devices will not. Bottom line: When audio enters into the analog domain, differences can and do occur, but as long as audio stays in the digital domain, they will not be differences unless there are (correctable) faults in software or hardware. Case in point: In testing conversion of WAV audio to FLAC and then back from FLAC to WAV, one program I tested introduced a slight error in one sample. That was the fault of the software -- other software I tested did not exhibit that fault.

Again you retreat to ad hominem and furious hand waving, thereby conceding the issue. Have a nice day.

"The claim that the Quit menu item always turns the music off on every piece of playback software I use is one I have never bothered to A/B/X test. It is just another unsupported claim. So where do we draw the line?" Apparently you've never used foobar2000, iTunes, Nero Showtime, QuickTime Player, or Windows Media Player (to name a few), because they don't have a "Quit menu item". Oops.

"You miss my point, I do not care to prove anything to you and do not need to do something 16x to prove it to myself- 4x was more than enough. I hang out around here to learn from others' experiences and convey a little of what I have learned in return." Yet you provide no supporting facts, leaving others to wonder whether there actually is anything to learn from what you post or not. So why bother? "Why are you here? ..." I would think that should be obvious, but just to be clear: to answer the OP's question, and to do so with facts rather than faith or supposition.

What type of Internet connection exactly? What is the make, model, version, and firmware of all local hardware (routers, etc) between the computer and the Internet? What exactly do you get when you run "Identify and repair network problems" or "Find and fix networking and connection problems" in Control Panel? When the problem occurs, what is the exact output from: ipconfig /all nslookup ns1.sprintlink.net ping ns1.sprintlink.net tracert ns1.sprintlink.net

"Herein lies my conundrum. My evidence and your facts disagree, and it is repeatable. I do not like my results, and make no claim as to what is really going on. I do not care to argue or prove to anyone what I cannot explain. Yet, without a doubt it can be heard by myself and others (blind A/B, not A/B/X- sorry) on my system. The Emperor has no clothes. There, I said it..." Then take the challenge I posted. Otherwise it's just another unsupported claim, and thus no real "evidence" at all, leaving the Emperor fully clothed.

"Feeling a little lonely on that soap box? I am not sure what else you would have expected from preaching that way." "Preaching" implies faith. What I'm stating is fact. The faith is on the other side of the issue. (Likewise the insults and pejoratives.) "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -John Adams

Since you're just stooping to mischaracterizations and pejoratives, there's nothing more for me to say. Have a nice day.

1. If you take the time to actually read the Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase carefully (and with an open mind), then perhaps you'll appreciate the ABX test rationale. Or perhaps with additional information from Wikipedia. 2. If you've got an authoritative source that supports your own methodology, then by all means post it. Otherwise we'll be left with the conclusion that you don't. 3. When you stoop to personal attacks (ad hominem) and pejoratives you effectively concede the argument.

Use something like Decibel or Audirvana... Sorry, but no -- only a true ABX test (of 16 trials) will do.

So you think I'm all wet when I say, "There is no difference whatsoever in the output from FLAC and from WAV." Here's how to (try to) prove me wrong: 1. Start with a decent Windows computer that has good audio hardware. 2. Download and install foobar2000 plus components ABX Comparator and Binary Comparator. 3. Download and install "FLAC for Windows with installer" from here. 4. Select an appropriate WAV audio file that's freely available for download (so others can duplicate your results). 5. Load the WAV audio file into a foobar2000 playlist. 6. Right-click on the WAV audio file in the foobar2000 playlist, and select Convert > ... In Converter Setup specify: Output format: FLAC, level 5 Processing: None Then click Convert. The first time you do this, foobar2000 will ask you for the path to FLAC.EXE, which you installed in step 3. 7. Load the FLAC file from the conversion into the same foobar2000 playlist as the WAV file. (To distinguish the two formats, display the "Codec" column.) 8. Select both files (WAV and FLAC), then right-click one of them, and select Utilities > Bit-Compare Tracks... If foobar2000 detects any difference then you've done something wrong (or you've already scored big time). 9. Again with both files selected, right-click on one of them, and select Utilities > ABX Two Tracks... Do not check either ReplayGain or DSP. Then click OK. 10. Perform the ABX comparator test with 16 trials per the methodology here. If (and only if) you get at least 13 correct correct ids out of 16 trials, post your results here (including the URL of the WAV file), declare victory, and go on to fame if not fortune.

Despite digitally the FLAC should be bit perfect as WAV, there are a lot of factors that might contribute to the difference, i.e. decoder of the player, DAC and even the clock. * Any decoder/player could have a bug that causes erroneous output, but only if very poorly programmed in the case of FLAC, since FLAC has both CRC and MD5 checking, and the solution would be simple: switch to a proper decoder/player; e.g., foobar2000, which can verify bit identical output. * The DAC and the clock cannot be responsible for any difference, since they are the same for both bit streams. I can't understand why it is so difficult to accept bit perfect format files in different format might sound differently while accepting the same CD can sound differently in different players. Are we accepting only hardware can alter the sound quality but not software... All (non-defective) CD players will have the same CDDA output (assuming no media defects), which actually cuts against your argument. ... then why some saying Amarra sounds better than other players? Are the bit perfect files being altered by Amarra somehow to make it sound better? Not a valid analogy because different players can manipulate digital output in different ways (e.g., ReplayGain versus no ReplayGain). Does Amarra have different sound from FLAC than it does from WAV? If it does, it's broken. There is no difference whatsoever in the output from FLAC and from WAV.

My post was not delayed. I happened to complain recently about some downloads only being available in huge (ZIPped) WAV files, asking why much more efficient FLAC wasn't available at least as an alternative, and was given the same nonsense about WAV sounding better than FLAC (which actually has nothing to do with the issue, since FLAC can be converted to bit identical WAV after download, much like ZIP decompression), with this thread cited as proof, which is how I just became aware of it. For the why of this claim, I got nonsense about metadata affecting playback (it doesn't) and "coprocessors ... working too hard" (whereas pretty much any machine will actually be loafing). The fact is that decoded outputs from FLAC and WAV are bit-for-bit identical, so there can be no sonic difference whatsoever from those bit streams. (If there is, the machine is fubared.)

See Russian Press - Behind the Headlines, March 24