Search:

Indeed. I still have an ancient Megger in my workshop...



Another way is to use the method suggested by wgscott - looking at the difference between two channels.



And whatever the...

+1

Would love to see some measurement results.

Sure. The question is why the "24/96" would be sourced from 16 bit material, but the "24/192" not?



Unfortunately not. Even a lot of the more sophisticated software that looks at bit...

It means it isn't a totally straightforward zero-padding. Resampling or gain adjustment would confuse the wasted_bits test. It is unfortunately all too possible that they first made a zero-padded...

The actual sound data in both the ALAC and FLAC files should be the same. It is a format conversion, so no actual signal processing is needed. The zero padding analysis should be valid for both the...

Decided to give it a try. Looks pretty compressed/limited, but that is not very surprising. Spectrum on track 2 looks OK:

56695670

but track 1 (as well as some of the other tracks) looks a bit...

Do we know it is 24 bits for real, as opposed to zero-padded? 24/44 is always a bit of an odd format - most digital recording these days is done in 24/48.

Yes, no and maybe. :)

ReplayGain is not one single way of adjusting gain. ReplayGain is a combination of things - it is a standard for analyzing the perceived loudness of a track or album, and...

No need - wav is wasteful of bandwidth, and the support for standard tagging is much better with flac.

I am sure there will always be people who claim they can hear a difference between a file...

If you worry about flac sounding different than waw on some player, just convert the flac back to wav. They are the same file, the same data, just packed differently, and you can convert a file from...

You keep emphasizing the "flac only" issue. Flac as opposed to what? Wav? And why is it an issue?

In what way? From DSD/SACD?

Just to clear up a misunderstanding - if you calculate the top speed of a car from the aerodynamic and power specs of a car, it is a "theoretical" value. If you actually measure it, it is not...

Just make sure you have it configured to use the AccurateRip database to verify that you have an error-free rip.

Maybe some people were debating that - but I was pointing out the established standard of measuring and specifying dynamic range versus arbitrary non-standard numbers. Measured performance is "real...

Ah, manufacturer's claims and "facts" are rather different things. :)



Indeed. And, to hang on to the car analogy, what matters is what top speed my neighbour's car really does, not what he...

No, it isn't. Audiophile physics are different.



I bet you are one of those egghead "it is only numbers" engineer types. Chill out, tune in, be cosmic, man! Smell the cable!

Richard,



No offence taken.



And my comments about subjective standards had nothing to do with the apparently fanatically religious issue of "subjectivists" vs. "objectivists". My point...

"A witty repartee always trumps any facts or science". Applies to much more than just audio.

Maybe The Tinkerbell effect?

The birds! The birds!

And as I have said, I of course have no issue with you describing your own subjective experience, so I think we can finally move on. Thank you for an interesting exchange!

Hi, Barry,



I am not missing that. I totally get that that is what you are saying. Again, I simply disagree. What I believe you continue to miss is that that is not how the dynamic range of a...

Hi, Barry,



It's not just theoretical. It is the maximum achievable range, even in practice. If you choose to leave some of that range unused, that is your choice, but it doesn't make the...