Sound quality between wav and flac

[JJZolx]

Louishlomador;484646 Wrote:
> Has anyone noticed sound quality differences between a flac and wave
> file? I am certainly aware that flac is "lossless" however playback of
> flac files sound flat and dont seem to have great imaging effect on the
> sound than Wav. anyone?

I don't hear any difference. Some people have claimed FLAC sounds
better.

But if you do prefer WAV, there's no reason not to use FLAC for your
library with Squeezebox. You can stream WAV (PCM, actually) to your
player by having Squeezebox Server decode the FLAC files instead of
doing it at the player. It will be equivalent to storing WAV files,
with the added benefit of full tagging ability and reduced storage
space. The downside is the increased network bandwidth needed.


--
JJZolx

Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Its a strange one. I have squeezecenter 7.2.1 before upgrading to 7.4.1.
There seem to be a difference when you play both versions of the file
and listen to it instrument by instument. I'm have a strong feeling the
firmware has been modified in a way for the SB to play in flac mode,
maybe due to bandwidth issues with wave files. I have my music ripped in
24bit 48khz in wave. When you convert to flac and play it sounds flat,
and you notice the stereo imaging is not that great. Very strange


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[JJZolx]

Louishlomador;484660 Wrote:
> I have my music ripped in 24bit 48khz in wave.

You rip 44.1 kHz redbook CDs to 48 kHz?


--
JJZolx

Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Yes, there is a bit of a grey area here as if you had a cd player that
was capable of playing at 24bit 96khz it will sound better than a CD
player equiped with a dac capable of only 48khz, hence I rip at this
resolution to extract every as much info as possible from the CD. The
site below seems to do some great comparisms

http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Pat Farrell]

Louishlomador wrote:
>>You rip 44.1 kHz redbook CDs to 48 kHz?

> Yes, there is a bit of a grey area here as if you had a cd player that
> was capable of playing at 24bit 96khz it will sound better than a CD
> player equiped with a dac capable of only 48khz, hence I rip at this
> resolution to extract every as much info as possible from the CD. The
> site below seems to do some great comparisms

This is very hard to believe. You can't just claim that since 48 is
bigger than 44.1 then it sounds better if you convert from 44.1 to 48.

I would expect it to sound different, and worse than just using RedBook
rates.


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

[Louishlomador]

you have a point there, however my understanding of how the Squeeze box
works is all about the processing of whatever data contents you have in
the file, whiles I believe the CD player will pickup the data in a
different way. Maybe I'm wrong but the sound seems much better with a
higher resolution, compared to 44.1 especially when you have an
expensive audiophile kit. I use Shure E530 and the SB is connected to a
headphone amp
Lehmann blackcube linear. They are all high end products. I will
encourage you to try these formats. I'm very keen for someone to try
these different formats.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Pat Farrell]

Louishlomador wrote:
> you have a point there, however my understanding of how the Squeeze box
> works is all about the processing of whatever data contents you have in
> the file, whiles I believe the CD player will pickup the data in a
> different way. Maybe I'm wrong but the sound seems much better with a
> higher resolution, compared to 44.1 especially when you have an
> expensive audiophile kit.

It may sound different, and you may prefer that sound, I can't argue
with that part.

But there is nothing good about pretending that something can get 3.9
kHz of signal out of the air, 44.1 kHz is not 48kHz.

There is some claimed benefit to oversampling to an integer multiple of
44.1, say 88.2 or higher. But if the multiple is not an integer,
whatever is added is not music.

And any real benefit from oversampling or upsampling or other stuff is
because when you are working with higher rates, you can use simpler
analog filters that don't screw up phase as badly as the normal brick
wall filters used for anti-aliasing at 22.05 kHz


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

[Louishlomador]

Very good point. It raises soo many questions as to why soo many ripping
applications have these features of ripping CDs to this format readily
available at that resolution, such as DB poweramp, or why some dacs will
play normal CD at say 24bit 96khz resolution. I believe the squeezebox
transporter and squeezebox touch can play at this format. I'm confused.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Pat Farrell]

Louishlomador wrote:
> I believe the squeezebox transporter and squeezebox touch can play at this format. I'm confused.

Yes, they will play files in 48 kHz as well as 44.1kHz, and perhaps 88.2
and 96kHz as well (I don't keep up) but the question is not if the
devices can play the specific files, but rather if there is anything in
them that should sound better.

Long ago, Stereophile took a bunch of SACD and DVD-A releases, and did
spectral analysis on them. Most of them had exactly the same signal as
the RedBook audio versions, nothing over 20 kHz, even though the format
could have signal up into 40Khz or above.

As to why some software has features that do no good, well that is
another topic, just use MS Word as an example, it has zillions of
features and 99% of the users use less than 5% of them. The rest are
there for various reasons.

A DAC reporting RedBook at 24/88.2 makes sense, that is simple wider
oversampling. Saying it is 96Khz may be real or may be marketing puff.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

[ralphpnj]

Louishlomador;484666 Wrote:
> Yes, there is a bit of a grey area here as if you had a cd player that
> was capable of playing at 24bit 96khz it will sound better than a CD
> player equiped with a dac capable of only 48khz, hence I rip at this
> resolution to extract every as much info as possible from the CD. The
> site below seems to do some great comparisms
>
> http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

Hi Louis,

I'm not really trying to muddy the waters any further then they already
seem to be but....

The link you posted is all about RECORDING not RIPPING. There is a big,
big difference between the two.

When one is recording to digital or even converting an analog recording
to digital (like an LP) things like bit depth and sample rate are very
important and will have an effect on the audio quality of the recording.


Ripping, on the other hand, is an entirely different process. When one
rips a standard CD, the digital audio on the CD is ALWAYS has a bit
depth of 16 and a sample rate of 44.1kHz, regardless of the marketing BS
stating otherwise. So ripping to anything other than 16/44.1 is NOT
going to result in a "better" sounding recording, period. Again,
marketing may say other wise, as is the case with many high end CD
players and DACS which claim that "upsampling" the either the bit depth
or the sample rate or both improves the sound of a CD.

Of course SACDs and DVD-Audio discs often have higher bit depth and
sampling rates than standard CDs and so ripping them to bit depths and
sample rates which match that of the recording can be of some benefit.

As far as digital recording is concerned using 24 bit instead of 16 bit
gives one greater flexibility with respect to editing since the noise
floor of a 24 bit recording is much greater than that of a 16t bit
recording. In any event the article given in your link does a fairly
good job of explaining all this but does fail to mention the difference
between recording and ripping.


--
ralphpnj

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter ->
Transporter 2

'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

ralphpnj;484841 Wrote:
> Hi Louis,
>
> I'm not really trying to muddy the waters any further then they already
> seem to be but....
>
> The link you posted is all about RECORDING not RIPPING. There is a big,
> big difference between the two.
>
> When one is recording to digital or even converting an analog recording
> to digital (like an LP) things like bit depth and sample rate are very
> important and will have an effect on the audio quality of the recording.
>
>
> Ripping, on the other hand, is an entirely different process. When one
> rips a standard CD, the digital audio on the CD is ALWAYS has a bit
> depth of 16 and a sample rate of 44.1kHz, regardless of the marketing BS
> stating otherwise. So ripping to anything other than 16/44.1 is NOT
> going to result in a "better" sounding recording, period. Again,
> marketing may say other wise, as is the case with many high end CD
> players and DACS which claim that "upsampling" the either the bit depth
> or the sample rate or both improves the sound of a CD.
>
> Of course SACDs and DVD-Audio discs often have higher bit depth and
> sampling rates than standard CDs and so ripping them to bit depths and
> sample rates which match that of the recording can be of some benefit.
>
> As far as digital recording is concerned using 24 bit instead of 16 bit
> gives one greater flexibility with respect to editing since the noise
> floor of a 24 bit recording is much greater than that of a 16t bit
> recording. In any event the article given in your link does a fairly
> good job of explaining all this but does fail to mention the difference
> between recording and ripping.

Fare play, but still doesn't answer my conscerns though, about the
versions of SC or slim server. Hopefully someone will test and post
results


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[andyg]

Hi, if you want to verify the transcoding using (to see if there is a
bug such as WAV transcoding to FLAC even if you turn it off), go to
Settings -> Advanced -> Logging, change player.source to INFO, play a
file, and then view the server.log file. Buried among many log entries
will be the command-line used for transcoding, if any.


--
andyg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

andyg;484843 Wrote:
> Hi, if you want to verify the transcoding using (to see if there is a
> bug such as WAV transcoding to FLAC even if you turn it off), go to
> Settings -> Advanced -> Logging, change player.source to INFO, play a
> file, and then view the server.log file. Buried among many log entries
> will be the command-line used for transcoding, if any.

Does it matter the version of Slim server or SC??


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[andyg]

No, that logging option is generally the same.


--
andyg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

andyg;484847 Wrote:
> No, that logging option is generally the same.



ok, I'll try this. So to understand this my expectation will be when
set to native based on a wave file, I'll expect streaming in Wav/PCM to
the SB? does the logs will show this? and when set to the default, thus
Flac it will show a different log?


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[andyg]

Louishlomador;484849 Wrote:
> ok, I'll try this. So to understand this my expectation will be when set
> to native based on a wave file, I'll expect streaming in Wav/PCM to the
> SB? does the logs will show this? and when set to the default, thus Flac
> it will show a different log?

Correct.


--
andyg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

andyg;484850 Wrote:
> Correct.

Ok, I'll test this for both versions 7.2.1 and 7.4.1 and keep you
posted at the weekend.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[JohnSwenson]

A couple thoughts on the subject. I HAVE been able to hear differences
on an SB3 between streaming flac or PCM (wav). A couple times I have
thought something was amiss, things were sounding "flat". It turned out
to be the file type settings had been changed (I certainly didn't change
them)

In general I have not been able to tell any difference between flac or
WAV files as long as both are streamed as PCM. There was one case where
it made a difference. At one point streaming flac files was sounding
much worse (much bigger difference than what I hear between flac and PCM
streaming). It turned out the FLAC files had replay gain tags and of
course the wav files did not. Somehow replay gain had been turned on so
it was applying digital volume control. The particular firmware in the
SB3 had a bug such that it was not properly implementing digital volume
control. This has been fixed for a long time, so even with replay gain
on, there is very little difference now (other than the volume!).

I've had many different versions recently (I'm a beta tester for the
Touch) and have not heard any degradation in sound between any version.
When I switched from 7.3 to 7.4 the firmware on the touch updated to
version 130 but its remained the same for a long time now.

What version of the firmware are you running? If somehow it didn't
upgrade when you changed SC versions that MIGHT cause a problem, but
even thats doubtful.

The sound coming out of the SB3 with firmware 130 and the recent SBS
versions have definately not been any worse and maybe slightly better
than what was there before. (the Touch on the other hand has improved
its sound significantly as things progressed, its now REALLY good).

John S.


--
JohnSwenson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JohnSwenson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5974
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

JohnSwenson;484905 Wrote:
> A couple thoughts on the subject. I HAVE been able to hear differences
> on an SB3 between streaming flac or PCM (wav). A couple times I have
> thought something was amiss, things were sounding "flat". It turned out
> to be the file type settings had been changed (I certainly didn't change
> them)
>
> In general I have not been able to tell any difference between flac or
> WAV files as long as both are streamed as PCM. There was one case where
> it made a difference. At one point streaming flac files was sounding
> much worse (much bigger difference than what I hear between flac and PCM
> streaming). It turned out the FLAC files had replay gain tags and of
> course the wav files did not. Somehow replay gain had been turned on so
> it was applying digital volume control. The particular firmware in the
> SB3 had a bug such that it was not properly implementing digital volume
> control. This has been fixed for a long time, so even with replay gain
> on, there is very little difference now (other than the volume!).
>
> I've had many different versions recently (I'm a beta tester for the
> Touch) and have not heard any degradation in sound between any version.
> When I switched from 7.3 to 7.4 the firmware on the touch updated to
> version 130 but its remained the same for a long time now.
>
> What version of the firmware are you running? If somehow it didn't
> upgrade when you changed SC versions that MIGHT cause a problem, but
> even thats doubtful.
>
> The sound coming out of the SB3 with firmware 130 and the recent SBS
> versions have definately not been any worse and maybe slightly better
> than what was there before. (the Touch on the other hand has improved
> its sound significantly as things progressed, its now REALLY good).
>
> John S.



John,

I can understand all the points you've listed above. I dont have my
CD's ripped in FLAC. I only have them ripped in Wave, however, you may
be aware that slim server software by default is set to stream in flac
as I've already mention, which is a fact. The very first generation of
the software originally had it by default set to stream in PCM/Wave,
that is if you use wave files. Things quickly changed. I have all the
different versions, 7.2.1, 7.3, and 7.4.1. I even have 7.5 which as you
know is not supported or made official yet. Install 7.2 on 1 machine,
then install 7.4.1 on another. Play the same wave source on both
versions making sure the files types for wav is set to native rather
than the default flac. There is a difference between versions. Ofcourse
the firmware will be updated on SB3 when you switch between versions.
The point I'm trying to make which the slim device developer has picked
up and requested I do the test with the logs is when you play wave files
and stream in wave/PCM, in theory there shouldn't be any difference in
sound quality for the versions of sofware. The dac hasn't changed, or
harware, hence i expect the same sound reproduction regardless of
software or firmware if not better. My argument is its worse with the
new sofware rather than better. My suspicion is maybe the Flac
conversion on the server packed with the firmware upgrade is not working
properly. As I've already said the default is streamed in Flac and not
PCM even if you have a wave file. Normally when you change to native you
will notice the difference in sound quality for 7.2, in 7.4 there are no
differences and the sound is poorer. I hope this now very clear. Maybe
you could do the test and post your findings. Also as some people are
not able to tell the difference in sound quality between flac and wave
makes it even more difficult. As least you can. Hopefully your postings
and findings will help make a better sofware. I love the product so much
I'm inputing a lot of my energy to get it right, because I think the
touch will even be a bigger sucess.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Phil Leigh]

There is a very good reason why the default setting is to stream as
FLAC, namely that for most people this will minimise issues with wi-fi
bandwidth.

I've long abandoned the SB3 as I now have a Touch and as far as I am
concerned the sound of the Touch (via s/pdif) is noticeably different
and better (for me) than the SB3.

Several people in the past have been caught out by the Replaygain thing
(including myself and JS) which is why I mentioned it - you should check
that.


The storage format is irrelevant to sound quality (flac vs wav).
If you prefer to stream wav over flac that's fine. My data point is
that on the Touch (7.5/latest nightly firmware) via s/pdif there is no
audible or measurable difference to what comes out of my external DAC.


--
Phil Leigh

You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x
LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue
Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Phil Leigh;484939 Wrote:
> There is a very good reason why the default setting is to stream as
> FLAC, namely that for most people this will minimise issues with wi-fi
> bandwidth.
>
> I've long abandoned the SB3 as I now have a Touch and as far as I am
> concerned the sound of the Touch (via s/pdif) is noticeably different
> and better (for me) than the SB3.
>
> Several people in the past have been caught out by the Replaygain thing
> (including myself and JS) which is why I mentioned it - you should check
> that.
>
>
> The storage format is irrelevant to sound quality (flac vs wav).
> If you prefer to stream wav over flac that's fine. My data point is
> that on the Touch (7.5/latest nightly firmware) via s/pdif there is no
> audible or measurable difference to what comes out of my external DAC.



Correct, the sound on the touch will sound better than SB3 mainly
because its using a better DAC compared to the SB3. maybe as you are
using an external DAC should make a difference. The bandwidth issue has
already been mentioned too. Thanks for the advice.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Stratmangler]

Hi Louis

When you have a WAV file at 16/44.1 you can use this tool to do a flac
conversion http://members.home.nl/w.speek/flac.htm

The default settings should be ok - just make sure that "Delete input
files" is unticked.

Then you can switch between files and compare.

It is also possible to convert the flac back to WAV - you may be
interested in comparing the original with the decompressed version.

Chris:)


--
Stratmangler
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stratmangler's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20387
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

andyg;484850 Wrote:
> Correct.

Hi Andy,

Please find attached the logs. I have labelled them accordingly to help
diagnose. If any. I noticed the playback mode being different to both
versions.

Thanks


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Filename: logs.zip |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8698|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[andyg]

Thanks. I'll just highlight the key lines from these files:

flac-SCV7.2.txt, WAV transcoded to FLAC:

Code:
--------------------

[09-11-13 13:19:11.3793] Slim::Player::Source::openSong (2083) This is an wav file: file:///E:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/02%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Flower.wav
[09-11-13 13:19:11.3798] Slim::Player::Source::openSong (2084) file type: wav format: flc inrate: 2304 maxRate: 0
[09-11-13 13:19:11.3803] Slim::Player::Source::openSong (2085) command: [flac] -cs --totally-silent --compression-level-0 --skip=$START$ --until=$END$ -- $FILE$
[09-11-13 13:19:11.3808] Slim::Player::Source::openSong (2104) Streaming with format: flc

--------------------


wav-SCV7.2.txt, WAV streamed natively:
>
> [09-11-13 13:39:13.6363] Slim::Player::Source::openSong (2083) This is
> an wav file:
> file:///E:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/02%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Flower.wav
> [09-11-13 13:39:13.6368] Slim::Player::Source::openSong (2084) file
> type: wav format: wav inrate: 2304 maxRate: 0
> [09-11-13 13:39:13.6373] Slim::Player::Source::openSong (2085)
> command: -
> [09-11-13 13:39:13.6377] Slim::Player::Source::openSong (2104)
> Streaming with format: wav
>

flac-version-SSv7.4.1.txt, WAV transcoded to FLAC:

Code:
--------------------

[09-11-13 13:09:42.1565] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::getConvertCommand2 (433) Matched: wav->flc via: [sox] -q -t wav $FILE$ -t flac -C 0 $RESAMPLE$ -
[09-11-13 13:09:42.1567] Slim::Player::Song::open (403) Transcoder: streamMode=I, streamformat=flc
[09-11-13 13:09:42.1569] Slim::Player::Song::open (451) Opening stream (no direct streaming) using Slim::Player::Protocols::File [file:///C:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/02%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Flower.wav]
[09-11-13 13:09:42.1576] Slim::Player::Protocols::File::open (78) duration: [242.333] size: [69792156] endian [] offset: [44] for file:///C:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/02%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Flower.wav
[09-11-13 13:09:42.1578] Slim::Player::Protocols::File::open (95) Opening file C:\Music\Watley, Jody\Flower\02 Watley, Jody - Flower.wav
[09-11-13 13:09:42.1584] Slim::Player::Protocols::File::open (173) Seeking in 0 into C:\Music\Watley, Jody\Flower\02 Watley, Jody - Flower.wav
[09-11-13 13:09:42.1588] Slim::Player::Song::open (472) URL is a song (audio): file:///C:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/02%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Flower.wav, type=wav
[09-11-13 13:09:42.1596] Slim::Player::Song::open (548) Tokenized command "C:\PROGRA~1\SQUEEZ~2\server\Bin\MSWin32-x86-multi-thread\sox.exe" -q -t wav "-" -t flac -C 0 -
[09-11-13 13:09:42.1625] Slim::Player::Pipeline::new (93) Launching process with command: "C:\PROGRA~1\SQUEEZ~2\server\Bin\MSWin32-x86-multi-thread\socketwrapper.exe" -d -i 50206 -o 50205 -c "\"C:\PROGRA~1\SQUEEZ~2\server\Bin\MSWin32-x86-multi-thread\sox.exe\" -q -t wav \"-\" -t flac -C 0 -"

--------------------


Wave-Version-SSv7.4.1.txt, WAV streamed natively:

Code:
--------------------

[09-11-13 12:43:08.6924] Slim::Player::Song::open (362) file:///C:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/01%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Lovin%27%20Youso.wav
[09-11-13 12:43:08.6934] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::getConvertCommand2 (433) Matched: wav->pcm via: -
[09-11-13 12:43:08.6937] Slim::Player::Song::open (382) seek=false time=0 canSeek=1
[09-11-13 12:43:08.6942] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::getConvertCommand2 (433) Matched: wav->pcm via: -
[09-11-13 12:43:08.6944] Slim::Player::Song::open (403) Transcoder: streamMode=I, streamformat=pcm
[09-11-13 12:43:08.6947] Slim::Player::Song::open (451) Opening stream (no direct streaming) using Slim::Player::Protocols::File [file:///C:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/01%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Lovin%27%20Youso.wav]
[09-11-13 12:43:08.6954] Slim::Player::Protocols::File::open (78) duration: [218.293] size: [62868642] endian [] offset: [44] for file:///C:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/01%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Lovin%27%20Youso.wav
[09-11-13 12:43:08.6956] Slim::Player::Protocols::File::open (95) Opening file C:\Music\Watley, Jody\Flower\01 Watley, Jody - Lovin' Youso.wav
[09-11-13 12:43:08.6962] Slim::Player::Protocols::File::open (173) Seeking in 44 into C:\Music\Watley, Jody\Flower\01 Watley, Jody - Lovin' Youso.wav
[09-11-13 12:43:08.6965] Slim::Player::Song::open (472) URL is a song (audio): file:///C:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/01%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Lovin%27%20Youso.wav, type=wav

--------------------


Everything looks normal and is working as intended. We did make a
change in the transcoding binary used between these 2 versions though.
We now use sox to transcoded to flac instead of the flac binary. This
is because sox supports resampling (although it's not being used in your
test). The flac output from sox is identical to the flac output from
the flac binary.


--
andyg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

andyg;485023 Wrote:
> Thanks. I'll just highlight the key lines from these files:
>
> flac-SCV7.2.txt, WAV transcoded to FLAC:
> >
Code:
--------------------
> >
> [09-11-13 13:19:11.3793] Slim::Player::Source::openSong (2083) This is an wav file: file:///E:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/02%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Flower.wav
> [09-11-13 13:19:11.3798] Slim::Player::Source::openSong (2084) file type: wav format: flc inrate: 2304 maxRate: 0
> [09-11-13 13:19:11.3803] Slim::Player::Source::openSong (2085) command: [flac] -cs --totally-silent --compression-level-0 --skip=$START$ --until=$END$ -- $FILE$
> [09-11-13 13:19:11.3808] Slim::Player::Source::openSong (2104) Streaming with format: flc
>
--------------------
> >
>
> wav-SCV7.2.txt, WAV streamed natively:
>
>
> flac-version-SSv7.4.1.txt, WAV transcoded to FLAC:
> >
Code:
--------------------
> >
> [09-11-13 13:09:42.1565] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::getConvertCommand2 (433) Matched: wav->flc via: [sox] -q -t wav $FILE$ -t flac -C 0 $RESAMPLE$ -
> [09-11-13 13:09:42.1567] Slim::Player::Song::open (403) Transcoder: streamMode=I, streamformat=flc
> [09-11-13 13:09:42.1569] Slim::Player::Song::open (451) Opening stream (no direct streaming) using Slim::Player::Protocols::File [file:///C:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/02%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Flower.wav]
> [09-11-13 13:09:42.1576] Slim::Player::Protocols::File::open (78) duration: [242.333] size: [69792156] endian [] offset: [44] for file:///C:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/02%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Flower.wav
> [09-11-13 13:09:42.1578] Slim::Player::Protocols::File::open (95) Opening file C:\Music\Watley, Jody\Flower\02 Watley, Jody - Flower.wav
> [09-11-13 13:09:42.1584] Slim::Player::Protocols::File::open (173) Seeking in 0 into C:\Music\Watley, Jody\Flower\02 Watley, Jody - Flower.wav
> [09-11-13 13:09:42.1588] Slim::Player::Song::open (472) URL is a song (audio): file:///C:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/02%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Flower.wav, type=wav
> [09-11-13 13:09:42.1596] Slim::Player::Song::open (548) Tokenized command "C:\PROGRA~1\SQUEEZ~2\server\Bin\MSWin32-x86-multi-thread\sox.exe" -q -t wav "-" -t flac -C 0 -
> [09-11-13 13:09:42.1625] Slim::Player::Pipeline::new (93) Launching process with command: "C:\PROGRA~1\SQUEEZ~2\server\Bin\MSWin32-x86-multi-thread\socketwrapper.exe" -d -i 50206 -o 50205 -c "\"C:\PROGRA~1\SQUEEZ~2\server\Bin\MSWin32-x86-multi-thread\sox.exe\" -q -t wav \"-\" -t flac -C 0 -"
>
--------------------
> >
>
> Wave-Version-SSv7.4.1.txt, WAV streamed natively:
> >
Code:
--------------------
> >
> [09-11-13 12:43:08.6924] Slim::Player::Song::open (362) file:///C:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/01%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Lovin%27%20Youso.wav
> [09-11-13 12:43:08.6934] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::getConvertCommand2 (433) Matched: wav->pcm via: -
> [09-11-13 12:43:08.6937] Slim::Player::Song::open (382) seek=false time=0 canSeek=1
> [09-11-13 12:43:08.6942] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::getConvertCommand2 (433) Matched: wav->pcm via: -
> [09-11-13 12:43:08.6944] Slim::Player::Song::open (403) Transcoder: streamMode=I, streamformat=pcm
> [09-11-13 12:43:08.6947] Slim::Player::Song::open (451) Opening stream (no direct streaming) using Slim::Player::Protocols::File [file:///C:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/01%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Lovin%27%20Youso.wav]
> [09-11-13 12:43:08.6954] Slim::Player::Protocols::File::open (78) duration: [218.293] size: [62868642] endian [] offset: [44] for file:///C:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/01%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Lovin%27%20Youso.wav
> [09-11-13 12:43:08.6956] Slim::Player::Protocols::File::open (95) Opening file C:\Music\Watley, Jody\Flower\01 Watley, Jody - Lovin' Youso.wav
> [09-11-13 12:43:08.6962] Slim::Player::Protocols::File::open (173) Seeking in 44 into C:\Music\Watley, Jody\Flower\01 Watley, Jody - Lovin' Youso.wav
> [09-11-13 12:43:08.6965] Slim::Player::Song::open (472) URL is a song (audio): file:///C:/Music/Watley,%20Jody/Flower/01%20Watley,%20Jody%20-%20Lovin%27%20Youso.wav, type=wav
>
--------------------
> >
>
> Everything looks normal and is working as intended. We did make a
> change in the transcoding binary used between these 2 versions though.
> We now use sox to transcoded to flac instead of the flac binary.
> This is because sox supports resampling (although it's not being used
> in your test). The flac output from sox is identical to the flac
> output from the flac binary.

Any explanation on the playmode for both version. I believe the
playmode is 403 for 7.2 and 93. What are these figures??


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Everything looks normal and is working as intended. We did make a
change in the transcoding binary used between these 2 versions though.
We now use sox to transcoded to flac instead of the flac binary. This
is because sox supports resampling (although it's not being used in your
test). The flac output from sox is identical to the flac output from
the flac binary.

I give up guys. If any further logs is required I will willingly provide.
My ear is definately not deceiving me for sure. So If anyone wants any
further logs or diagnostics etc then I will be very happy to provide all
necessary details. For now it feels like a dead end to me.

Ta


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[andyg]

Sorry to say but if you're not willing to use a tool like AudioDiffMaker
to provide concrete evidence of the problem, there isn't much we can do
to help. Your ears are not a good tool for measuring this, the placebo
effect is too great.


--
andyg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

andyg;485048 Wrote:
> Sorry to say but if you're not willing to use a tool like AudioDiffMaker
> to provide concrete evidence of the problem, there isn't much we can do
> to help. Your ears are not a good tool for measuring this, the placebo
> effect is too great.

That is fine Andy. Surely I'm not the only person that has noticed the
diffi
erence. Well if "nothing can be done" apart from using this software,
which has already been used for the same testing and been proofen as
having no difference in sound between flac and wav then my input using
the same process is pointless I guess. There you go.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[andyg]

Yep, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


--
andyg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Pat Farrell]

andyg wrote:
> Yep, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Actually, we have heard zero evidence in this thread that there is a
real difference. We have heard an opinion that there is a difference.

Science and engineering don't work on opinions.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

[andyg]

Thanks Pat. :)


--
andyg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

andyg;485053 Wrote:
> Yep, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Maybe they are extraordinary, for me they are not. Flac has only been
in existence for 8 years, Fact whiles the wav has been in existence for
much longer. Its not really about the length of time, to me its about
the credibility of the product, i mean the file format. Some people can
tell the difference, others cannot and its only now that more
manufacturers are using the product. The issue is not really about the
file format. Its about the version of software I guess. It may be doing
everything as you said but surely not all the logs have been taken.
Look, maybe I just have to accept its extraordinary. Thanks for your
help anyway.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[andyg]

It's trivial to verify that FLAC is able to reproduce the original WAV
file... but yeah, if you're not even willing to do that, you should
stick with WAV.


--
andyg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

andyg;485070 Wrote:
> It's trivial to verify that FLAC is able to reproduce the original WAV
> file... but yeah, if you're not even willing to do that, you should
> stick with WAV.

Yes, certainly sticking to wav,and version 7.2 as 7.4.1 to me sounds
different to 7.2. Maybe not, but we agree to disagree on this.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[cliveb]

Louis seems to be looking for a scientific explanation as to why he
hears a difference between FLAC transcoded to WAV then streamed, versus
streaming of native WAV, in spite of having been presented with lots of
scientific evidence as to why the actual sound being made by the
hardware is the same.

There is a huge body of scientific research that satisfactorily
explains why Louis hears these differences, but it's not in the domain
of engineering. It's psychological - if you expect to hear a difference,
you will.


--
cliveb

Transporter -> ATC SCM100A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

cliveb;485088 Wrote:
> Louis seems to be looking for a scientific explanation as to why he
> hears a difference between FLAC transcoded to WAV then streamed, versus
> streaming of native WAV, in spite of having been presented with lots of
> scientific evidence as to why the actual sound being made by the
> hardware is the same.
>
> There is a huge body of scientific research that satisfactorily
> explains why Louis hears these differences, but it's not in the domain
> of engineering. It's psychological - if you expect to hear a difference,
> you will.

Maybe its psychological, however that is your view. others have heard
the difference and i believe strongly there are so many factors, such as
The quality of your system, Even the circuutry of your electronic
component, what ampifier you are using, what DAC etc. We can go on and
on. The issue is not about Flac. I can tell the difference between flac
and wav in terms of how they sound. others cannot. My issue is the
difference between the softwares. That is the main conscern. The only
reason why FLac and Wav is part of the discussion was the original
thought that version 7.4.1 was transcoding in Flac. This has been
proofed by the developer as not the case when set to native and playing
a wav file, hence no need to go on. We agree to disagree that flac
sounds the same as wav. Yes i know when you covert flac back to wave you
do get the same number of bytes as the original wav file. Definately not
doubting the maths behind this, however to me the file formats sound
different. To you its psychological, to me its not. Hope this finally
explains where i stand on this.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Robin Bowes]

On 13/11/09 17:25, Louishlomador wrote:
# We can go on and on.

You certainly seem to be doing so.

R.

[Phil Leigh]

Louishlomador;485096 Wrote:
> To you its psychological, to me its not.

I'm not sure we are going to make any progress with this... Everybody's
perception of better/worse is "psychological"! (or at least
psychoacoustic)


--
Phil Leigh

You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x
LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue
Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Themis]

Louis, I don't understand what you're talking about.

I have 7.4.2 installed, I put the parameters as I explained for
transcoding to WAV at the server, and the server transcodes normally (to
WAV/PCM). An sends this PCM to the client.

Now, you seem to say that you have some kind of difference between WAV
transcoded at the server and the WAV sent directly without transcoding
?

Is that what you're saying ? oO


--
Themis

SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Themis;485110 Wrote:
> Louis, I don't understand what you're talking about.
>
> I have 7.4.2 installed, I put the parameters as I explained for
> transcoding to WAV at the server, and the server transcodes normally (to
> WAV/PCM). An sends this PCM to the client.
>
> Now, you seem to say that you have some kind of difference between WAV
> transcoded at the server and the WAV sent directly without transcoding
> ?
>
> Is that what you're saying ? oO

Certainly not. my original thought, was that 7.4.1 transcodes in flac
no matter whether you've changed it from native to flac, however Andy
has profen not to be the case. I was thinking maybe that is the reason
for the differences bewtween 7.2 to 7.4. I still prefer 7.2, to 7.4.1.
Yes 7.4.1 on the logs transcodes the wav to PCM on the player. Still
cannot figure out why there is the difference in sound when running both
applications to stream wav in native format.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Themis]

Louishlomador;485113 Wrote:
> Certainly not. my original thought, was that 7.4.1 transcodes in flac no
> matter whether you've changed it from native to flac, however Andy has
> profen not to be the case. I was thinking maybe that is the reason for
> the differences bewtween 7.2 to 7.4. I still prefer 7.2, to 7.4.1. Yes
> 7.4.1 on the logs transcodes the wav to PCM on the player. Still cannot
> figure out why there is the difference in sound when running both
> applications to stream wav in native format.
Well, it does not seem to do this on my 7.4.2
The log is:

[09-11-13 19:00:45.4328] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::enabledFormat
(199) Checking to see if flc-flc-*-* is enabled
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4331] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::enabledFormat
(207) There are 2 disabled formats...
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4334] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::enabledFormat
(213) Testing flc-flc-*-* vs flc-flc-*-*
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4336] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::enabledFormat
(217) ** flc-flc-*-* Disabled **
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4339] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::checkBin
(232) Checking formats for: flc-aif-squeezebox2-00:04:20:12:29:44
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4342] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::checkBin
(232) Checking formats for: flc-aif-*-00:04:20:12:29:44
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4345] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::checkBin
(232) Checking formats for: flc-aif-squeezebox2-*
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4348] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::checkBin
(232) Checking formats for: flc-aif-*-*
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4350] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::checkBin
(232) Checking formats for: flc-pcm-squeezebox2-00:04:20:12:29:44
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4353] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::checkBin
(232) Checking formats for: flc-pcm-*-00:04:20:12:29:44
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4356] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::checkBin
(232) Checking formats for: flc-pcm-squeezebox2-*
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4359] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::checkBin
(232) Checking formats for: flc-pcm-*-*
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4362] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::enabledFormat
(199) Checking to see if flc-pcm-*-* is enabled
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4365] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::enabledFormat
(207) There are 2 disabled formats...
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4368] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::enabledFormat
(213) Testing flc-flc-*-* vs flc-pcm-*-*
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4371] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::enabledFormat
(213) Testing wav-flc-*-* vs flc-pcm-*-*
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4374] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::checkBin
(240) enabled
[09-11-13 19:00:45.4377] Slim::Player::TranscodingHelper::checkBin
(242) Found command: [flac] -dcs --force-raw-format --endian=little
--sign=signed $START$ $END$ -- $FILE$


--
Themis

SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[andyg]

Please note that there is no transcoding going on from WAV -> PCM. PCM
is just WAV with the first 44 bytes removed. The firmware does not read
the WAV header, so we don't send it.


--
andyg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

andyg;485125 Wrote:
> Please note that there is no transcoding going on from WAV -> PCM. PCM
> is just WAV with the first 44 bytes removed. The firmware does not read
> the WAV header, so we don't send it.

for which version?


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Themis;485124 Wrote:
> Well, it does not seem to do this on my 7.4.2
> The log is:
>
>
>
>
> Maybe because its a different version. I dont think you can argue too
> much on that as this version is probably not official yet. But i agree,
> it definateley looks different. Same for 7.2 and 7.4.1


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Themis]

I guess that if there are differences with prior versions, you can open
a bug ?


--
Themis

SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Themis;485131 Wrote:
> I guess that if there are differences with prior versions, you can open
> a bug ?

Very debatable. You are right though. Maybe if more people notice the
difference in sound quality between 7.2 and 7.4.1 then that will be
justified. For now i havent got a leg to stand on. Its only 2 people
that have noticed some change.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Themis]

I don't think the question of sound quality plays a part here : if the
server is supposed to transcode to PCM (due to the setup) and it does
not, it is definitely a bug. ;)


--
Themis

SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Themis;485138 Wrote:
> I don't think the question of sound quality plays a part here : if the
> server is supposed to transcode to PCM (due to the setup) and it does
> not, it is definitely a bug. ;)

Is this based on your log?


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Themis]

Louishlomador;485151 Wrote:
> Is this based on your log?
My log seems to do the right thing : send PCM to the Client (although I
have mainly FLACs.
If yours does something else (ie does not send PCM when it should),
then it is a bug.


--
Themis

SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Phil Leigh;485108 Wrote:
> I'm not sure we are going to make any progress with this... Everybody's
> perception of better/worse is "psychological"! (or at least
> psychoacoustic)

Mate,

I'm certainly not doubting your findings. Would you say a Vynyl
recording sounds different from CD recording? Would you say a philips
DAT recording sounds similar to the source of recording,say CD? If you
can tell the difference then its big enough for your brain/ear to pick
this up, without having to use other forms to differentiate. The version
of software isssue is a grey area as I dont think everyone has the same
issue. However if you have 7.2, why dont you do some test? Try it, then
i know for sure maybe this could an issue technically on my side. The
difference is big enough for my brain/ear to pick up.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[cliveb]

Louishlomador;485096 Wrote:
> To you its psychological, to me its not. Hope this finally explains
> where i stand on this.
You're missing the point I was trying to make. Let me try a different
tack:

You hear a difference between two setups. It doesn't really matter
whether we're talking about WAV v FLAC or 7.2 v 7.4 both streaming WAV.
What is absolutely not in any question is that you hear a difference.
Now we need to figure out why.

All of the engineering evidence suggests with extremely high
probability that there is no difference in the sound being reproduced
between the two setups.

Meanwhile there is a large body of *scientific* psychological research
which explains very well why you perceive a difference.

You seem unwilling to acknowledge the overwhelming liklihood that the
reason for your perception of the difference is due to psychological
rather than engineering issues. Audiophiles often take this position -
that admitting their brains can be fooled in matters auditory is some
kind of character flaw. But it is nothing of the sort. It happens to
everyone, we are all susceptible. Indeed, if you *weren't* susceptible
to these psychological influences, *then* you would be a freak.


--
cliveb

Transporter -> ATC SCM100A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Phil Leigh]

Just want to clear one part of this up: with the correct File Types
settings, WAV definitely streams as PCM whilst FLAC definitely streams
as FLAC.

I use a special custom_convert.conf file that upsamples FLAC but not
WAV and I can see on the display on my TACT exactly what is happening.
WAV streams as PCM and FLAC streams as FLAC.

A quick Audiodiffmaker test on an SB3 (analogue outputs recorded at
24/192) using the Linn Sanctus file (16/44.1) saved to disk and streamed
as both flac and wav gives a -83dB correlation which is pretty good
given the noise floor of the SB3 analogue outs. In other words, no
difference. This is with SBS 7.5, FW 130.

I'm going to install 7.2.1 on another PC and repeat the test.

By the way, please don't suggest that the Audiodiffmaker software might
not pick up tiny differences - it is trivial to prove that the software
works "perfectly" - give it 2 identical files and it produces digital
silence. change just one sample in one of the files and it detects it!
You can change the gain or the sample rate/time offset/length of one of
the files and it will still find that one sample. It's really very
good.

My audio card can repeatedly detect the tiny rise in the SB3 noise
floor with brightness on 2 vs brightness on 3 so that's out of the
equation too.

It will take a while to do the 7.2.1 test...


--
Phil Leigh

You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x
LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue
Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Phil Leigh]

In theory, all of the following should produce nearly identical
results:

7.2 FLAC vs 7.2 WAV -71dB correlation difference track inaudible
7.2 FLAC vs 7.5 FLAC -86dB correlation difference track inaudible
7.2 WAV vs 7.5 WAV -75dB correlation difference track inaudible
7.2 WAV vs 7.5 FLAC -71dB correlation difference track inaudible
7.2 FLAC vs 7.5 WAV -51dB ... difference track is audible (with
boost)
7.5 WAV vs 7.5 FLAC -88dB correlation difference track inaudible

hmmm... I can't explain result #5
Will repeat the tests tomorrow.


--
Phil Leigh

You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x
LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue
Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Phil Leigh;485372 Wrote:
> In theory, all of the following should produce nearly identical
> results:
>
> 7.2 FLAC vs 7.2 WAV -71dB correlation difference track inaudible
> 7.2 FLAC vs 7.5 FLAC -86dB correlation difference track inaudible
> 7.2 WAV vs 7.5 WAV -75dB correlation difference track inaudible
> 7.2 WAV vs 7.5 FLAC -71dB correlation difference track inaudible
> 7.2 FLAC vs 7.5 WAV -51dB ... difference track is audible (with
> boost)
> 7.5 WAV vs 7.5 FLAC -88dB correlation difference track inaudible
>
> hmmm... I can't explain result #5
> Will repeat the tests tomorrow.


Cheers Phil, much appreciated

Maybe you can do the test for 7.4.1 as well compared to 7.2. Are you
doing these tests with wave streaming natively when playing a wave file
and then changing the server settings to stream the wav file as flac?
Lets not forget by default the server software is set to stream wav
files in flac. Basically you
1. Test outputs with Diff software when playing a wav file to stream as
Wave/PCM then change the settings on the slim server to the default,
which streams wav files in flac by default then test the outputs with
Diff software again.


Reapeat the same for 7.4.1. I am also interested to see the difference
for 7.5 as well. So far it seems with boost there is a difference. If
this stands then that will explain a few things guess. Just logged in
quickly to catchup on any interesting postings. Cheers


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[JohnSwenson]

I tried to do some AudioDiffMaker tests this weekend on a Touch and was
not very successful. I could not get a decent null on even the same
track played with identical settings. I did this many times with several
different ADCs and could not get a decent null (26dB!) when using the
adaptive gain. When I turned that off I could get a 70dB null but that
was it, I could still hear the music in the diff track so I don't think
it was just due to noise.

At this point I don't know why I'm having so much trouble with this.
The software is supposed to be able to get a BETTER null with the
adaptive gain than without, but that does not seem to be happening, so
there seems to be something wrong either with the software (or more
likely) my use of it.

BTW you can read my listening impressions of these tests in the Touch
forum in the TinySC audibility thread.

John S.


--
JohnSwenson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JohnSwenson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5974
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Phil Leigh]

JohnSwenson;485929 Wrote:
> I tried to do some AudioDiffMaker tests this weekend on a Touch and was
> not very successful. I could not get a decent null on even the same
> track played with identical settings. I did this many times with several
> different ADCs and could not get a decent null (26dB!) when using the
> adaptive gain. When I turned that off I could get a 70dB null but that
> was it, I could still hear the music in the diff track so I don't think
> it was just due to noise.
>
> At this point I don't know why I'm having so much trouble with this.
> The software is supposed to be able to get a BETTER null with the
> adaptive gain than without, but that does not seem to be happening, so
> there seems to be something wrong either with the software (or more
> likely) my use of it.
>
> BTW you can read my listening impressions of these tests in the Touch
> forum in the TinySC audibility thread.
>
> John S.

John - are you using version 3.2?

You will need to have Gain Alignment and Time Alignment checked on the
settings page.

As a test, what happens if you rund the SAME file as the reference and
compared tracks?


--
Phil Leigh

You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x
LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue
Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Phil Leigh;485932 Wrote:
> John - are you using version 3.2?
>
> You will need to have Gain Alignment and Time Alignment checked on the
> settings page.
>
> As a test, what happens if you rund the SAME file as the reference and
> compared tracks?

Any new developement guys?? on the testing front?


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Phil Leigh]

Louishlomador;486852 Wrote:
> Any new developement guys?? on the testing front?

Things are progressing nicely. There should be some results we can
share soon. This is an International effort now ;-) so timezones are a
problem.

We've been sidetracked into testing the Touch. I expect before too long
we will have a comprehensive set of results for Touch, SB3 and
Transporter.
Sorry for the delay.
Phil


--
Phil Leigh

You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x
LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue
Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Phil Leigh;486867 Wrote:
> Things are progressing nicely. There should be some results we can share
> soon. This is an International effort now ;-) so timezones are a
> problem.
>
> We've been sidetracked into testing the Touch. I expect before too long
> we will have a comprehensive set of results for Touch, SB3 and
> Transporter.
> Sorry for the delay.
> Phil

ok


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Themis]

Phil Leigh;486867 Wrote:
> Things are progressing nicely. There should be some results we can share
> soon. This is an International effort now ;-) so timezones are a
> problem.
>
> We've been sidetracked into testing the Touch. I expect before too long
> we will have a comprehensive set of results for Touch, SB3 and
> Transporter.
> Sorry for the delay.
> Phil
We expect nothing less than quality from you, Phil, so take your time.
;)


--
Themis

SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

It will take a while to do the 7.2.1 test...





Hi Guys,

I guess you've given up on this? or no time to deal with it?


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Phil Leigh]

Louishlomador;491679 Wrote:
> It will take a while to do the 7.2.1 test...
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I guess you've given up on this? or no time to deal with it?

Been sidetracked... see other posts.

However, the news (in brief) is that there is NO difference between
streamed WAV or FLAC on SB3 or Touch with any recent version of SBS
(7.3, 7.4 or 7.5)


--
Phil Leigh

You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x
LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue
Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Stratmangler]

Phil Leigh;491786 Wrote:
> Been sidetracked... see other posts.
>
> However, the news (in brief) is that there is NO difference between
> streamed WAV or FLAC on SB3 or Touch with any recent version of SBS
> (7.3, 7.4 or 7.5)

Good to hear that Phil, 'cos I couldn't hear any differences between
the two file types either.

Chris;)


--
Stratmangler
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stratmangler's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20387
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[marcoc1712]

Hi All,

After reading your posts, curiosity moved me to try, so i spent the
long Week end (from friday to tuesday, was Holyday in Italy) lissening
to different music and looking for differences.

I was skeptic, becouse i knew and i'ìve personaly verified that you can
convert from wave to flac and viceversa any time you want, but if you
compare the two wave files are BIT PERFECT, so i was realy surprised
about the results:

in my personal experience, limitetd at SB+ and 7.4.1, there is a little
but audible difference in playng Wave or Flac files, more strange (to
me) is that the same type of differences (reduced) still remain if you
play a flac file 'converted' in wave at the server side.

In few words those are the major difference to me:

a) Stereo Image:

Playng the Wave file, the scene is more focused and deeper, but
smaller, means that if you play i.e. "Old Love" from Eric Clapton
Umplugged album, mr. Clapton seems to be 10 cm shorter, the bass is
behind and not on top of the voice, the piano asolo is not so far in the
left.

b)Sound 'color':

Playng Flac, voices, arcs and cimbals are a little bit 'harder' and
cold, some 'electric' take place, in wave they are smoorher, some more
air around and more 'natural'. No big differences in bass, maybe a bit
more control in wave.

All above IMHO and i want to point that differences are small but
auidible in my system, if you pay attention to details in a critical
lissening session. Also in 'blind test' I always recogniced the WAVE
(non always the flac and the flac converted in wave)if played in
sequence.

Last point: often in the past, after a long listening session (I love
Wagner, so you can imagine how long they are...) I founded myself
claiming about some roughness and "nasality" (hope is correct in
english)in the sound, that make me tired, my first impression today, but
i've to try for much more time, is that playing wave files make this
point better (far away form LP's, anyhow).

At the end of the day, and just to give you an idea, changes are
similar to the one I had using an AC insulator transformer on the
Amplifier power line.

I personaly think is not a matter of file format that is proven to be
truly lossless, but some difference is in, maybe some tech guy could
think about?

My library is FLAC and now i'm thinking to move it back to WAVE, payng
the cost of more disk space.

Hope to be usefull, some other guy had similar experience?

regards, Marco.


--
marcoc1712
------------------------------------------------------------------------
marcoc1712's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34842
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Phil Leigh]

marcoc1712;493806 Wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> After reading your posts, curiosity moved me to try, so i spent the
> long Week end (from friday to tuesday, was Holyday in Italy) lissening
> to different music and looking for differences.
>
> I was skeptic, becouse i knew and i'ìve personaly verified that you can
> convert from wave to flac and viceversa any time you want, but if you
> compare the two wave files are BIT PERFECT, so i was realy surprised
> about the results:
>
> in my personal experience, limitetd at SB+ and 7.4.1, there is a little
> but audible difference in playng Wave or Flac files, more strange (to
> me) is that the same type of differences (reduced) still remain if you
> play a flac file 'converted' in wave at the server side.
>
> In few words those are the major difference to me:
>
> a) Stereo Image:
>
> Playng the Wave file, the scene is more focused and deeper, but
> smaller, means that if you play i.e. "Old Love" from Eric Clapton
> Umplugged album, mr. Clapton seems to be 10 cm shorter, the bass is
> behind and not on top of the voice, the piano asolo is not so far in the
> left.
>
> b)Sound 'color':
>
> Playng Flac, voices, arcs and cimbals are a little bit 'harder' and
> cold, some 'electric' take place, in wave they are smoorher, some more
> air around and more 'natural'. No big differences in bass, maybe a bit
> more control in wave.
>
> All above IMHO and i want to point that differences are small but
> auidible in my system, if you pay attention to details in a critical
> lissening session. Also in 'blind test' I always recogniced the WAVE
> (non always the flac and the flac converted in wave)if played in
> sequence.
>
> Last point: often in the past, after a long listening session (I love
> Wagner, so you can imagine how long they are...) I founded myself
> claiming about some roughness and "nasality" (hope is correct in
> english)in the sound, that make me tired, my first impression today, but
> i've to try for much more time, is that playing wave files make this
> point better (far away form LP's, anyhow).
>
> At the end of the day, and just to give you an idea, changes are
> similar to the one I had using an AC insulator transformer on the
> Amplifier power line.
>
> I personaly think is not a matter of file format that is proven to be
> truly lossless, but some difference is in, maybe some tech guy could
> think about?
>
> My library is FLAC and now i'm thinking to move it back to WAVE, payng
> the cost of more disk space.
>
> Hope to be usefull, some other guy had similar experience?
>
> regards, Marco.

Marco,
The differences you describe do not show up in testing with
AudioDiffMaker.
The analogue output from both SB3 and the new Touch are identical with
WAV vs Flac, as is the spdif via an external DAC.


--
Phil Leigh

You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x
LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue
Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[garym]

Assuming there is truly blind testing going on here, I'd assume the
difference is the typical case created when there is even a slight
volume difference in the playback of the two files. It is well
documented that this preference bias can exist with even tiny volume
differences.

In this particular case, do the FLAC files have replaygain info and is
the SB player set to use such info in playback? If so, there certainly
could be imperceptible volume differences between the FLAC and WAV files
on playback, but these differences could be affecting your preferences
between the two files.


--
garym
------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Phil Leigh]

garym;493955 Wrote:
> Assuming there is truly blind testing going on here, I'd assume the
> difference is the typical case created when there is even a slight
> volume difference in the playback of the two files. It is well
> documented that this preference bias can exist with even tiny volume
> differences.
>
> In this particular case, do the FLAC files have replaygain info and is
> the SB player set to use such info in playback? If so, there certainly
> could be imperceptible volume differences between the FLAC and WAV files
> on playback, but these differences could be affecting your preferences
> between the two files.

I think that expectation bias may also play a part...
RG (which has caught me out in the past too) would typically give quite
large differences in output...


--
Phil Leigh

You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x
LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue
Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[garym]

Phil Leigh;493957 Wrote:
> I think that expectation bias may also play a part...
> RG (which has caught me out in the past too) would typically give quite
> large differences in output...

Yep, agree on both counts. If this not a true ABX test on the part of
the OP, then these results are hardly worth discussing given the typical
expectation bias. Re the RG adjustments, I do have some files (typically
from older CDs) that have very, very small RG adjustments. On one of
these files, I would probably prefer the louder version without
realizing that the volume was even different.


--
garym
------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Phil Leigh]

garym;493960 Wrote:
> Yep, agree on both counts. If this not a true ABX test on the part of
> the OP, then these results are hardly worth discussing given the typical
> expectation bias. Re the RG adjustments, I do have some files (typically
> from older CDs) that have very, very small RG adjustments. On one of
> these files, I would probably prefer the louder version without
> realizing that the volume was even different.

My RG tag for the track mentioned earlier is -3.66dB - should be very
audible?


--
Phil Leigh

You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x
LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue
Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[garym]

Phil Leigh;493967 Wrote:
> My RG tag for the track mentioned earlier is -3.66dB - should be very
> audible?

sorry, was not referring to one of the files mentioned in this thread
(but one of my own files with a small RG adjustment).


--
garym
------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[marcoc1712]

Hi all,

I do not use RG (disabled), so i think is not a matter of volume.

By the way, every difference in audio is a matter of "Volume
difference" depending on "where" and "how" the difference is, you have
good or bad sounding devices!

Anyhow, I think that IF there is a volume difference, it will be
clearly detectet by AudioDiffMaker, Phil have you detected any in your
test? If Yes, you can't say the results are identical, but just that in
your evaluation the difference is inaudible, correct? If not, than is a
good point:

a. I'm a placebo effect victim (99% probabylites).
b. difference are not in the measure focus of the software (1%
probs).

I don't Know the software and how it works, have you tried if it's able
to detect differences as little as the one due, for instance, to a
different digital cable or power suply?

At the end, as Socrates did, i want to post you a dubt:

IF for SB is exactly the same to play a WAVE or a FLAC converted to
WAVE in the server side, why in the first case the FF/REW is disabled
and is working in the second?

Im not an expert, but to me this mean that the signal flow at least
into a one more 'logical' if not 'fisical' block, so by definition is
not 'exactly' the same. I'm not stating that this is the cause, i realy
have no idea about, but just to let you think maybe something different
is in place...

Please, spend half an hour lissen at beethoven Piano concerto - Anne
Sophie Von Mutter - Herbert Von karayan - BPO, second movment and tell
me if the Solo violin approach sound exactly the same to you or if is
only a volume matter, in the worst case, you'll listen to some very good
music, and I'll be happy to know that I can save undreds Euros in HD
space (more music to buy!)

Thanks, Marco.


--
marcoc1712
------------------------------------------------------------------------
marcoc1712's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34842
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[bhaagensen]

Louishlomador;484660 Wrote:
> I have my music ripped in 24bit 48khz in wave.

You do know that by doing this you're rips are by definition lossy (you
could do perfect 88khz rips though). I would never do this. I'd like to
keep at least one copy of my rips as true to the originals as possible.
Its possible that you're 48khz rips sounds better, or at least
different; this is obviously dependend on the resampler used. But this
is the point, since who knows what better resamplers could appear in the
future. In which case one is likely to want the resampling done on the
original files rather than on some already resampled files. Of course
you could re-rip, but ripping is not that fun imo.


--
bhaagensen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
bhaagensen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7418
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Phil Leigh]

bhaagensen;484698 Wrote:
> You do know that by doing this you're rips are by definition lossy (you
> could do perfect 88khz rips though). I would never do this. I'd like to
> keep at least one copy of my rips as true to the originals as possible.
> Its possible that you're 48khz rips sounds better, or at least
> different; this is obviously dependend on the resampler used. But this
> is the point, since who knows what better resamplers could appear in the
> future. In which case one is likely to want the resampling done on the
> original files rather than on some already resampled files. Of course
> you could re-rip, but ripping is not that fun imo.

This is the key post so far.

Louis,

If you are ripping normal redbook CD's you must do it at 16/44.1.
That's "lossless". Anything else introduces information that is NOT part
of the original recording. Whether ripping at 24/48 makes things sound
better or worse is debateable and only applies to your ears and your
system.

However, the inescapable fact is you are not starting from a clean
source.

By the way, I assume you are not using Replaygain?

Saving redbook as 24/48 on hard disk just wastes space, network and
CPU.

If you wanted to you could use SOX (if your server is a PC) to upsample
on the fly from 16/44.1 to 24/48 - that would only waste CPU and
network.

Also, using WAV as the storage format makes little sense for many
reasons. What you store as and what you stream as are, or can be, two
different things as you have found.


That site you linked to by the way has nothing at all to do with
ripping CD's...nothing.

Phil


--
Phil Leigh

You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x
LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue
Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Phil Leigh;484908 Wrote:
> This is the key post so far.
>
> Louis,
>
> If you are ripping normal redbook CD's you must do it at 16/44.1.
> That's "lossless". Anything else introduces information that is NOT part
> of the original recording. Whether ripping at 24/48 makes things sound
> better or worse is debateable and only applies to your ears and your
> system.
>
> However, the inescapable fact is you are not starting from a clean
> source.
>
> By the way, I assume you are not using Replaygain?
>
> Saving redbook as 24/48 on hard disk just wastes space, network and
> CPU.
>
> If you wanted to you could use SOX (if your server is a PC) to upsample
> on the fly from 16/44.1 to 24/48 - that would only waste CPU and
> network.
>
> Also, using WAV as the storage format makes little sense for many
> reasons. What you store as and what you stream as are, or can be, two
> different things as you have found.
>
>
> That site you linked to by the way has nothing at all to do with
> ripping CD's...nothing.
>
> Phil

Phil,

This has already been pointed out. I think the focus now should be on
the original question. Your findings between Flac and Wave in terms of
sound quality on SB3 using different versions. I've already explained
the test process. Maybe you can post your findings.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Phil Leigh]

Louishlomador;484937 Wrote:
> Phil,
>
> This has already been pointed out. I think the focus now should be on
> the original question. Your findings between Flac and Wave in terms of
> sound quality on SB3 using different versions. I've already explained
> the test process. Maybe you can post your findings.

Louis, I presume you have studied this thread?

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=396062&postcount=1


--
Phil Leigh

You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x
LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue
Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Phil Leigh;484983 Wrote:
> Louis, I presume you have studied this thread?
>
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=396062&postcount=1

I have, Unfortunately I am not a fun of this software, as there are
other things to take into considuration when doing the measurement.
Believe me, even the quality of your internal computer sound card for
doing the test will play a big role, or the connectors at the end of
your PC. I am also sure we both agree on the type of Interconnects you
use for the testing will play a role as well as some interconnects will
handle the signal in a different way due to the caracteristics of the
wire being used for the testing. I'll go in my ears. this might sound
strange, however, at least i'm not the only person that has noticed the
difference, so there you go. I'll recommend you test different music
tracks. That will be the key. I will agree that with some music track
you may not be able to tell the difference, depending on the
instruments. I'm also not sure how vetted this software is. There you go
mate


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Phil Leigh]

Louishlomador;485028 Wrote:
> I have, Unfortunately I am not a fun of this software, as there are
> other things to take into considuration when doing the measurement.
> Believe me, even the quality of your internal computer sound card for
> doing the test will play a big role, or the connectors at the end of
> your PC. I am also sure we both agree on the type of Interconnects you
> use for the testing will play a role as well as some interconnects will
> handle the signal in a different way due to the caracteristics of the
> wire being used for the testing. I'll go with my ears. this might sound
> strange, however, at least i'm not the only person that has noticed the
> difference, so there you go. I'll recommend you test different music
> tracks. That will be the key. I will agree that with some music track
> you may not be able to tell the difference, depending on the
> instruments. I'm also not sure how vetted this software is. There you go
> mate

I agree that you need to use a variety of music as some shows
differences more clearly. This is definitely true. However, the cables
etc are a constant and we are looking for a delta here.


Your ears (and mine) are the most unreliable tools on the planet.
Actually it's not our ears, but our brains...

Just because a thousand people "noticed" a difference doesn't mean
there actually is one.

The software works just fine. This is easily proven by using a control
test.

Anyway, the good news is that this afternoon I have retrieved my SB3
from the loft and wired it up. I can run some fresh tests with SB3 and
Touch.

The quality of the ADC in my soundcard in my PC is not going to be an
issue here. I have owned and used some of the very best soundcards
available. Certainly more than the average audiophile.

The rest I'm afraid is just maths.

I'd love to know what else there is to "take into consideration" ?
Your ears are better than the software? - anyone making this claim is
going to face VERY stiff opposition. If this is the basis for your
remarks, then I have a little test for you :-)


--
Phil Leigh

You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x
LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue
Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Themis]

Louishlomador;484646 Wrote:
> Has anyone noticed sound quality differences between a flac and wave
> file? I am certainly aware that flac is "lossless" however playback of
> flac files sound flat and dont seem to have great imaging effect on the
> sound than Wav. anyone?
If you think there's a difference, you can still store in FLAC format
and do the conversion on the server side. ;)


--
Themis

SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

On the server side the flac to wav option only gives you flac options
and no native wav format. The wav option is fine on the server side as
i've set it to play in native wav for both versions of the server
software.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Themis]

Louishlomador;484708 Wrote:
> On the server side the flac to wav option only gives you flac options
> and no native wav format. The wav option is fine on the server side as
> i've set it to play in native wav for both versions of the server
> software.
I don't understand. You mean you can't transcode flac to wav on the
server ?
Even if you put FLAC->Disable and PCM->flac ?


--
Themis

SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Yes the only available from flac to another format is mp3, wave or flac,
however when converting to wave the option available is flac.See the
attached picture of my settings


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Filename: Capture.JPG |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8695|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[bpa]

>
> when converting to wave the option available is flac.
>

The name in the drop down box is the application which does the
conversion so the application called "flac" will convert FLAC to WAV.
Look at other setting and you will see other applications like mov123 or
mov123/flac and mppdec.


--
bpa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
bpa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1806
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Themis]

bpa;484738 Wrote:
> The name in the drop down box is the application which does the
> conversion so the application called "flac" will convert FLAC to WAV.
> Look at other setting and you will see other applications like mov123 or
> mov123/flac and mppdec.
Exactly. So, what you send to the SB is a pcm, not flac. ;)


--
Themis

SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Phil Leigh]

This keeps coming up. Repeated tests with AudioDiffmaker have confirmed
there is NO measurable difference in either the digital or analogue
outputs when replaying FLAC vs WAV. This was with an SB3 and the Touch
(as I can now reveal - couldn't mention it before under NDA).


--
Phil Leigh

You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x
LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue
Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Phil Leigh;484729 Wrote:
> This keeps coming up. Repeated tests with AudioDiffmaker have confirmed
> there is NO measurable difference in either the digital or analogue
> outputs when replaying FLAC vs WAV. This was with an SB3 and the Touch
> (as I can now reveal - couldn't mention it before under NDA).


Strange stuff, maybe Adiodiffmaker is not as good enough to pickup the
sound diffirences, than the ear. This might sound a bit strange but i
can definately tell the diffirence. Flac just sounds flac, not much
stereo imaging, compared to wave. This is noticeable especially music
with some kind of echo imaging. Its much more pronounced in wav than in
flac.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Another reason why I'm thinking a lot of people are not able to pick
this up is
1. By default the slim server or squeeze center software is set to play
wave files in flac mode by default. This is a fact. So if you haven't
changed the settings in "files types" to play in native wave then you
will not notice a diffirences in Flac or Wave files. If you set flac
files to play flac and wav to play wave in native modes respectively I
can tell the difference in squeezecenter 7.2. In the latest version
7.4.1, the sound quality sounds like Flac even if you change these
settings. I'm hoping someone can do these tests and post results.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Themis]

Louishlomador;484757 Wrote:
> 1. By default the slim server or squeeze center software is set to play
> wave files in flac mode by default.
Seriously, I dont know what it is a "wave file in flac mode"... You
seem to think that the server sends PCM and the SB re-compresses into
FLAC on-the-fly ? Can you please provide a link or tell us where did you
get this information from ?


--
Themis

SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Themis;484767 Wrote:
> Seriously, I dont know what it is a "wave file in flac mode"... You seem
> to think that the server sends PCM and the SB re-compresses into FLAC
> on-the-fly ? Can you please provide a link or tell us where did you get
> this information from ?


This is what I know and have been told in the past by Slim devices. All
I know for sure is that the wav file is converted to flac to save
bandwidth at playback. This is based on the fact that you have a wave
file. I had bandwidth issues in the past when I was streaming music from
my network wirelessly. There was a lot of buffering issues etc. On a
hard wired network its fine without any problems, or on the wireless if
you have it set to Flac conversion mode which is the setting by
default. you can certainly confirm this with them directly. I have
posted another picture and if you check the wave settings on my server
its set to native, while the default is Flac. According to Slim devices
or logitech there are no audio differences between Wav and Flac, hence
the prefered setting is flac and flac files use less bandwidth than wav
files.


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Filename: Capture2.JPG |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8696|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Pat Farrell]

Louishlomador wrote:
> This is what I know and have been told in the past by Slim devices. All
> I know for sure is that the wav file is converted to flac to save
> bandwidth at playback.

I have never heard this in many years of using Slim Devices. It may be
true over wifi, but not over ethernet, and there are controls for it.

I had a lot of problems with streaming over wifi, which is why I ran
Ethernet cable to my Transporter.

It wasn't a Transporter or SqueezeBoxServer problem it was the WiFi in
my house.

With real wire, the problem disappeared.

I don't see audiophiles, who have many thousands of dollars in their
setup, speakers, etc. using WiFi if they have problems. Its not worth
it, even if you have to pay a contractor to drag the cable.

It is true that wav/pcm files are about twice as big as flac, and that
puts a huge load on WiFi networks. And if you are double hopping Wifi
(using WiFi from server to router and again from router to Transporter)
then your use of double sized files causes at least double if not four
times the problems.



--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

[Louishlomador]

pfarrell;484781 Wrote:
> Louishlomador wrote:
> > This is what I know and have been told in the past by Slim devices.
> All
> > I know for sure is that the wav file is converted to flac to save
> > bandwidth at playback.
>
> I have never heard this in many years of using Slim Devices. It may be
> true over wifi, but not over ethernet, and there are controls for it.
>
> I had a lot of problems with streaming over wifi, which is why I ran
> Ethernet cable to my Transporter.
>
> It wasn't a Transporter or SqueezeBoxServer problem it was the WiFi in
> my house.
>
> With real wire, the problem disappeared.
>
> I don't see audiophiles, who have many thousands of dollars in their
> setup, speakers, etc. using WiFi if they have problems. Its not worth
> it, even if you have to pay a contractor to drag the cable.
>
> It is true that wav/pcm files are about twice as big as flac, and that
> puts a huge load on WiFi networks. And if you are double hopping Wifi
> (using WiFi from server to router and again from router to
> Transporter)
> then your use of double sized files causes at least double if not four
> times the problems.
>
> I totally agree with you pat, and this is why I had to connect the SB
> to my Lan via Wire, rather than wireless as I only stream in Wav/PCM
> only. I was informed my slim to use the network cables, rather than the
> wiresless network, if i had the wave settings set to native. I can
> understand why they wouldn't make this public though, as I'm thinking it
> might be seen as a mulfunction, when not knowing the technicalities of
> file formats etc..


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Themis]

Louishlomador;484777 Wrote:
> This is what I know and have been told in the past by Slim devices. All
> I know for sure is that the wav file is converted to flac to save
> bandwidth at playback. This is based on the fact that you have a wave
> file. I had bandwidth issues in the past when I was streaming music from
> my network wirelessly. There was a lot of buffering issues etc. On a
> hard wired network its fine without any problems, or on the wireless if
> you have it set to Flac conversion mode which is the setting by
> default. you can certainly confirm this with them directly. I have
> posted another picture and if you check the wave settings on my server
> its set to native, while the default is Flac. According to Slim devices
> or logitech there are no audio differences between Wav and Flac, hence
> the prefered setting is flac and flac files use less bandwidth than wav
> files.
The default setting IS to convert WAV to FLAC, true. But if you specify
as you do (FLAC>FLAC=disable, FLAC>WAV=flac, WAV>FLAC=disable,
WAV>WAV=Native, then you send WAV to the SB, trust me.
There's no chance that anything on the way will re-compress it to FLAC.
;)


--
Themis

SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[radish]

By default all lossless formats (including wav) are transcoded to flac
by the server, that's been the case for a long time IIRC. But it's
easily changeable as has been pointed out. Whether it makes a
difference, well we all have our opinions on that ;)


--
radish

'HELP ME RAISE MONEY FOR CHILDREN'S CANCER RESEARCH!'
(HTTP://WWW.ADAMREEVE.COM/24IN24/)
http://www.last.fm/user/polymeric
------------------------------------------------------------------------
radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

I am certainly not doubting that version 7.2.1 does send wav directly to
the squeezebox. That is 100% correct, however the latest version 7.4.1
whether you do the conversion or not, sounds just like playback of Flac.
Believe me there are sound differences between server versions even when
set to wave native. As said already version 7.4.1 sounds less detailed.
Dont know why and this is why I'm in the forum. If you have both
versions of the software i think you should test and tell me what you
think. Of course you have to rip your music in wav and flac and compare.
Lets also not forget that flat doesn't give you the option to rip music
in 24bit format, while wav does, in 16bit or 24bit, depending on the rip
sofware. All i want is someone to do a similar test and post the
results.Lets also not forget that the SB firmawre is upgraded anytime
you change bewteen different versions.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[andynormancx]

Louishlomador;484802 Wrote:
> Lets also not forget that flat doesn't give you the option to rip music
> in 24bit format, while wav does, in 16bit or 24bit, depending on the rip
> sofware.
Wrong.

- FLAC files can be 24 bit
- FLAC doesn't rip anything, FLAC is a file format


--
andynormancx

Yes, it will. Yes, all of them. Yes, SoftSqueeze as well. What ?
I SAID ALL OF THEM !
------------------------------------------------------------------------
andynormancx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17417
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Stratmangler]

Louishlomador;484802 Wrote:
> I am certainly not doubting that version 7.2.1 does send wav directly to
> the squeezebox. That is 100% correct, however the latest version 7.4.1
> whether you do the conversion or not, sounds just like playback of Flac.
> Believe me there are sound differences between server versions even when
> set to wave native. As said already version 7.4.1 sounds less detailed.
> Dont know why and this is why I'm in the forum. If you have both
> versions of the software i think you should test and tell me what you
> think. Of course you have to rip your music in wav and flac and compare.
> Lets also not forget that flat doesn't give you the option to rip music
> in 24bit format, while wav does, in 16bit or 24bit, depending on the rip
> sofware. All i want is someone to do a similar test and post the
> results.Lets also not forget that the SB firmawre is upgraded anytime
> you change bewteen different versions.

What OS is your computer running.

Chris:)


--
Stratmangler
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stratmangler's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20387
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Stratmangler;484811 Wrote:
> What OS is your computer running.
>
> Chris:)


Tried it on Vista, and Windows Server 2003 on both versions, still the
same issue.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Stratmangler]

Louishlomador;484815 Wrote:
> Tried it on Vista, and Windows Server 2003 on both versions, still the
> same issue.

Clean install or overwrite ?

Chris:)


--
Stratmangler
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stratmangler's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20387
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Stratmangler;484818 Wrote:
> Clean install or overwrite ?
>
> Chris:)

Both versions of operating system, with both versions of slim server.
Completely removed, including deleting the actual folder and log files.
Still the same.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Stratmangler]

Louishlomador;484820 Wrote:
> Both versions of operating system, with both versions of slim server.
> Completely removed, including deleting the actual folder and log files.
> Still the same.

Just checking - I've had issues myself and now completely remove
installed versions before installing the latest version.

Can't say that I noticed any audible differences on the journey from
7.2 through to 7.4.1 , and at one stage I was doing A/B comparisons (2
machines, same OS, different versions of SC).

Chris:)


--
Stratmangler
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stratmangler's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20387
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321

[Louishlomador]

Stratmangler;484826 Wrote:
> Just checking - I've had issues myself and now completely remove
> installed versions before installing the latest version.
>
> Can't say that I noticed any audible differences on the journey from
> 7.2 through to 7.4.1 , and at one stage I was doing A/B comparisons (2
> machines, same OS, different versions of SC).
>
> Chris:)

Mate, you may have the key to the answers. I really love Squeezebox, I
intend to purchase the touch when out in the UK, however I have a have a
strong feeling there is some kind of bug in the latest version but cant
proof this obviously. Maybe you can do the test at your spare time or
something.

1. Rip a CD in wave, say 24bit 44.1khz

2. change the file format to stream wave files in native format as I've
already explained above.

Listen to it very carefully, preferably pick a track with lots of
cymbals, and detailed background instruments.

3. Upgrade the software back to the latest version.
4. Make sure the file type for wave is still set to native and the
other formats disabled.

5. Listen to the same track.

I would be surprised if you dont notice any differences. If anyone can
try this and post results that will be great. Then we can put pressure
on Slim to fix.


--
Louishlomador
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louishlomador's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34260
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=71321