Download: FLAC, WAV ?

I.B.: Nicely said.

Realizing you have offered up as an example only : " and how exactly do you distinguish when a cymbal decay has ceased? ", surely this has been determined (with 99% accuracy) via endless research into the topic. It's rather simple to recognize the 'crash cymbal's spectral profile extending beyond 40 KHz. (and beyond) where it eventually becomes submerged in noise. Other recordings have demonstrated content in the 50-60 KHz. range. How can it be difficult to ascertain signal from noise ?

You bring up an interesting  point: " Is the noise actually the ambiance of the recording venue? Remove it and you've removed or changed the ambiance." 

 Recording space or hall venue acoustics remain (I suspect) in the the very low frequency range (0-20/30 ? Hz.)  My guess is that the 'noise' often referred to is much higher in frequency. If not known already, surely soon we shall have the answers you present. And, in that regard, HUGE's current understanding/interpretation may very well become modified as a result -as  all others, naturally.    

pj

Huge posted:
allhifi posted:
Huge posted:

Flac is lossless.

Remove noise AND encode as FLAC is NOT lossless.

The action of removing the noise is a lossy transformation. Are you kidding me ?
          - No I'm not kidding you: Removing noise IS a lossy transformation.

I'm no Einstein, nor am I HUGE, but unless there is some data buried within the noise (previously unexpected), this seems reasonable. Otherwise, how in the world can noise removal (of a music data stream) be considered "lossy"?

Enlighten me -even if that means you must educate me via an appropriate/relevant link.

pj 

( I will offer up your thoughts to others in the field that share your (claimed) credentials to chime in. I'm simply using logic in my arguments/questions.)     

If you look at the explanation of Shannon Entropy you'll see that noise is still information and its removal is thus lossy.

Here it is again...

Shanon Entropy is related to how much information is needed to EXACTLY reproduce that specific information set.  Clearly a signal containing only simple sine wave only requires a very limited amount of information to reproduce it exactly, as each sample is precisely related to the one before and the one after it (and can be calculated).  At the other extreme, take a signal composed only of high level white noise ...  You might think, it's only noise so there's no information there - in fact the opposite is true.  Remember the requirement is to reproduce EXACTLY the same information set.  Every different recording of white noise is unique * (as white noise is random) so to reproduce any specific set of white noise requires a lot of information as no sample is related to the one before or the one after it in any way at all.  Every sample has to be individually stored in the sample set.

How does that differ  from what Xivero is saying ?

Here it is, again: 
"  A FLAC encoder becomes much more efficient if we reduce the entropy (noise) of an audio file before it gets compressed.

The methods FLAC applies for lossless compression are based on the technology of “Sparse Sampling of Signals with Finite Rate of Innovation”.

A piece of an audio signal is approximated either by a simple polynomial or a linear predictive coding (LPC).

An audio sample sequence containing noise is not really a special signal of finite rate of innovation (FIR) that could be sparsely sampled without taking care about the residual error and therefore it is not enough to just encode the coefficients of the polynomial but also the residual error!

The residual error increases with the entropy of the data to be compressed.

pj

Huge posted:

I have one recording that apparently has a background hiss.  Except it isn't: It's the sound of a rain shower falling outside the hall during the recording.

Do you remove that part of the signal?

Absolutely NOT ! The high-humidity atmosphere may have very well damped some listening room/recording venue space "resonances"  -and therefore, must be retained ! Yes, I'm kidding. Good point. But. you were unable to determine rain (natural acoustic) from unwanted system/recording noise ?

pj 

It's no different, but they only claimed that the FLAC part of the process is lossless.

The whole process is still lossy.  Using that whole process to try to prove anything about FLAC is utterly irrelevant.

The losses involved in removing the "noise" invalidate any conclusion form comparison of the result of the subsequent FLAC encoded data to the original LPCM data.  To make any such comparison is fundamentally flawed even in principle never mind in execution.

The data compression in FLAC is functionally equivalent to the data compression of a ZIP file, but optimised for music.  If you compress the data into a FLAC file then decompress the data, the data that result are EXACTLY the same as you put into the FLAC file in the first place.  The presence or absence of noise makes no difference to that.  However if you add a pre-step of removing the noise you're also removing part of the signal which you can NEVER recover - and that makes your whole process lossy.

If you remove the noise you invalidate the comparison..
If you leave the noise untouched, then there's no difference between the LPCM data, the data decoded from the WAVE file and the data decoded from the FLAC file.

It really is that simple.

Huge posted:

I have one recording that apparently has a background hiss.  Except it isn't: It's the sound of a rain shower falling outside the hall during the recording.

Do you remove that part of the signal?

I have two classical recordings done I. kingsway Hall in London, and the rumble of passing tube trains is definitely noise, but also definitely part of the ambiance, and it would take away the immediacy of the recordings to remove the sound.

Huge posted:

It's no different, but they only claimed that the FLAC part of the process is lossless.

The whole process is still lossy.  Using that whole process to try to prove anything about FLAC is utterly irrelevant.

The losses involved in removing the "noise" invalidate any conclusion form comparison of the result of the subsequent FLAC encoded data to the original LPCM data.  To make any such comparison is fundamentally flawed even in principle never mind in execution.

The data compression in FLAC is functionally equivalent to the data compression of a ZIP file, but optimised for music.  If you compress the data into a FLAC file then decompress the data, the data that result are EXACTLY the same as you put into the FLAC file in the first place.  The presence or absence of noise makes no difference to that.  However if you add a pre-step of removing the noise you're also removing part of the signal which you can NEVER recover - and that makes your whole process lossy.

If you remove the noise you invalidate the comparison..
If you leave the noise untouched, then there's no difference between the LPCM data, the data decoded from the WAVE file and the data decoded from the FLAC file.

It really is that simple.

HUGE: And for that, I thank you. Nicely articulated.

pj

Can  I just refocus for a moment, and query what this thread is now about? 

Any talk of difference between different file formats - notably .wav and .flac is only relevant if neither deliberately modifies the sound in any wY. My understanding and experience of normal .flac, e.g. as transcoded by dBPoweramp, is that it does not remove noise, and is indeed lossless - and that can be verified, audibly by transcoding to fav then back to wav, and, I am sure though never tried, by analysis of the data.

a variant of flac that removes noise is a different beast entirely, 

Innocent Bystander posted:
Huge posted:

I have one recording that apparently has a background hiss.  Except it isn't: It's the sound of a rain shower falling outside the hall during the recording.

Do you remove that part of the signal?

I have two classical recordings done I. kingsway Hall in London, and the rumble of passing tube trains is definitely noise, but also definitely part of the ambiance, and it would take away the immediacy of the recordings to remove the sound.

IB: Understood. And agreed. If it was (as was of course) recorded as such, it must remain.

Perhaps if one considers ultrasonic noise and its removal if harmful  to the end-result; music conveyance, this may be well worth the effort. If it is a"maybe", "possibly" "more harm than good" toss-up, it should remain.  

It surprises me that (since you've touched upon acoustic ambiance) that more concern doesn't reside in the crucial LF spectra of music/venue acoustics; for, it is here, in this critical range that a wealth of musical detail resides  -and that far more effort to ensure LF transparency is not often undertaken or discussed. (Nothing to do with our current discussion -directly anyway)

pj  

Innocent Bystander posted:

Can  I just refocus for a moment, and query what this thread is now about? 

Any talk of difference between different file formats - notably .wav and .flac is only relevant if neither deliberately modifies the sound in any wY. My understanding and experience of normal .flac, e.g. as transcoded by dBPoweramp, is that it does not remove noise, and is indeed lossless - and that can be verified, audibly by transcoding to fav then back to wav, and, I am sure though never tried, by analysis of the data.

a variant of flac that removes noise is a different beast entirely, 

IB: Excellent. Great "summary".

"Thread about ...? "

All answered now, in large part to your (and H's) efforts. No doubt it drifted a bit but all relevant -to my mind. 

Thank you.

pj

allhifi posted:
Huge posted:
allhifi posted:
...

 

Flac is lossless.

Remove noise AND encode as FLAC is NOT lossless.

The action of removing the noise is a lossy transformation. Are you kidding me ?
          - No I'm not kidding you: Removing noise IS a lossy transformation.

I'm no Einstein, nor am I HUGE, but unless there is some data buried within the noise (previously unexpected), this seems reasonable. Otherwise, how in the world can noise removal (of a music data stream) be considered "lossy"?

It is not a matter of anything being considered, removing noise is lossy, period. This is true in general. It is actually not difficult to understand why it is so.

You only have to understand what it means for a transformation to be lossless or, in other words, reversible. What do you think this means?

The idea is very simple: a trasformation T (of, say, signals) is said to be lossless (reversible) iff there exists an inverse transformation, say T', such that T'(T(s)) = s for every signal s. This is a general notion and nothing specific of audio signals. But it applies to audio signals, of course. The crucial point here is that an inverse transformation T' has to exist for every signal s, not just for certain signals.

From this notion of losslessness, it directly follows that a T that removes noise cannot be reversible. The argument is straightforward: take a signal s that consists of only noise. Then, by definition of T, T(s) will be the zero signal: applying T to s removes the whole signal. Now, there is no transformation that can reconstruct an arbitrary (noisy) signal from the empty signal. Thus, T has no inverse. Thus, it cannot be lossless.

There is really nothing misterious or complicated in these notions once you have understood what they mean. There is plenty of examples of lossless transformations between data formats (zip and unzip, just to mention a very much used one) and of processes that are nearly reversible in the physical world. Think, for instance, to a spring: once you release the load, it goes back to its initial position.

You have received a lot of good answers to the questions that you have raised in this thread, among others by IB, Huge, SIS and many others. Try to take a break and thing about what they have been trying to help you understand.

nbpf, HUGE: Collectively speaking, bear in mind that (largely thanks to your efforts/remarks) it must be crucially respected that any "tiny" signal variance (particularly evident and concerning with compressions techniques, lossless or lossy) the opportunity for signal deviances (or  manipulation) when encoding can result in sound quality observation distinctions upon playback. It wold be foolish to believe otherwise 

From what has been discussed, emphasis shifted to the technical specification of bit-for-bit accuracy including even the delicate issue regarding "noise" however faint (if removed/altered, automatically implies a "lossy" format.

And that serves as an appropriate segue to the entire purpose of my original (and subsequent) queries, namely ; distinctions in sound quality via the encoding process (using FLAC) can understandably result when evaluating success during playback.

Regarding lossless compression formats (remaining with FLAC) I believe it was the chaps at Xivero that pointed out that every new specification  yields new insights/understandings rendering previous versions shortcomings. It stands to reason that sound quality distinctions are a distinct possibility. No ?

A visit to xiph.org/flac revealed that since FLAC's inception (December 23, 2000) there have been twenty-one revisions to date. And not one of those revisions could account for SQ variations ?  

Consider that I've been copying my CD's to computer (using WAVE & FLAC file formats) the past few weeks, I can't imagine that computer background operations, power supply fluctuations/noise  and/or AC-power-line quality feeding the entire "system" would have no impact upon the proceedings.

Not to mention the FLAC spec. one is using. Similarly, newish 'Streaming' services (and audiophile software packages) looking for an edge in offering the best (or most distinctive) sound quality do not employ varying levels of signal manipulation in effort for increased sales/market penetration? In fact, how is it that competitors (and listener's) routinely discuss SQ distinctions  of their platforms?  Even if they do not (mess with signal), to think one receives a pristine unaltered signal once it arrives at your home (let  alone DAC)  is simply hard to digest. Yes, I'm aware that a perfect signal/file is (likely) claimed.

 I will continue to search for answers that can explain such phenomena I believe exists. To think none do (exist), is rewinding the clock a bit too far back.

Were we not assured of the CD-format's proven superiority back in 1983 ? Precision data transfer was claimed -in fact existed back then, did it not ?

Did you nbpg/HUGE marvel at this then new technology ? Be honest.

pj 

allhifi posted:

nbpf, HUGE: Collectively speaking, bear in mind that (largely thanks to your efforts/remarks) it must be crucially respected that any "tiny" signal variance (particularly evident and concerning with compressions techniques, lossless or lossy) the opportunity for signal deviances (or  manipulation) when encoding can result in sound quality observation distinctions upon playback. It wold be foolish to believe otherwise 

From what has been discussed, emphasis shifted to the technical specification of bit-for-bit accuracy including even the delicate issue regarding "noise" however faint (if removed/altered, automatically implies a "lossy" format.

And that serves as an appropriate segue to the entire purpose of my original (and subsequent) queries, namely ; distinctions in sound quality via the encoding process (using FLAC) can understandably result when evaluating success during playback.

Regarding lossless compression formats (remaining with FLAC) I believe it was the chaps at Xivero that pointed out that every new specification  yields new insights/understandings rendering previous versions shortcomings. It stands to reason that sound quality distinctions are a distinct possibility. No ?

A visit to xiph.org/flac revealed that since FLAC's inception (December 23, 2000) there have been twenty-one revisions to date. And not one of those revisions could account for SQ variations ?  

Consider that I've been copying my CD's to computer (using WAVE & FLAC file formats) the past few weeks, I can't imagine that computer background operations, power supply fluctuations/noise  and/or AC-power-line quality feeding the entire "system" would have no impact upon the proceedings.

Not to mention the FLAC spec. one is using. Similarly, newish 'Streaming' services (and audiophile software packages) looking for an edge in offering the best (or most distinctive) sound quality do not employ varying levels of signal manipulation in effort for increased sales/market penetration? In fact, how is it that competitors (and listener's) routinely discuss SQ distinctions  of their platforms?  Even if they do not (mess with signal), to think one receives a pristine unaltered signal once it arrives at your home (let  alone DAC)  is simply hard to digest. Yes, I'm aware that a perfect signal/file is (likely) claimed.

 I will continue to search for answers that can explain such phenomena I believe exists. To think none do (exist), is rewinding the clock a bit too far back.

Were we not assured of the CD-format's proven superiority back in 1983 ? Precision data transfer was claimed -in fact existed back then, did it not ?

Did you nbpg/HUGE marvel at this then new technology ? Be honest.

pj 

To be honest, I do not understand what you are talking about. I have tried to explain why a transformation that removes noise cannot be lossless. That's all. I hope that others can provide better explanations or that you'll come up with more satisfying answers to the questions that you are raising and that I do not understand. Take care, nbpf  

Hi PJ

I'm not sure I understand your last post, so please excuse if I misinterpreted anything.

allhifi posted:

nbpf, HUGE: Collectively speaking, bear in mind that (largely thanks to your efforts/remarks) it must be crucially respected that any "tiny" signal variance (particularly evident and concerning with compressions techniques, lossless or lossy) the opportunity for signal deviances (or  manipulation) when encoding can result in sound quality observation distinctions upon playback. It wold be foolish to believe otherwise 

From what has been discussed, emphasis shifted to the technical specification of bit-for-bit accuracy including even the delicate issue regarding "noise" however faint (if removed/altered, automatically implies a "lossy" format.

...

Indeed, at this stage we're talking solely about the digital domain, and specifically about the encode / decode cycle.  In the case of WAVE and FLAC you always get back exactly what you put in (and this hasn't changed with any of the revisions to either specification).

 

allhifi posted:
...

And that serves as an appropriate segue to the entire purpose of my original (and subsequent) queries, namely ; distinctions in sound quality via the encoding process (using FLAC) can understandably result when evaluating success during playback.

...

Playback includes factors that can cause differences in sound that are dependant on the playback equipment and have nothing specifically to do with the encoding; furthermore these effects aren't reproducible between different types of playback equipment.  This is why people transcode digital streams to WAVE format (i.e. LPCM), to reduce the effect of having other types of playback stream inside their player, as WAVE is the simplest format for the player to use to generate an electrical representation of the sound.

 

allhifi posted:
...

Regarding lossless compression formats (remaining with FLAC) I believe it was the chaps at Xivero that pointed out that every new specification  yields new insights/understandings rendering previous versions shortcomings. It stands to reason that sound quality distinctions are a distinct possibility. No ?

A visit to xiph.org/flac revealed that since FLAC's inception (December 23, 2000) there have been twenty-one revisions to date. And not one of those revisions could account for SQ variations ?  

...

ALL versions of the specifications for FLAC - absolutely all - guarantee that the data that you get back out are exactly the same as the data that you put in.  The differences in the encoding only affect the amount of computing power required to encode and decode the data or change the allowable metadata.  They don't change the data itself.

As there are no changes to the data there are no changes to the sound quality between these versions due to the mathematics of the encoding and decoding.  The only changes would be in playback equipment caused by changes in the computing power needed to decode the data and the effect that this computing power has on the rest of the playback circuitry (the operation of the computer decoding the FLAC stream can interfere with the DAC and other analogue circuitry).

 

allhifi posted:
...

Consider that I've been copying my CD's to computer (using WAVE & FLAC file formats) the past few weeks, I can't imagine that computer background operations, power supply fluctuations/noise  and/or AC-power-line quality feeding the entire "system" would have no impact upon the proceedings.

...

Indeed it has no impact, the data in the file are completely determined mathematically and are completely unaffected by other operations of the computer etc. (if this were not true then applications like Excel or your on-line banking application would routinely make mathematical errors!).

 

allhifi posted:
...

Not to mention the FLAC spec. one is using. Similarly, newish 'Streaming' services (and audiophile software packages) looking for an edge in offering the best (or most distinctive) sound quality do not employ varying levels of signal manipulation in effort for increased sales/market penetration? In fact, how is it that competitors (and listener's) routinely discuss SQ distinctions  of their platforms?  Even if they do not (mess with signal), to think one receives a pristine unaltered signal once it arrives at your home (let  alone DAC)  is simply hard to digest. Yes, I'm aware that a perfect signal/file is (likely) claimed.

 I will continue to search for answers that can explain such phenomena I believe exists. To think none do (exist), is rewinding the clock a bit too far back.

...

I'm not at all sure what you mean here, but one observation.

When the data are fed across the internet the data don't arrive in an orderly fashion making it easy for the media player they arrive in clumps, and sometimes out of sequence.  This requires the player's computer to put more computing power into sorting it all out, so it can pass the data to the DAC in an orderly manner.  Again this extra computing power needed can cause interference in the analogue side of the media player, leading to degraded sound quality.

 

allhifi posted:
...

Were we not assured of the CD-format's proven superiority back in 1983 ? Precision data transfer was claimed -in fact existed back then, did it not ?

Did you nbpg/HUGE marvel at this then new technology ? Be honest.

pj 

I looked at it, realised that the 'perfect sound' was almost possible, but not quite.  I looked at the practical implementations of the technology and realised where they fell short of theory.  I then designed and built my own amplifier to reduce the degrading effect of the limitations of technology in use at that time.  I achieved a sound quality that was a lot better than most CD replay systems of the time.

No I didn't marvel at the technology - I fixed it's limitations instead!

Hi pj,

Following this thread it's clear you like to shake-up things. Bringing an avalanche of questions and doubting most of the shared knowledge of (at least for me) high appreciated fellow forum members.

Old saying is: "the more you know, the less you understand".

Got the impression you don't accept the knowledge so you can convince yourself that you still understand.

Hope this helps.

 

 

 I will continue to search for answers that can explain such phenomena I believe exists. To think none do (exist), is rewinding the clock a bit too far back.

 

Why do you believe these phenomena exist? It comes across a bit like paranoia, apparently started by your hearing differences between playing .flac and .wav in your system, though you say that you've accepted the reasons for that. (Incidentally, have you yet tried the convert and convert back test and then listen for differences between the original and recreated .wav files?)

Well I know what I'm talking about...

WAVE and FLAC contain the same data after the decoding - no difference there.


However...

Wave (well LPCM anyway)... Low computing requirement for decoding - less interference transmitted through the PSU and directly coupled into the analogue circuitry.
FLAC - Higher computing requirement for decoding - more interference transmitted through the PSU and directly coupled into the analogue circuitry.

Mike-B posted:

I'm glad it's the same for you Simon,  I gave up a few days ago.  I was considering applied transcendental idealism as a means of understanding this higher level of logic.  

I have found red wine and grappa to be more effective in dealing with certain kinds of logic. Giving up is sometimes an act of wisdom, I guess. 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Can anyone explain what we are talking about now and what particular phenomenon is being referred to? Clearly nothing about WAV or FLAC encoding methods... perhaps  this has moved from technical to some metaphysical/spiritual concept? or I might just be being slow... thanks

I cannot. I have just tried to explain why a transformation that removes noise cannot be lossless. Perhaps it was a bad explanation. Perhaps it was wrong. Or it was Huge's fault. I do not know. But we seem to have beamed Allhifi into a metaphysical/spiritual territory I feel uncomfortable with. Hope he will find his way back. I'm going to bed now. Best, nbpf   

nbpf posted:
allhifi posted:

nbpf, HUGE: Collectively speaking, bear in mind that (largely thanks to your efforts/remarks) it must be crucially respected that any "tiny" signal variance (particularly evident and concerning with compressions techniques, lossless or lossy) the opportunity for signal deviances (or  manipulation) when encoding can result in sound quality observation distinctions upon playback. It wold be foolish to believe otherwise 

From what has been discussed, emphasis shifted to the technical specification of bit-for-bit accuracy including even the delicate issue regarding "noise" however faint (if removed/altered, automatically implies a "lossy" format.

And that serves as an appropriate segue to the entire purpose of my original (and subsequent) queries, namely ; distinctions in sound quality via the encoding process (using FLAC) can understandably result when evaluating success during playback.

Regarding lossless compression formats (remaining with FLAC) I believe it was the chaps at Xivero that pointed out that every new specification  yields new insights/understandings rendering previous versions shortcomings. It stands to reason that sound quality distinctions are a distinct possibility. No ?

A visit to xiph.org/flac revealed that since FLAC's inception (December 23, 2000) there have been twenty-one revisions to date. And not one of those revisions could account for SQ variations ?  

Consider that I've been copying my CD's to computer (using WAVE & FLAC file formats) the past few weeks, I can't imagine that computer background operations, power supply fluctuations/noise  and/or AC-power-line quality feeding the entire "system" would have no impact upon the proceedings.

Not to mention the FLAC spec. one is using. Similarly, newish 'Streaming' services (and audiophile software packages) looking for an edge in offering the best (or most distinctive) sound quality do not employ varying levels of signal manipulation in effort for increased sales/market penetration? In fact, how is it that competitors (and listener's) routinely discuss SQ distinctions  of their platforms?  Even if they do not (mess with signal), to think one receives a pristine unaltered signal once it arrives at your home (let  alone DAC)  is simply hard to digest. Yes, I'm aware that a perfect signal/file is (likely) claimed.

 I will continue to search for answers that can explain such phenomena I believe exists. To think none do (exist), is rewinding the clock a bit too far back.

Were we not assured of the CD-format's proven superiority back in 1983 ? Precision data transfer was claimed -in fact existed back then, did it not ?

Did you nbpg/HUGE marvel at this then new technology ? Be honest.

pj 

To be honest, I do not understand what you are talking about. I have tried to explain why a transformation that removes noise cannot be lossless. That's all. I hope that others can provide better explanations or that you'll come up with more satisfying answers to the questions that you are raising and that I do not understand. Take care, nbpf  

Hi: You said: " ... I have tried to explain why a transformation that removes noise cannot be lossless"

(I truly understand. Nor argument. Thank you.)

In a nutshell, my "argument" is that seemingly innocuous details (whether during encoding, playback), adding or subtracting noise OR, this-that-and-other, there can be an accompanying change in subjective impressions.  

nbpf, HUGE: Please answer the following: Did you marvel at the sound quality of the compact disc when introduced in 1982 -or indeed throughout the 1980's ?????

You may wish to reign-in the arrogant-leaning remarks such as "What don't you understand", "Trying to explain", "Some don't get it", along with the feeble attempts at sarcastic humor.

You know how to determine if one is  both (mathematically) sharp but also really smart ?

Right then, I offer you the following:   

" ... And like Rob Watts of Chord said in a Head-Fi forum interview not long ago, “My mantra is ‘You know nothing Jon Snow…’ and that is to remind me that there are very real limits to what I understand, and assumptions must be constantly tested with listening tests. Very big progress can be made by going down avenues that at first sight seem incapable of changing sound quality.”

That is so brilliant, the last part in particular, bears repeating: " Very big progress can be made by going down avenues that at first sight seem incapable of changing sound quality.”

So, big-shots here on Naim forums, really try to comprehend or at the very least show some humility.

pj

allhifi posted:
<snip>

nbpf, HUGE: Please answer the following: Did you marvel at the sound quality of the compact disc when introduced in 1982 -or indeed throughout the 1980's ?????

<snip>

I did answer your question.

 

Copied from my previous post...

allhifi posted:
...

Were we not assured of the CD-format's proven superiority back in 1983 ? Precision data transfer was claimed -in fact existed back then, did it not ?

Did you nbpg/HUGE marvel at this then new technology ? Be honest.

pj 

I looked at it, realised that the 'perfect sound' was almost possible, but not quite.  I looked at the practical implementations of the technology and realised where they fell short of theory.  I then designed and built my own amplifier to reduce the degrading effect of the limitations of technology in use at that time.  I achieved a sound quality that was a lot better than most CD replay systems of the time.

No I didn't marvel at the technology - I fixed it's limitations instead!

allhifi posted:
<snip>

" ... And like Rob Watts of Chord said in a Head-Fi forum interview not long ago, “My mantra is ‘You know nothing Jon Snow…’ and that is to remind me that there are very real limits to what I understand, and assumptions must be constantly tested with listening tests. Very big progress can be made by going down avenues that at first sight seem incapable of changing sound quality.”

That is so brilliant, the last part in particular, bears repeating: " Very big progress can be made by going down avenues that at first sight seem incapable of changing sound quality.”

So, big-shots here on Naim forums, really try to comprehend or at the very least show some humility.

pj

I'll give you another quote...

"I cannae change the laws of physics!" - Montgomery Scott.

It applies equally to mathematics and to entropy.

Huge posted:
allhifi posted:
<snip>

nbpf, HUGE: Please answer the following: Did you marvel at the sound quality of the compact disc when introduced in 1982 -or indeed throughout the 1980's ?????

<snip>

I did answer your question.

 

Copied from my previous post...

allhifi posted:
...

Were we not assured of the CD-format's proven superiority back in 1983 ? Precision data transfer was claimed -in fact existed back then, did it not ?

Did you nbpg/HUGE marvel at this then new technology ? Be honest.

pj 

I looked at it, realised that the 'perfect sound' was almost possible, but not quite.  I looked at the practical implementations of the technology and realised where they fell short of theory.  I then designed and built my own amplifier to reduce the degrading effect of the limitations of technology in use at that time.  I achieved a sound quality that was a lot better than most CD replay systems of the time.

No I didn't marvel at the technology - I fixed it's limitations instead!

'Huge': Your reply/disclosure revealed a great deal.  

In fact, it deserves further unpacking:

1)   "I looked at the practical implementations of the technology and realised where they fell short of theory". ( In-a-nutshell -what exactly did you realize/discover? )

2)  "I then designed and built my own amplifier to reduce the degrading effect of the limitations of technology in use at that time." (What did you do/change with existing amplifier design ?)  

3)  "  I achieved a sound quality that was a lot better than most CD replay systems of the time." (Was the bit-for-bit perfect signal/file -as represented by the Compact Disc- not to your liking then ?) 

pj

Huge posted:
allhifi posted:
<snip>

" ... And like Rob Watts of Chord said in a Head-Fi forum interview not long ago, “My mantra is ‘You know nothing Jon Snow…’ and that is to remind me that there are very real limits to what I understand, and assumptions must be constantly tested with listening tests. Very big progress can be made by going down avenues that at first sight seem incapable of changing sound quality.”

That is so brilliant, the last part in particular, bears repeating: " Very big progress can be made by going down avenues that at first sight seem incapable of changing sound quality.”

So, big-shots here on Naim forums, really try to comprehend or at the very least show some humility.

pj

I'll give you another quote...

"I cannae change the laws of physics!" - Montgomery Scott.

It applies equally to mathematics and to entropy.

Answer my questions, HUGE. (I'm confident Naim readers are also interested)

pj 

Hungryhalibut posted:

I’m not sure adults generally say ‘very big progress’. You’d surely expect the godlike genius who is Rob Watts to say ‘great progress’. 

HH: It's his humility (sensibility) that stands out the most -although his work with digital audio remains equally impressive. The 'god-like' status (you) referenced also speaks volumes ...

pj 

Bear in mind that this applies to the implementation of CD replay in the 1980s, I didn't do anything that would alter the theoretical principles of operation - they were good enough already...

1)   The use of digital filtration as part of the DAC process was fairly rudimentary and combined with relatively limited analogue filtration was allowing a lot of energy to be retained in the ultrasonic region.  This is an implementation issue not a fundamental issue of the theory.

2)   I changed the amp design to prevent the ultrasonic spuriae for excessively influencing the driver transistors.  This reduced IMD and TID, and prevented the driver transistors from entering a transitory latch up state. This gives a more stable condition for the output pair.  This, in turn gives more stable conditions to the -ve input of the long tailed pair and ensures that there was less reliance on the feedback loop to ameliorate these distortions.  I modelled these changes to ensure that the Nyquist margin was maintained.  (Well, you did ask, so I hope you understand power amp design sufficiently.)

3)   I didn't change anything on the digital side as it wasn't necessary.  With a true (CRC checked) read of the data, or even a C1 error read, the Reed-Solomon reconstruction of the data is bit perfect - there's nothing to improve.  (Note that the data on a CD are NOT written as simple LPCM values, they are Reed-Solomon encoded before being written to the CD and decoded by the player to reconstitute the LPCM values before these are committed to the DAC.  This is a lossless mathematical process, and that mathematical process is, of itself, not open to improvement.)

allhifi posted:
Huge posted:
allhifi posted:
<snip>

" ... And like Rob Watts of Chord said in a Head-Fi forum interview not long ago, “My mantra is ‘You know nothing Jon Snow…’ and that is to remind me that there are very real limits to what I understand, and assumptions must be constantly tested with listening tests. Very big progress can be made by going down avenues that at first sight seem incapable of changing sound quality.”

That is so brilliant, the last part in particular, bears repeating: " Very big progress can be made by going down avenues that at first sight seem incapable of changing sound quality.”

So, big-shots here on Naim forums, really try to comprehend or at the very least show some humility.

pj

I'll give you another quote...

"I cannae change the laws of physics!" - Montgomery Scott.

It applies equally to mathematics and to entropy.

Answer my questions, HUGE. (I'm confident Naim readers are also interested)

pj 

There wasn't a question there and I'd already answered the previous question.

I've answered the follow on question as well now (above).

 

Is this helping you with understanding the difference between FLAC encoding in FLAC files and LPCM encoding in WAVE files?

Huge posted:
allhifi posted:
<snip>

" ... And like Rob Watts of Chord said in a Head-Fi forum interview not long ago, “My mantra is ‘You know nothing Jon Snow…’ and that is to remind me that there are very real limits to what I understand, and assumptions must be constantly tested with listening tests. Very big progress can be made by going down avenues that at first sight seem incapable of changing sound quality.”

That is so brilliant, the last part in particular, bears repeating: " Very big progress can be made by going down avenues that at first sight seem incapable of changing sound quality.”

So, big-shots here on Naim forums, really try to comprehend or at the very least show some humility.

pj

I'll give you another quote...

"I cannae change the laws of physics!" - Montgomery Scott.

It applies equally to mathematics and to entropy.

Both quotes have value, and are meaningful in the context of audio, electronics and digital encoding/decoding:

Very big progress can indeed be made down avenues that may seem to go nowhere - and as many times (and far often far more times) the blind alley does prove to be a blind alley: that is simply the nature of research and development. But no amount of pressing down a blind alley will achieve the truly impossible, e.g something that doesn't comply with what we call the laws of physics, such as the relationships between energy, mass, time etc.  that ultimately define how things work.

But I'm unclear where this fits in the theme of this thread. Actually, as with others, I'm baffled as to what actually the theme of this thread now is.

in the interests of progression, can I suggest that it would help to have a clear question - even better if it can be expressed in terms of something observed in some way (e.g. heard), or that doesn't work, or maybe even something that does work and you don't understand why, rather than a vague suspicion of something, especially if there is no identifiable foundation for the suspicion. If the queation relates to understanding something said on another website, perhaps it would be better to question there first.

Huge posted:

Bear in mind that this applies to the implementation of CD replay in the 1980s, I didn't do anything that would alter the theoretical principles of operation - they were good enough already...

1)   The use of digital filtration as part of the DAC process was fairly rudimentary and combined with relatively limited analogue filtration was allowing a lot of energy to be retained in the ultrasonic region.  This is an implementation issue not a fundamental issue of the theory.

2)   I changed the amp design to prevent the ultrasonic spuriae for excessively influencing the driver transistors.  This reduced IMD and TID, and prevented the driver transistors from entering a transitory latch up state. This gives a more stable condition for the output pair.  This, in turn gives more stable conditions to the -ve input of the long tailed pair and ensures that there was less reliance on the feedback loop to ameliorate these distortions.  I modelled these changes to ensure that the Nyquist margin was maintained.  (Well, you did ask, so I hope you understand power amp design sufficiently.)

3)   I didn't change anything on the digital side as it wasn't necessary.  With a true (CRC checked) read of the data, or even a C1 error read, the Reed-Solomon reconstruction of the data is bit perfect - there's nothing to improve.  (Note that the data on a CD are NOT written as simple LPCM values, they are Reed-Solomon encoded before being written to the CD and decoded by the player to reconstitute the LPCM values before these are committed to the DAC.  This is a lossless mathematical process, and that mathematical process is, of itself, not open to improvement.)

1)   "The use of digital filtration as part of the DAC process was fairly rudimentary and combined with relatively limited analogue filtration was allowing a lot of energy to be retained in the ultrasonic region.  This is an implementation issue not a fundamental issue of the theory."

(Where are you pulling this stuff from ? No wait, don't answer; "limited analog filtration" ? (I'll say) What are you chattering about ? Very  steep brick-wall filters were employed back then.)

"A lot of ultrasonic energy was retained " ? Where was it "retained", and of what consequence ?? 

2) You must re-read your own #2: Priceless !  "ultrasonic spuriae" (love that one! -just say noise) " " excessively influencing the driver transistors" (such electronic engineer speak!)

"This reduced IMD and TID, and prevented the driver transistors from entering a transitory latch up state. This gives a more stable condition for the output pair" (You applied feedback -brilliant!!)

"long tailed pair", "I modelled these changes to ensure that the Nyquist margin was maintained. "

( You "modelled" these changes did you !  " ... Nyquist margin was maintained" . You passband limited -sharply above 20KHz. Just say so. No need for your imaginative, flowery talk that likely only impresses you . The sheer, unadulterated laughter you've bestowed upon me deserves to be recognized -for what it is).

(Well, you did ask (I regret it now) , so I hope you understand  (oh, I understand alright) power amp design sufficiently  (indeed I do))

Although  it took some time (as it often does), you've answered all of the most important questions I need to know -about you. With that said, these shall be your famous last words -to me. I have no interest in communicating anything with you any further. It is, a dead-end.

Who needs Yuk-Yuk's -when we have such enormous laughs right here !  

pj 

AllHiFi

You don't understand the answer, so you resort to crude insults.  What I wrote would be understood by any competent engineer working in this field.
You asked, I answered in good faith, and you responded with insults.

You owe me an apology.

Richard Dane posted:

Manners please.  We are all members here and we should treat each other with due respect. This is not some grilling on the Today Programme.  Thanks.

Understood. I shall refrain from here on in. I do have ONLY one issue and that has always  been with folk dancing around like experts -when in fact no expertise exists.

I seek clarity and understanding. And I respect intelligence. Music matters a great deal to me -as does its reproduction.  Seeking wisdom to aid in this desire is what I (all here?) seek.

In any case, you are correct. It's best I stop with this thread here and now.

Thank you.

 pj

Huge posted:

AllHiFi

You don't understand the answer, so you resort to crude insults.  What I wrote would be understood by any competent engineer working in this field.
You asked, I answered in good faith, and you responded with insults.

You owe me an apology.

Whilst I am not an electronics engineer, I have dabbled in electronics since the mid 1960s, and I confirm that Huge's description is understandable to me, the terminology being consistent with tge subject. 

Huge posted:

AllHiFi

You don't understand the answer, so you resort to crude insults.  What I wrote would be understood by any competent engineer working in this field.
You asked, I answered in good faith, and you responded with insults.

You owe me an apology.

I apologize. Partially.

pj

nbpf posted:
Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Can anyone explain what we are talking about now and what particular phenomenon is being referred to? Clearly nothing about WAV or FLAC encoding methods... perhaps  this has moved from technical to some metaphysical/spiritual concept? or I might just be being slow... thanks

I cannot. I have just tried to explain why a transformation that removes noise cannot be lossless. Perhaps it was a bad explanation. Perhaps it was wrong. Or it was Huge's fault. I do not know. But we seem to have beamed Allhifi into a metaphysical/spiritual territory I feel uncomfortable with. Hope he will find his way back. I'm going to bed now. Best, nbpf   

nbpf: Bless you. " ... beamed Allhifi into a metaphysical/spiritual territory..." Thank you !

Although I may come across as firm -or otherworldly, I can only imagine- I assure you I'm at peace. Please do not feel uncomfortable. I do wish for clarity and understanding. But most of all, (think-out-of-the-box) honesty.  No hard feelings. Be sharp. Stay smart. Accountable. Honest. And humble. Is all I ask. 

" There is much  to discover in silent slumber -that often speaks loudly" 

pj

allhifi posted:
nbpf posted:
allhifi posted:

nbpf, HUGE: Collectively speaking, bear in mind that ...

To be honest, I do not understand what you are talking about. I have tried ...

...

nbpf, HUGE: Please answer the following: Did you marvel at the sound quality of the compact disc when introduced in 1982 -or indeed throughout the 1980's ?????

...

Not that I can remember. In the eighties I was studing at the university and I did not care about music and music replay. I guess I have bought my first CDs in the nineties and I actually got interested in music and music replay only about 5 years ago. I have to admit that I understand very little of what you are writing in your posts. I thought that you had answered your original question and decided to download and store your files in WAV format. What has this problem to do with the eighties and with the introduction of CDs? Best, nbpf

Innocent Bystander posted:
Huge posted:
allhifi posted:
<snip>

" ... And like Rob Watts of Chord said in a Head-Fi forum interview not long ago, “My mantra is ‘You know nothing Jon Snow…’ and that is to remind me that there are very real limits to what I understand, and assumptions must be constantly tested with listening tests. Very big progress can be made by going down avenues that at first sight seem incapable of changing sound quality.”

That is so brilliant, the last part in particular, bears repeating: " Very big progress can be made by going down avenues that at first sight seem incapable of changing sound quality.”

So, big-shots here on Naim forums, really try to comprehend or at the very least show some humility.

pj

I'll give you another quote...

"I cannae change the laws of physics!" - Montgomery Scott.

It applies equally to mathematics and to entropy.

Both quotes have value, and are meaningful in the context of audio, electronics and digital encoding/decoding:

Very big progress can indeed be made down avenues that may seem to go nowhere - and as many times (and far often far more times) the blind alley does prove to be a blind alley: that is simply the nature of research and development. But no amount of pressing down a blind alley will achieve the truly impossible, e.g something that doesn't comply with what we call the laws of physics, such as the relationships between energy, mass, time etc.  that ultimately define how things work.

But I'm unclear where this fits in the theme of this thread. Actually, as with others, I'm baffled as to what actually the theme of this thread now is.

in the interests of progression, can I suggest that it would help to have a clear question - even better if it can be expressed in terms of something observed in some way (e.g. heard), or that doesn't work, or maybe even something that does work and you don't understand why, rather than a vague suspicion of something, especially if there is no identifiable foundation for the suspicion. If the queation relates to understanding something said on another website, perhaps it would be better to question there first.

" ...But I'm unclear where this fits in the theme of this thread. Actually, as with others, I'm baffled as to what actually the theme of this thread now is."

Quite simply, that nothing is ever as what it seems, or appears -not even our basic understanding of physics/mathematics. I'm certain the field of Quantum Theory (eventually science) shall be revelatory.

pj  

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×