Download: FLAC, WAV ?

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.

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

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

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  

Some theories are of course only theories because they have yet to be proven, other things are no longer theories because they have been proved. Good luck with disproving the laws of physics... 

As for the question you had asked avout marvelling at CDs when they first came out, my first experience was walking through some large shop or other, might have been a department store or a supermarket, hearing one playing and thinking it sounded pretty good, very clear sound - i.e initially impressive, but the wrong environment to really marvel. Not long after that, my brother bought a player (no idea what - nothing particularly hi fi, but then they were all supposed to sound great) My first reaction hearing it in his house, compared to records:  yes, pretty good clarity, no surface noise, and very good dynamic range - it would have been something to marvel over ...except that It sounded harsh, and there was no bass. Not good.

Time passed, and many hifi mag reviews read, and by mid 80s the impression was that things had improved a lot, so I went to a hifi shop to try. Much less harshness, actually not bad ...but still no real bass. Not something I could live with. It was not until 1990 or so that  I heard a player that did actually sound good, with at last the benefits shining through without the major limitations, so I bought into CD. But CDs recorded even in the early 80s sounded good on it, and music ripped from them still does. So, it was not the digitising, nor the file format nor the physical medium that was the limitation, but the players. 

The parallel between that and now, is that lossless formats are all fine and interchangeable, but the player has to be able to play it well.

You may have suspicions that file formats can't be transcoded without detriment to sound quality, but until you do something to prove it, they will be just that, unfounded suspicions, which like, say, human jealosy, can ruin the pursuit of music. So I suggest going and doing detailed tests and research, to try to find  find some real evidence that something is amiss - and if you can't, stop beating yourself and others up over it.

nbpf posted:

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

The clarification is most important. 

I absolutely loved music and hi-fi as a young child. At 12/13 Y.O.A., my interest accelerated (far faster than it did for girls come to think of it). Unless one is a passionate, genuine hi-fi guy, it would  be impossible to understand (or have a feel) for the revelations that unfolded (and continue to) both as a consumer and professional in the business over the course decades.

You see, technical specifications (specifically, in this case, digital music data -as it  represents the digits/ voltages present ) anyone can rehash on the backs of those that were/are responsible for the current specifications.      

It takes someone special (such as Rob Watts for example) who venture to go where few have gone before, and in doing so, finds remarkable new insights -and soon to be new 'specifications'.

To your question; it has everything to do with the history of CD. You see, for many including yourself and HUGE, back in its introductory year/decade, you were likely both thrilled at this (then new)  'robust' music replay specification. Remember how amazed you were both with the sound? Problem was, passionate listener's with an ear to the truth realized fast how shitty CD sounded; flat, dimensionless, strident, absolutely no LF resolution/definition, sound-staging credentials or most importantly (by far) any sense of 'musicality'; that sense of natural harmonic structure, tonal variety or dynamic instrument/vocal vitality. IT WAS WAS AWFUL.  But you didn't think so !

And then (among many other discoveries), "dither" was found to greatly enhance the listening experience as superior DAC'c (and architecture) continued to improve things considerably. You see, although your treasured digital data specification was as robust back then as it is today -it sounded like crap. So much so, that I finally could consider CDP's (for dent sound quality) at around the turn-of-the-century; seventeen years after its introduction !  Pickier folk felt 2004/5 was the breakthrough year (for quality CD sound) -a cool twenty-two years after its release.      

"What has this problem to do with the eighties and with the introduction of CDs?"

Do you understand now ?

pj

Goodness me, you do come across as a patronising pillock. It may not be the intention, and perhaps you cannot help it, or maybe English is not your first language. Whatever, it’s most unhelpful. 

allhifi posted:

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

Since you have only partially apologised, I shall accept that part of the apology and await the rest of it.

allhifi posted:

nbpf posted:

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

The clarification is most important. 

I absolutely loved music and hi-fi as a young child. At 12/13 Y.O.A., my interest accelerated (far faster than it did for girls come to think of it). Unless one is a passionate, genuine hi-fi guy, it would  be impossible to understand (or have a feel) for the revelations that unfolded (and continue to) both as a consumer and professional in the business over the course decades.

You see, technical specifications (specifically, in this case, digital music data -as it  represents the digits/ voltages present ) anyone can rehash on the backs of those that were/are responsible for the current specifications.      

It takes someone special (such as Rob Watts for example) who venture to go where few have gone before, and in doing so, finds remarkable new insights -and soon to be new 'specifications'.

To your question; it has everything to do with the history of CD. You see, for many including yourself and HUGE, back in its introductory year/decade, you were likely both thrilled at this (then new)  'robust' music replay specification. Remember how amazed you were both with the sound? Problem was, passionate listener's with an ear to the truth realized fast how shitty CD sounded; flat, dimensionless, strident, absolutely no LF resolution/definition, sound-staging credentials or most importantly (by far) any sense of 'musicality'; that sense of natural harmonic structure, tonal variety or dynamic instrument/vocal vitality. IT WAS WAS AWFUL.  But you didn't think so !

And then (among many other discoveries), "dither" was found to greatly enhance the listening experience as superior DAC'c (and architecture) continued to improve things considerably. You see, although your treasured digital data specification was as robust back then as it is today -it sounded like crap. So much so, that I finally could consider CDP's (for dent sound quality) at around the turn-of-the-century; seventeen years after its introduction !  Pickier folk felt 2004/5 was the breakthrough year (for quality CD sound) -a cool twenty-two years after its release.      

"What has this problem to do with the eighties and with the introduction of CDs?"

Do you understand now ?

pj

Frankly I do not. Your personal story might perhaps explain your interest in the question that you have originally posted: download .flac or .wav files?  But, in this thread, we have been discussing answers to your question, not motivations for it. At least, that's what I thought we had been doing.

From this angle, the reasons why you have raised the question seem immaterial to me. If, in your original post, you had written that you do not care at all abou music and that you are only trying to find out which data formats a friend of yours who cares about sound quality and metadata editing should download, I would have given exactly the same answers. 

allhifi posted:

<snip>

To your question; it has everything to do with the history of CD. You see, for many including yourself and HUGE, back in its introductory year/decade, you were likely both thrilled at this (then new)  'robust' music replay specification. Remember how amazed you were both with the sound? Problem was, passionate listener's with an ear to the truth realized fast how shitty CD sounded; flat, dimensionless, strident, absolutely no LF resolution/definition, sound-staging credentials or most importantly (by far) any sense of 'musicality'; that sense of natural harmonic structure, tonal variety or dynamic instrument/vocal vitality. IT WAS WAS AWFUL.  But you didn't think so !

<snip>

Ah! clearly you remember my thoughts from thirty years ago more accurately than I remember them.  It must be all that metaphysics enabling you to use time travel telepathy.

Apparently I must have misremembered thinking that there was a problem with CD replay and working on how to fix it.  Oh well, thank you for correcting my memory for me.
Presumably I also didn't build those amplifiers, so someone else must have built them for me.

I wonder, was that you?  If so, excessive use of telepathy seems to have caused you to forget the basic principles of amplifier design.

 

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

pj

PJ,

Think you seriously need some help,  guess you won't find it on this forum.

Huge posted:

allhifi posted:

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

Since you have only partially apologised, I shall accept that part of the apology and await the rest of it.

Even after this you still continued with more insulting and incorrect remarks about me, so...

Are you going to do the honourable thing and complete your apology?

I'll equally accept a full retraction of the derogatory statements you made about me in both the posts to which I have referred.

Bowers posted:

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.

 

Hi Bowers:  Like to shake things up ? No. What I like is some intelligent, out-of-the-box thinking to help explain some phenomena that exists -in many sciences.

You realize that human hearing is an exquisitely sensitive listening apparatus (with help from  the ol' noggi'n of course -lol). It stands to reason that some are more sensitive than others.

My original (and subsequent) question asked: "Why CD's ripped to computer hard-drive sounded considerably better played-back with WAVE -than FLAC?"

It took quite some time for your esteemed (forum) colleagues to finally suggest it may simply be the "renderer" I'm using. Finally. A potential reason. I was grateful -and said as much. Prior to this, a smattering of techno-junkies battered me to near death with digital data theory  -it's the same (WAVE vs. FLAC). End of story.

THEN, what would account for my (and thousands of others) ) who swear by WAVE as the ultimate file format to use ? Other than renderer considerations, other possible reasons for the unanimous vote/support for WAVE, rather than FLAC?          

Other than the fine chap who most recently posted (another valid and sensible reason/argument for the SQ discrepancy I note -consistently) all other (well-meaning I suppose) went off about digital signal theory !

Moving on, your quotes and comments at the end of your reply are at odds with the other -and arguments within this thread. For example, take your old saying ( that I like by the way):

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

... And yet you go on to say, quote: " Bringing an avalanche of questions and doubting most of the shared knowledge of (at least for me) high appreciated fellow forum members."

Hmmm. 

... And an even greater oxymoron (within itself): " Got the impression you don't accept the knowledge so you can convince yourself that you still understand."

Priceless.

If the fine Naim (forum) members (following this) wish to understand what passionate audiophiles do, compare (and share) -the extraordinary length of time devoted to speaking of precisely what I was trying to learn on this site, It's all queued up -ready for delivery.

Simply say OK , let's have it -what has been discovered. What is the word 'on-the-street' ?

It's amazing what can be gleaned when one puts in some real passion; ultimately discovering that far more intricacies can be uncovered and unraveled ... for further processing. 

And finally, I hope my reply, helped ( you).

pj  

allhifi posted:

Bowers posted:

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.

 

Hi Bowers:  Like to shake things up ? No. What I like is some intelligent, out-of-the-box thinking to help explain some phenomena that exists -in many sciences.

You realize that human hearing is an exquisitely sensitive listening apparatus (with help from  the ol' noggi'n of course -lol). It stands to reason that some are more sensitive than others.

My original (and subsequent) question asked: "Why CD's ripped to computer hard-drive sounded considerably better played-back with WAVE -than FLAC?"

It took quite some time for your esteemed (forum) colleagues to finally suggest it may simply be the "renderer" I'm using. Finally. A potential reason. I was grateful -and said as much.

Prior to this, a smattering of techno-junkies battered me to near death with digital data theory  -it's the same (WAVE vs. FLAC). End of story.

It was in less than a day (and 30-ish posts) that this was stated clearly. (Before that there had been observations about others' related experiences, not unusual in a forum. Your subsequent posts made it clear that you didn't understand or accept what had been said, so there were explanations to try to get you to understand: that these included technical ones going into digital theory is hardly surprising given that you either didn't fully understand or didn't accept the basic simple statement. It took to 2.5 days and 80 posts before you finally did seem to grasp the meaning of what was being said.

THEN, what would account for my (and thousands of others) ) who swear by WAVE as the ultimate file format to use ? Other than renderer considerations, other possible reasons for the unanimous vote/support for WAVE, rather than FLAC?          

Other than the fine chap who most recently posted (another valid and sensible reason/argument for the SQ discrepancy I note -consistently) all other (well-meaning I suppose) went off about digital signal theory !

Actually it came across that you didn't believe that lossless file formats could be trancoded without some form of damage, based on some inner seemingly paranoic belief without a shred of evidence to support it - and this inevitable led to more technical explanations. And it was disingenuous of you, not to mention downright insulting in one case, to criticise the attempts of those who sought to help you understand, necessarily delving into technical aspects

Moving on, your quotes and comments at the end of your reply are at odds with the other -and arguments within this thread. For example, take your old saying ( that I like by the way):

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

... And yet you go on to say, quote: " Bringing an avalanche of questions and doubting most of the shared knowledge of (at least for me) high appreciated fellow forum members."

Hmmm. 

... And an even greater oxymoron (within itself): " Got the impression you don't accept the knowledge so you can convince yourself that you still understand."

Priceless.

If the fine Naim (forum) members (following this) wish to understand what passionate audiophiles do, compare (and share) -the extraordinary length of time devoted to speaking of precisely what I was trying to learn on this site, It's all queued up -ready for delivery.

Simply say OK , let's have it -what has been discovered. What is the word 'on-the-street' ?

Please clarify exactly what  you are asking now? 

   Nice one IB.   I gave up on this thread on page 2,  the replies with quote on quote on quote going over & over the same ol' stuff made me 'ead 'urt.   It is/was an amusing read tho'.        

pj

Well, well, true to form as previously shown here...

When you don't like someone's opinion because it's contrary to your own, you behave as though their opinion must, de facto, be wrong (whether you truly believe that this is the case I cannot say, as I don't live in you head; but your behaviour is here on this thread for all to see).

You claim that "What I like is some intelligent, out-of-the-box thinking to help explain some phenomena that exists -in many sciences.", yet when faced with firm evidence contrary to your opinions and hypotheses, instead of doing the research to inform yourself of the current state of knowledge, you misquote the person providing that evidence and twist their words to fit them into whatever meaning it is that you wish to destroy.

Then when 'called-out' on that and there's nowhere left to go, you berate them (even if you requested that evidence yourself!), denigrating them with personal 'ad hominem' attacks.

This type of behaviour is usually considered to constitute bullying.

Finally, now that you've applied this approach to all the people who've posted on this thread and even extended your insults to the entire membership of the forum, not only do you owe me the rest of the apology you started to make, but you owe an apology to every single member of this forum, as you've insulted us all.

[@mention:72103499056291076] I can only endorse IB's and Huge's remarks. I think that you should stop misusing our patience and this thread. None has battered you to death. You have raised a rather simple, clear question and received some clear and detailed anwers. We have tried our best to motivate our answers and to make clear to ourselves and to you basic facts and elementary notions about data formats. Of course, each of us has tried to do so in his/her own language and it is well possible that none of these matches yours. But you have not conveyed the impression that you were interested even in reading our answers, let apart learning a new language or simply appreciating our efforts. I understand that you might be (rather desperately, if I may say so) looking for something that we cannot provide here. Perhaps time for a short trip to the padded cell?

Innocent Bystander posted:

allhifi posted:

Bowers posted:

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.

 

Hi Bowers:  Like to shake things up ? No. What I like is some intelligent, out-of-the-box thinking to help explain some phenomena that exists -in many sciences.

You realize that human hearing is an exquisitely sensitive listening apparatus (with help from  the ol' noggi'n of course -lol). It stands to reason that some are more sensitive than others.

My original (and subsequent) question asked: "Why CD's ripped to computer hard-drive sounded considerably better played-back with WAVE -than FLAC?"

It took quite some time for your esteemed (forum) colleagues to finally suggest it may simply be the "renderer" I'm using. Finally. A potential reason. I was grateful -and said as much.

Prior to this, a smattering of techno-junkies battered me to near death with digital data theory  -it's the same (WAVE vs. FLAC). End of story.

It was in less than a day (and 30-ish posts) that this was stated clearly. (Before that there had been observations about others' related experiences, not unusual in a forum. Your subsequent posts made it clear that you didn't understand or accept what had been said, so there were explanations to try to get you to understand: that these included technical ones going into digital theory is hardly surprising given that you either didn't fully understand or didn't accept the basic simple statement. It took to 2.5 days and 80 posts before you finally did seem to grasp the meaning of what was being said.

THEN, what would account for my (and thousands of others) ) who swear by WAVE as the ultimate file format to use ? Other than renderer considerations, other possible reasons for the unanimous vote/support for WAVE, rather than FLAC?          

Other than the fine chap who most recently posted (another valid and sensible reason/argument for the SQ discrepancy I note -consistently) all other (well-meaning I suppose) went off about digital signal theory !

Actually it came across that you didn't believe that lossless file formats could be trancoded without some form of damage, based on some inner seemingly paranoic belief without a shred of evidence to support it - and this inevitable led to more technical explanations. And it was disingenuous of you, not to mention downright insulting in one case, to criticise the attempts of those who sought to help you understand, necessarily delving into technical aspects

Moving on, your quotes and comments at the end of your reply are at odds with the other -and arguments within this thread. For example, take your old saying ( that I like by the way):

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

... And yet you go on to say, quote: " Bringing an avalanche of questions and doubting most of the shared knowledge of (at least for me) high appreciated fellow forum members."

Hmmm. 

... And an even greater oxymoron (within itself): " Got the impression you don't accept the knowledge so you can convince yourself that you still understand."

Priceless.

If the fine Naim (forum) members (following this) wish to understand what passionate audiophiles do, compare (and share) -the extraordinary length of time devoted to speaking of precisely what I was trying to learn on this site, It's all queued up -ready for delivery.

Simply say OK , let's have it -what has been discovered. What is the word 'on-the-street' ?

Please clarify exactly what  you are asking now? 

 

Not so much asking, but sugessting: There is far more knowledge to be gleaned (i.e. your famous "old saying" line) in order to understand less!

You may wish to really re-read or re-think that 'old-saying' (that really is good ), so appropriate to this discussion, it begs repeating:

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

In which case, (bearing in mind the quote above)  tell me once again about all of the accumulated knowledge derived here and elsewhere and how 'absolute' (carved-in-stone) it must then be ?  

I understand the "lossless" arguments and have taken it as factual -thank you. No. argument.

Then, in point form (1-2-3 or a-b-c) inform this slow (ly streaming) neophyte what would/could be responsible for the unanimous distinctions/support claiming WAVE to be the go-to (truly best sounding) file format.

Hint, you can re-introduce the 'transcoding' function and other factors in point form, as in: (a--b-c, 1-2-3 ).

Regarding the counted pages and posts that "finally got through to me ", you surely must have encountered another old saying:  "Is it the student or teacher, that lacks comprehension"?

Alternately stated:  "Is it the (slow) student, or the poor teaching skills (or even genuinely lacking knowledge) of the teacher?"

pj

Do you honestly believe that invective is the best way to persuade people to open themselves to more of your insults when you haven't even apologised for those past?