will
|
Dom,
I am glad you ripped both formats in case you want to switch to uncompressed files one day. Preferring FLAC over AIFF is a new one for me. I wonder if that comparison would end the same today with your much improved setup? If you heard FLAC like I did, I suppose the sort of consolidating vibe I heard could be felt to be a benefit depending on the system... like if there is glare or grunge from subtle noise making the signal tinselly. Then I suppose a more resolving file could potentially seem worse? Sounds like fun with the tubes, dipping in deeper at a nice easy pace… I like getting to know a change before trying other things too, and it is cool you finally got a Decware amp to play with! I bet the Marigo dots were an interesting change. In my main system, I do not use many, but would not be without them, speeding things up, tightening bass, evening spectral balance, and clarifying smearing throughout with my HR-1s.
CAJames,
I hear you, and am glad you have verified your thoughts around FLAC with listening and measurements. So many using FLAC as a way to save disk space when ripping CDs, would ripping both file types from a few very well recorded CDs and listening to those fill out the test? At any rate, based on your findings, if my current player software can play FLAC (one I love the sound from, and that can play with my special, but old OS), I will retest this in my system when I get home.
That said, your explanation of FLAC sounds similar to back in the day when I was checking it out in hopes of saving disk space. But I was also prone to sound testing since there had been many things that tech explains differently than I hear it. So I learned to trust my perception over tech theory and specs, testing to verify what the theory said, or not. Also I recall I was not alone, other serious listeners having had similar experiences as I had with FLAC, supporting my choice to play it safe and stick with uncompressed, error corrected files.
I guess this fits in the context of questions and variables we are looking at in this thread, investigating things that might help digital playback, and potential issues. And I look forward to some new tests that may well corroborate your thought that something was wrong in my initial FLAC tests ….or it might not… it will be good to check out with my current system.
Also relative to this thread, whether Media Convertors and fiber potential in networks… looking at internet streaming through a network versus local hard disk play… and honing careful listening to better hear all that is there…. Seems to me a bottom line is to be very careful to retain and improve all we can as we make big changes… and/or know that any sacrifices are worth it to us.
So I suggested to Dom that FLAC versus AIFF or WAV might be worth checking out. And to me, if there were and a glimmer of doubt, these days, with drives so cheap, I would start now with ripping and using uncompressed files. And if we hear any differences, even if I preferred FLAC sound for some reason…. I would consider that any difference was likely compression, and integrating even subtle compression artifacts or losses can’t ultimately be a prime reference for developing our systems and getting the most from them.
This, as always, gets me thinking about wildcards in what we hear being based on many things beyond our actual hearing, pointing to what we hear being dependent on what our system/rooms can reveal, as well as what we can discern.
Especially with all pretty nice components, cables alone are amazingly variable to me…. In my system, far from secondary, digital, power, ICs, speaker…every one of them clearly shapes the system sound for better or worse. And even with really “good sounding” cables, I have found over and over that any one can notably change the sound to be more or less complete and balanced. So “sounding good” is just a start to me.
Really, for me every part of a system can have a relatively powerful sound shaping effect….indicating also, that anything can be a weak link!
Thinking of reading strong rhetoric that tech specs define cable sound quality, companies promoting perhaps OK for the money cables, but not as good comparatively as the rhetoric implies... I suppose there could be something to it…. maybe with systems that are not as revealing, or comparing the cable to similar with lesser specs. But for those who buy the rhetoric, and have pretty great components, I always wonder how they would like their systems with better sounding cables. And I feel sad that convincing tech arguments can perhaps too often sway folks away from a more ultimate musical experience.
Related, if the room muddles bass or mids, and nulls/dulls some frequencies while making some over-stated, we might for the time prefer lesser cables who’s deficiencies in revelation happen to mask or adjust those room issues. But is it “better” in the long run?
Similarly, as far as I can tell, with the really good DACs I have anyway, all aspects of the digital front end are critical to musical completeness, the first step of the whole of our musical experience. Yet often, at least partially overlooked or misunderstood, seems many people limit their DAC potential with cables that steal completeness from the music file, and therefore from the music. Also often based on tech beliefs, I find this really sad too. I had tried a few decent USB cables before getting to the ones I love, and they sounded pretty different. As are the two I love different sounding. Both reveal the very fine stuff well, but one leans a little leaner and more expressive of very fine detail and space. The other reveals those same things, but is a bit more solid/dynamic, and balanced a little more toward bass, so gives a different quality to the fine detail and space. And those before these just did not tell the whole story.
I also did a test with a friend when getting into I2S. He had bought a number of relatively inexpensive commercial HDMI cables, looking for hidden audio gold! He sent maybe 8-9, wanting to hear what I thought. We listen for similar completeness and balances, and both have resolving systems, and what we heard from each cable was pretty much the same. Also the hierarchy of what we liked was pretty much the same. And most could be thought to sound pretty good on their own without comparison. But one rose above all the others for both of us in revealing space and fine detail with decent spectral balance.
Related, as I pointed to in an earlier post, potential computer and software issues are often sorely overlooked in my opinion. I have heard it too many times not to trust that the important subtler information can be made better or worse than the refined resolution our Decware systems can reveal. The tricky part to me, sometimes damaged resolution and subtle noise artifacts can sound like clarification in some ways. But if they are not real resolution, these qualities cause off-putting characters too. And obviously, if the deeper beauty of musical complexity and completeness is not in the front end, it does not exist.
Anyway, I just wanted to touch on a few areas I have experienced in terms of trying to resolve weak links… context being so influential in what we each hear, or can’t hear.
So broadly, we have variability in what our systems can reveal; variability in our discernment of what we perceive; and not least, we know that shifts improving transparency, resolution, and musicality change what we are able to perceive and discern, opening new doors. For me this cycle seems perpetual.
And to get “there” effectively, I think open-mindedly trusting our perception and ever-developing discernment is critical, setting the stage for cultivating better listening skills by creatively enjoying the quest. Without that, we might be limiting our potential by getting pushed and pulled a little too much by “authorities” and trends defined by “authorities,” perhaps even dropping us on the audio treadmill. I think investigating cool new things is fun and natural, but without a cohesive thread that ties it all together for the best musical experience, I figure “getting there” is a crap shoot.
At the same time, knowing our system/rooms are not complete in transparency, resolution, and musical balances; and knowing our ability to discern what we perceive is an ongoing development… we can clearly get a lot from the discoveries of others, utilizing pointers that appeal as a beginning for exploring ourselves.
Within this complex, when some people can’t hear something from their system/rooms, and others can in theirs, beyond variations in “measurable hearing” abilities, variability seems perfectly logical. But finding something we can’t hear in our system and room can be a sort of endpoint in exploration (“if I don’t hear it, it does not exist”), or it can be a beginning (“if I don’t hear it, is there anything I can I do to find it”).
Interesting to me, we all start wherever we are right now in discernment and in system/room capabilities. Which makes us all beginners no matter where we start in seeking to uncover what is more musically complete, entrancing and fulfilling. So I always figured, if the folks who awaken my excitement about new potential are known to be careful listeners with transparent and resolving systems… if they hear something I can’t, it might imply that something is not complete in my system.
And like most of us, many breakthroughs came from these sorts of pointers. It may not end up just the same as was implied, but an opening to finding something out is always illuminating to me.
Which takes me back to the progression of positive change. After many years with countless fairly in-depth experiments, as the system/room becomes more resolving, truly musical information and balances I literally did not know were possible show up. So I am always weighing toward trusting my perception and discernment, but also trusting that others with good perception and discernment can help me get better. And if in doubt at all, I avoid any potential compromises that might not be a big deal now, but could become habitual, and hold the system back in the future as it gets better.
In my experience, my not hearing something has pretty much always been either because the system could not yet fully reveal it; or its spectral balance was off enough that some parts overwhelm important aspects of the whole; or because my discernment was not yet developed enough to identify it. Usually a mix, the good side… as more is revealed, hearing more, more clearly, my discernment widens, allowing better identifying impediments to the deeper beauty and ways to solve them.
In the end, knowing that there always seems to be unrealized potential, also means that there always tend to be unresolved impediments to potential. Thus the audio quest.
Leading to my "broken record" for what I have found a really nice tool to help solve impediments. To me, a relatively easy indicator of truer resolution and transparency can be listening for the finest information... is it more fully present… harmonic information… textures, complex edges…. and perhaps especially, the spacial decays near and between players, along with the presence and length of broader decays across the spectrum. If it is there in more notable ways, even if the spectral balance may be a little off, the presence of fine detail in space is a good indicator of more complete representation from a recording…. less truncation, masking and smearing… more resolution. And if it is not much there, it can point me to looking at the many things that can cause this information to be compromised and lost…
Finally, there is no doubt to me that if I can’t hear something, it does not mean it is not there for some listeners, or that it would not be there in another system, or in ours with careful improvements.
At the same time, old assumptions that may have seemed true at one time, may not be fully true today… So I look forward to re-looking at my old assumptions about FLAC versus error corrected, uncompressed files. And looking at Media Converters, it would seem all this could effect our conclusions also.
|