Db power amp rips

[rockfather Linn Staff]

(2012-08-09 23:19)Joesilva Wrote:  

(2012-08-09 08:38)rockfather Wrote:  

(2012-08-09 08:08)Joesilva Wrote:  I use "Uncompressed" as I find there is a quality difference with compression Level 5.

Nonsense !
The data recovered from both uncompressed files and lossless compressed files is identical !

Rockfather, you do not have to agree with me, but there is no need to be rude.

I do not disagree that data recovered from both uncompressed and compressed files are identical. That does not necessarily mean however that the process of uncompression can not have a sonic affect, as afterall it uses processing power. I have ripped a hi quality album at compression 5 and at uncompressed, using dBPoweramp and have found subtle yet noticeable differences in the sound quality when playing back these two files. I am not an engineer and would not claim to know why this is the case, but this is my finding and I simply wanted to share my findings with others on this forum. You can do the test yourself and choose to agree or disagree with my findings, but simply saying that its nonsense is not on.

Apologies if I offended.

I was referring to the quality of the file, not the quality of the playback.

[Franbour]

(2012-08-10 13:21)rockfather Wrote:  I was referring to the quality of the file, not the quality of the playback.

The most important, for me, is the quality of playback. If the quality of the file is the same but not the playback I think there is a problem somewhere ...

[TDickson]

(2012-08-09 23:19)Joesilva Wrote:  

(2012-08-09 08:38)rockfather Wrote:  

(2012-08-09 08:08)Joesilva Wrote:  I use "Uncompressed" as I find there is a quality difference with compression Level 5.

Nonsense !
The data recovered from both uncompressed files and lossless compressed files is identical !

Rockfather, you do not have to agree with me, but there is no need to be rude.

I do not disagree that data recovered from both uncompressed and compressed files are identical. That does not necessarily mean however that the process of uncompression can not have a sonic affect, as afterall it uses processing power. I have ripped a hi quality album at compression 5 and at uncompressed, using dBPoweramp and have found subtle yet noticeable differences in the sound quality when playing back these two files. I am not an engineer and would not claim to know why this is the case, but this is my finding and I simply wanted to share my findings with others on this forum. You can do the test yourself and choose to agree or disagree with my findings, but simply saying that its nonsense is not on.

Joe, your experiences would align with mine although, on the face of it, it is hard to reconcile. I'm keeping an open mind and will continue to rip uncompressed (although the vast majority of my library is ripped at 0).

Rockfather, I think you'll find that persons not a million miles away from you i.e. Linn are promulgating this theory.

[MattC]

I think the important question is getting buried in a thread ostensibly about DBPoweramp - compressed vs uncompressed is wider than that, and is a potentially really significant question for the DS community...

...put simply - uncompressed FLAC sounds A LOT better.

[Geoff P]

Put even more simply WAV sounds great and since that is what FLAC gets converted to, be it compressed or uncompressed, to me it makes sense to rip to WAV in this day and age when disk capacity is not an issue.

...and as far as I am concerned the WAV tagging that dB Poweramp does works fine ( at least with Asset) so the 'WAV doesn't allow tags' thing is just not true.

Geoff

[bez]

According to the file properties, Flac appears to be always compressed:
Rip 1 (dB Flac level 5) 29.0MB (38% compressed)
Rip 2 (dB Flac level 0) 31.8MB (32% compressed)
Rip 3 (WAV) 46.25MB
I can’t hear any appreciable difference between the three, although I’ll try again, perhaps with some more tracks.
I think my ears and equipment are ok (he says confidently)

[MattC]

(2012-09-01 16:20)bez Wrote:  According to the file properties, Flac appears to be always compressed:
Rip 1 (dB Flac level 5) 29.0MB (38% compressed)
Rip 2 (dB Flac level 0) 31.8MB (32% compressed)
Rip 3 (WAV) 46.25MB
I can’t hear any appreciable difference between the three, although I’ll try again, perhaps with some more tracks.
I think my ears and equipment are ok (he says confidently)

I
The terminology is confusing - FLAC level 0 is still compressed (as per your breakdown) i think the comparison should include:

FLAC 5
FLAC 0
FLAC Uncompressed
WAV

[bez]

Uncompressed Flac doesn’t appear in my copy of dBpoweramp, which goes from 0 to 8.
Apart from tags etc. presumably ‘uncompressed’ would be the same as a Wave file?

[MattC]

(2012-09-01 17:41)bez Wrote:  Uncompressed Flac doesn’t appear in my copy of dBpoweramp, which goes from 0 to 8.
Apart from tags etc. presumably ‘uncompressed’ would be the same as a Wave file?

Check your version - its an option from 14.1 onwards...?