[DJBohn]

Hey Davor, I agree with JWVM on this. Ape (Monkey's Audio) is one of
the few audio compression formats that is lossless. There should be no
change in sound. However, using WinAmp may not be a good way to look
for differences in sound. WinAmp like many other players have built in
sound "enhancements" that could react a little differently from the
playback of one format to another. But it isn't just downloaded
software audio players that can change the original sound to "improve"
what you are listening to. There are many hardware machines available
that do the same thing. One that comes to mind are Alpine MP3 car
stereos. Many of them have a special EQ curve built in to get more
sparkle from MP3's that were considered "dull" sounding compared to
their WAV. (CD) counterparts. But the sound differences you are hearing
is more than likely just the way WinAmp handles the compressed Ape
file. I would suggest trying a different (maybe a "bare bones") player
and see if there is still a change, or you could try Ape's internal
player. It would probably handle playing its own compressed file better
than WinAmp or others.

[[email protected]]

DJBohn je napisao/la:

change in sound. However, using WinAmp may not be a good way to look
for differences in sound. WinAmp like many other players have built in
sound "enhancements" that could react a little differently from the
playback of one format to another.

So you're saying that Winamp enhances Ape and Flac files, and it
doesn't enhance the wav files? Could be, although I doubt it, couse
the encoded files just sound right, and the decoded ones just don't.
I've been in the world of audio production for years and I know what
I'm talking about. Plain and simple. Again I'm stressing that for the
average ear the difference would go unnoticed. I was just wondern' if
there are any audiophiles (golden-eared ) that had the same
experience.

is more than likely just the way WinAmp handles the compressed Ape
file. I would suggest trying a different (maybe a "bare bones") player
and see if there is still a change, or you could try Ape's internal
player. It would probably handle playing its own compressed file better
than WinAmp or others.

I've tried Foobar2000 too, and the result is the same. I was just
wonderin' if there are any other custom made FLAC and APE decoders
apart from the "official" ones that can be downloaded from the
respective official sites.

Davor

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
DJBohn je napisao/la:

change in sound. However, using WinAmp may not be a good way to look
for differences in sound. WinAmp like many other players have built in
sound "enhancements" that could react a little differently from the
playback of one format to another.

So you're saying that Winamp enhances Ape and Flac files, and it
doesn't enhance the wav files? Could be, although I doubt it, couse
the encoded files just sound right, and the decoded ones just don't.
I've been in the world of audio production for years and I know what
I'm talking about. Plain and simple. Again I'm stressing that for the
average ear the difference would go unnoticed. I was just wondern' if
there are any audiophiles (golden-eared ) that had the same
experience.

is more than likely just the way WinAmp handles the compressed Ape
file. I would suggest trying a different (maybe a "bare bones") player
and see if there is still a change, or you could try Ape's internal
player. It would probably handle playing its own compressed file better
than WinAmp or others.

I've tried Foobar2000 too, and the result is the same. I was just
wonderin' if there are any other custom made FLAC and APE decoders
apart from the "official" ones that can be downloaded from the
respective official sites.

There is Flake, which is a new flac codec. But flac.exe should work fine.

Foobar2000 has an easy-to-use ABX comparison utility. Regardless of your confidence in your
own discriminative powers, I suggest you use it to determine whether this difference is real
or imaginary. You might be surprised.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[[email protected]]

I agree that the first and most significant issue here
boils down to the question of whether you're hearing
real differences, or imaginary differences. I have heard
plenty of imaginary differences. Have no confidence
in your auditory objectivity. True story: after eplacing
my speaker cables, I was shocked at the radical
difference in sound. Shocked, because I firmly
believed that as long as you use reasonable quality
(i.e., at least Home Depot zip cord quality) speaker
cables, the cables make no difference.

So I enlisted my then-girlfriend to do an A-B
comparison, Blindfolded, I had her change the
spaker cables and not change them while
playing back the same LP, same track, same
setting. (This was before CDs.)

Come to find out the differences I was shocked
to hear were entirely imaginary. I H*E*A*R*D
those differences prior to the blindfolded A-B test.
Yet they did not exist.

You don't need another person to perform a
double-blind test. You can decompress the
FLAC files into WAV files, normalize 'em,
then normalize the original WAV files you
endeod, and write a short computer program
to rename the files randomly while writing
the original files names and the their new
random names to a text file.

Make a CD of the resulting randomly-renamed
WAV files, then write down whether you think
the track is orignal WAV or decompressed
FLAC.

Then compare with the list in the text file.

I have the utmost confidence that you will
score no better on such a test than the
coin flip, because other members of this
forum have done much more radical A-B
tests with lossy compressed formats. One
forum member did such a test with wma
compressed files and cranked the bitrate
down to 64 kbits (!) and then turned the
files back into WAV and played a CD
of this stuff for people and asked them to
rate whether the track was compressed
or uncompressed.

That forum member reported that a
significant number of listeners rated the
64 kbit wma audio file as "original WAV."

So if ordinary people cannot reliably
hear a difference between a highly
compressed wma audio file and the
original WAV file, it seems highly
unlikely that anyone can hear a
difference between a FLAC file
and the original WAV file.

There actually exist quite a few lossless
audio compression formats. FLAC,
Apple Lossless, La, LPAC, Monkey's
Audio APE, OptimFROG, KRAU,
Shortn, The True Audio (codec),
and WavPack. You might want to
try out all of these lossless formats.
WavPack has a convenient DirectShow
Filter.

More about lossless audio codecs he
http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm

and he
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php

There's an interesting thread on that forum that
speaks to exactly your claim -- an alleged difference
twixt the original WAV and a Foobar-replayed
FLAC track. Commenters on the thread report
that they get bit-identical results in comparing
the original WAV file and the decompressed
FLAC file. If you're using a program like
CoolEdit Pro, remember that you must apply
an offset correction to the decompressed
FLAC file as compared to the original WAV
file, since the headers will be of different
length.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=52033