Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
President Squidward

Does IDM Music sound better in WAV/FLAC quality?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, zkom said:

But if you're going to be doing transcoding from lossy format to lossy format you're going to be losing quality each time so it can add up.

fixt

You can transcode lossless to lossless infinite amount of times without loss. because thats what lossless means: no loss.

Edited by goDel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, goDel said:

fixt

You can transcode lossless to lossless infinite amount of times with loss. because thats what lossless means: no loss.

You mean without

  • Farnsworth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, fixed the post also. 🙂

Well, if you copy infinite amount times anything you're eventually going to lose your data no matter how high quality you're error correction algorithms and media are.🤓

  • Farnsworth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, darreichungsform said:

Yes but the change doesn't result in a loss of information. E.g. all redundancy in da file is removed ackchuyally but no information no matter if audible or not when converted to sound cumming outta yo speaker is lost motherfucker

that's the intent and seems to be the case, yeah.

24 minutes ago, rhmilo said:

Uhm, no, from an information point of view, nothing is changed at all. Let’s say we have a WAV file consisting of, say, a sequence of ten ones. The corresponding FLAC file consists of three symbols that mean “10”, “times” and “one”. Because of the way files work, the second takes up less disk space than the first.

BUT the second means nothing to our ears. Before we can perceive it as music it has to be converted back into the original sequence of ten ones. Meaning, the audio that gets played is the exact same for a WAV file as it is for the corresponding FLAC file.

perhaps they are literally the exact same and the only difference is in how the information is being stored and read and transmitted, but the information is 100% exactly the same underlying. if this is the case then good news that we may get Star Trek style transporters some day to zip us from planet surfaces to star ships a few miles above.

however, run this little thought experiment with me if you'd all like: 

take a raw WAV file of whatever, the sounds of darreich and friends farting on a train for hours perhaps, and let's call it DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000001.WAV, and convert it over to a FLAC., DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002F.FLAC (add some fun metadata if you want now that it's a FLAC!) and you'll hear no difference.

take the original DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000001.WAV and 'convert' it to a WAV of the exact same bit depth/resolution/etc. copy it, essentially. this should be literally an exact copy. DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002.WAV.

convert the DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002F.FLAC back into a WAV and compare it to DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002.WAV. DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002F.FLAC = DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002.WAV....this has been done and can be done and proven. zero differences between the files, except the DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002F.WAV file is smaller than DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000001.WAV was or smaller than DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002.WAV is. redundant data has been removed so the file sizes are different, but the audio content is proven to be untouched. these are facts and can be shown to be true (from what i've read from people smarter and more knowledgeable of the data conversion, software, etc., than myself)

but now let's take this farther: take DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002F.WAV (this had been a FLAC, is now again a WAV proven 'equal' to the original). but convert that over to a FLAC then back to a WAV then back to a FLAC then back to a WAV and continue. let's do it, say, a hundred times. or a thousand, or a billion times. (and also let's assume there's zero software mistakes made each time, there's somehow a check at each step to be sure of this) and we get DARRFTRAINFARTS_1000000000F.FLAC. compare it to the first FLAC. is it still the same? it should in theory be the same as DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002F.FLAC, right? once converted the very first time, the 'redundancy' should all be removed...but if i do this twice, on my own files i get differences between the file sizes of the FLAC (i assume and admit that this very likely is simply metadata, not related to any audio. i'm not smart enough to do the stuff to compare the audio only). so what happens if i do it a billion times?

is truly NOTHING lost here? i don't know, i've never tried it of course. i've looked and i've never seen that anyone has tried such a thing. but if you told me it actually did degrade the audio slightly, eventually, i wouldn't be surprised. why? because the original audio is being compressed and altered, even if it's in the VERY slightest way, it is being touched. conversely, if you told me that there was proven to be zero degradation between DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000002F.FLAC and DARRFTRAINFARTS_1000000000F.FLAC then that would track with what has been shown and proven. very possible that this is the case and is the intent. this is just a thought experiment, not arguing for sure one way or the other.

and comparatively copying over the original WAV, DARRFTRAINFARTS_0000000001.WAV a billion times (assuming a confirmed zero software mistakes at each step) you SHOULD get the literal exact same wave file when you compare DARRFTRAINFARTS_1000000000.WAV to the original. because NOTHING is changed at each step. 

only way to know for sure is to try it. who wants to code up and execute this?

Edited by auxien
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think Big Brain GIF by Red Bull

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Actually goDel should edit back their post so that darreichs post makes sense imo

Edited by MIXL2
  • Farnsworth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or we could compress this thread, lossy. Decompress. Repeat X times. And end when we get the tekst of Hamlet. Convert to mp3. Burn to CD and then listen. 

4 minutes ago, MIXL2 said:

Actually goDel should edit back their post so that darreichs post makes sense imo

Their?

 

Guess I'm the goDel Twin...:aphexsign:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If IDM doesn't sound better in WAV/FLAC maybe mainstream does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, darreichungsform said:

Let's discuss pronouns first

Today, I'm feeling bigender.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No don't 😞

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

convert any song into the smallest mp3-file possible and it turns into IDM

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knows IDM sounds best if transcoded from 24bit wav to 64kbps mp3!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IDM sounds best converted to binary and then read out sensually by Sir David Attenborough

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread made me put on Alvin Lucier's I am sitting in a room.

Which, funnily, I only have a lossy rip of.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Burger 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, auxien said:

only way to know for sure is to try it. who wants to code up and execute this?

Or you could look at the algorithm, verify that is indeed lossless and get on with your day.

It’s just math, after all. And just as 1 + 1 = 2 even after you’ve tried it a billion times, so too the FLAC algorithm is lossless very single time you run it.

  • Farnsworth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listen to music on YouTube mostly and can't hear a difference.  I've converted Sunn O))) down to 4 kb/s and still couldn't hear a difference for them.  Maybe they should just sell their albums in that quality and save everyone a lot of HD space.

 

Something something rotational velocidensity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The average age of watmm is now well over 50.  You should be more worried about prostate cancer than lossy vs lossless.

  • Like 4
  • Burger 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1

takes away more space than

18

still da same man

I'm against prostate cancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, darreichungsform said:

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1

takes away more space than

18

still da same man

I'm against prostate cancer

it depends on what font size you use though

  • Farnsworth 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...