Oh, dear.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20029913-47.html

via: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=607150

My take.

The information content of losslessly compressed file and the original is identical.

Try comparing the md5 hash of the source, and the expanded compressed file, or do a bitwise diff to see if that is the case.

(Poor analogy: a word file reads the same, if came as a .doc file or contained in a .zip file)

I think he's confusing the data container with the playback system, or succumbing to expectation bias:

So while lossless audio compression (FLAC or Apple Lossless for example) can be "expanded" to produce an exact digital duplicate of the original audio stream, that's not necessarily the same thing as sounding exactly like an uncompressed WAV file or a CD. To my ears lossless files add a glare or edge to the music and flatten the soundstage. Please don't misunderstand, I think FLAC or Apple Lossless sound perfectly fine, just not on par with a CD, when played on a high-end audio system.

Or, cynically, he has written an inflammatory article to generate page hits and a comment flame war.

Are you listening Tyll?

Ahh the "age old" wav sounds better than FLAC/ALAC debate

Well there goes pretty much any remaining respect I had for Steve Guttenberg. It really does sound as if he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what lossless audio is.

Anyone else hear the Family Fortunes wrong answer noise going off like a claxon?

Yet another link that doesn't work with Tapatalk around here (the first one)

(grumbles)

Yet another link that doesn't work with Tapatalk around here (the first one)

(grumbles)

It's about protection.

Yet another link that doesn't work with Tapatalk around here (the first one)

(grumbles)

Posted from Tapatalk using my iphone

That guy gives me the jitters.

Reading this stuff makes me cringe a bit, because now I'm wondering if these little write-ups make the rest of us look like idiots to those outside the hobby.

Bugger that, I'm off to read some debates between Cardinals about the meaning of the Holy Trinity.

Exactly. The lack of proper understanding of lossless compression, in the audio field and elsewhere, is downright appalling.

I have a friend, who I don't believe to be an idiot, but swears that AIFF sounds better than ALAC out of his Mac. Considering that we have Amarra and whatnot that process the files differently in some manner, I wonder if what people reckon they are hearing has to do with the decompression software and its relationship to the computer's clock. However, I don't think that if I transcoded my files to AIFF that I'd get any difference with all the gear I use.

Especially full of fail is the paragraph about compression and FLAC not fixing it. Who the hell ever said it did? I'm all about getting the word out about loudness but that just made him look like a total moron.

The fail is quite strong in that one...

I have a friend, who I don't believe to be an idiot, but swears that AIFF sounds better than ALAC out of his Mac. Considering that we have Amarra and whatnot that process the files differently in some manner, I wonder if what people reckon they are hearing has to do with the decompression software and its relationship to the computer's clock. However, I don't think that if I transcoded my files to AIFF that I'd get any difference with all the gear I use.

Hifi News have been going on about that the data on the files may be identical but how the software decodes it may alter the sound. They also did some measurements but never posted the hard data that I'm aware of.

Maybe the difference in file size is skewing his brain.

Most of his articles seem particularly credulous. I admire his curiosity and sense of adventure, not his methods or conclusions.

Don't think so. It's the initial recording that actually truly matters and there is jackshit that you could do about it once they are in CD form.

Instant button.

I followed him on Twitter. Geez. More tweets than the Egyptian crisis. Sweeping generalizations. Shameless trolling. Pretty annoying.

I'm all for people saying their system sounds better playing this or that format. I've heard it. There are all sorts of plausible explanations, not that it matters if any of them are actually correct. It's totally rational to play what sounds best on your system and entirely optional to understand why.

But I wish people, when they don't understand why, would listen with their ears instead of their mouths. Or at least own up to the limitations of their opinions. How hard would it have been for him to say "in MY system.... I know I changed too many variables at once to have a clue which one was in play, but I thought I heard..[whatver]...." He is getting paid for representing the hobby in the press, for crying out loud.

Anybody who needs to can test this in an entirely subjective way, BTW. Just change only one variable at a time. Take a WAV. Transcode it to FLAC or ALAC or whatever and then back. Put both WAVs in your library and listen a few dozen times over the next couple months without obsessing over which is which. If you can keep your ears open and the little voice inside your head quiet you'll be sure. (I actually did this once. I was confident in the eventual answer.)

I'm not sure that the two WAVs will actually generate the same checksum. IIRC, I tried it and there was a create date or something in the file that threw a wrench in the works.