David Bowie

[August Bleed]

I've looked repeatedly for bowie stuff in surround.  There seem to be some out there and some out of print and some that aren't real.  I can't figure out which is which.  Anyone know if Bowie ever released in Quad?  Did he release DTS Cds?  I have found 2 SACDs, one ziggy in 5.1 and lets dance in stereo.  I found Young Americans but can't find a retail copy of it, which is suspicious.  Anyway I am not trying to pirate I'm just curious to what was actually released, are there good quality boots of this material, did he do quad (it seems like the perfect fit) but never have seen anything of his in this format?  Anyone know?  I've searched and Amazon makes allusions to enhanced CDs but these could be 20bit redos onto CD.   They mention nothing of multichannels.

--
August
Bleed, Inc.
Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog

[Cheezmo]

Heathen is available as a multichannel SACD.

Reality is available on Dualdisc with an AC3 surround mix.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

[scolumbo]

There are also a couple of live recordings on DVD-A: Stage and David
Live. Not the greatest surround sound, mostly audience in the
surrounds.

[Stephen Disney]

Ziggy Stardust is also multichannel SACD. I believe.
S

[August Bleed]

The reason I ask is a friend turned me onto Young Americans and it sounds very legit, like the Reality DVD.  I mean really good.  No hint of 180gr transfer or anything like that.  This is why I wondered if there were some bootlegs out there a la DSOTM alan parsons that were the real thing albiet not official.  In light of the recent discussions I'm a bit hesitant to even ask about this stuff anymore.  So he never did any quad stuff is the gist of this right?  No 'we think this might be sitting around somewhere' kinda thing a la SimonGarfunkel?  If so he'd be about the only ones besides stevie wonder and led zeppelin that have escaped this...and the occasional master that finds its way onto the street...

[August Bleed]

Also it's mentioned as one of the 'enhanced' CDs on amazon tho they give no indication what that means.

[August Bleed]

Sorry to keep on about this but it's just really surprising to me that a man who embraced just about every technology including high res and surround (not to mention the entire 70's) never produced anything in quad.  There seem to be a couple CD+Dvd things out there like reality but its incredibly hard to tell what youre getting on Amazon.  I ordered a can SACD because I had the CD and wanted to hear the high res version.  Despite making CERTAIN I was on the right page for SACD and not just CD they insisted I'd ordered a CD.  When I told them I refuse to purchase CDs as they are 30 years old and have the CD thus have no need for another CD, they kept insisting I must have went to the wrong page.  So I am a bit hesitant to go for anything as vague as enhanced CD and hope that its some hybrid disc like lets dance (which seems to be what they are selling as an enhanced disc for that title) yet I've heard no mention of Young Americans as an SACD so that can't be what that particular enhanced Cd is...Weird even when you go out of your way to find something legally you invariably end up with something of near to better quality from god knows where.  How any marketing dudes miss this is beyond me...

[Farfig]

"Young Americans" is an official release. It came as a 2 disc set (1
CD & 1 DVD-V)..... 5.1 DTS mix at 96/24, 5.1 Dolby Digital at 96/24 &
PCM Stereo at 48/24 plus some old TV footage.....I am reading this
from the set itself, as I own it...Hope this helps...

On Jan 13, 9:37 pm, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry to keep on about this but it's just really surprising to me that a
> man who embraced just about every technology including high res and
> surround (not to mention the entire 70's) never produced anything in quad.
>  There seem to be a couple CD+Dvd things out there like reality but its
> incredibly hard to tell what youre getting on Amazon.  I ordered a can SACD
> because I had the CD and wanted to hear the high res version.  Despite
> making CERTAIN I was on the right page for SACD and not just CD they
> insisted I'd ordered a CD.  When I told them I refuse to purchase CDs as
> they are 30 years old and have the CD thus have no need for another CD,
> they kept insisting I must have went to the wrong page.  So I am a bit
> hesitant to go for anything as vague as enhanced CD and hope that its some
> hybrid disc like lets dance (which seems to be what they are selling as an
> enhanced disc for that title) yet I've heard no mention of Young Americans
> as an SACD so that can't be what that particular enhanced Cd is...Weird
> even when you go out of your way to find something legally you invariably
> end up with something of near to better quality from god knows where.  How
> any marketing dudes miss this is beyond me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:02 PM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also it's mentioned as one of the 'enhanced' CDs on amazon tho they give
> > no indication what that means.
>

> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:58 PM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The reason I ask is a friend turned me onto Young Americans and it sounds
> >> very legit, like the Reality DVD.  I mean really good.  No hint of 180gr
> >> transfer or anything like that.  This is why I wondered if there were some
> >> bootlegs out there a la DSOTM alan parsons that were the real thing albiet
> >> not official.  In light of the recent discussions I'm a bit hesitant to
> >> even ask about this stuff anymore.  So he never did any quad stuff is the
> >> gist of this right?  No 'we think this might be sitting around somewhere'
> >> kinda thing a la SimonGarfunkel?  If so he'd be about the only ones besides
> >> stevie wonder and led zeppelin that have escaped this...and the occasional
> >> master that finds its way onto the street...
>

> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com

> >> > wrote:
>
> >>> Ziggy Stardust is also multichannel SACD. I believe.
> >>> S
>

[Cheezmo]

Love this group, that one had slipped under my radar. It is still available at Amazon.com and probably others.

Steve Martin
Sent from iPhone

[August Bleed]

Thanks guys!  Apparently not the 'enhanced cd' then.  So are there other bowie releases that slipped under the radar like diamond dogs or hell anything?  I never heard this one being released.  I thought what I was listening to sounded very good for a bootleg!  That said I've looked several times for 5.1 bowie on google and I never saw this one come up.  Thanks to everyone who scoured their collections for the info!  

[August Bleed]

BTW quick review--Sounds excellent!  My least favorite bowie album...however the 3 or 4 tracks I actually like on this sound phenomenal.  Recommended!  Seems to be a discrete mix.  Fame circles around you.  Excellent bass.  One of the best drum tracks on any bowie record save maybe lets dance imho.  WHY oh why did he do scary monsters and lets dance on sacd in stereo?!??!?!  My brain craves three or 4 albums by him in surround:  Scary Monsters, Diamond Dogs, Aladdin Sane, and Lets Dance so if anyone comes across some of these (I dont really care if theyre homemade as long as they are of decent quality even if theyre done in the box.  As long as ti wasn't the disaster that was Station to Station!  How does one ruin a bowie album?  Listen to the 2011 remix and prepare to be horrified.

[August Bleed]

Oh if you do come across these titles would you be kind enough to PM me...I dont want to bring heat to the group by providing links unless the material is available commercially.  Im not aware of any of these titles being available however.

[haikubass]

You can almost always trust SA-CD.net when it comes to SACDs - Bowie has three MC SACDs (Heathen, Reality & Ziggy).

Young Americans was released as a CD&DVD combo with a 5.1 dts 96/24 mix.

For more info on Bowie in surround I recommend to read Neil Wilkes' post (#43) here:
http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?11454-Own-6-or-more-surround-titles-by-any-given-artist/page2&highlight=bowie

2012/1/14 August Bleed <blee...@gmail.com>

[bobc...@hotmail.com]

I bought the Ziggy in 5.1 - really good mix and sound quality.

[RW]

Re: David Bowie in surround and/or Hi-res - a quick perusal of The Hub indicates that there are several albums available in in these formats.

 

* Low Heroes - DVD-V 96kHz, 24 bit stereo

* Ziggy Stardust - SACD converted to DVD-A

* Ziggy Stardust - DVD-A 40th Anniversary

* Scary Monsters - SACD to 96kHz, 24 bit stereo

* Let's Dance - 24 bit, 88.2 kHz Upmix

* Heathen - SACD

 

If you do not know what The Hub is, perhaps you should send a PM to Lokkerman and get some more details.  I promise that you will be *very* happy if you do so...

 

-RW-

[Steven Sullivan]

" Low Heroes - DVD-V 96kHz, 24 bit stereo"

Why?

Are these remasters?

 

 

[bobc...@hotmail.com]

I have uploaded 5.1 Flac of Young Americans to the Hub.

 

Am I correct neither Heroes or Low are "official" releases?

[lokkerman]

Heroes and Low are the unofficial “Bin masters” in stereo.

Where was the Flac Young Americans from as I am sure my retail was DTS and Flac stereo (will check later)?

--

[August Bleed]

young americans is DTS--anniversary edition I think.  Probably the best recorded of the high res stuff he has put out.  Not impressed with Ziggy.  Same mix as 2003 on SACD and that was nothing to write home about.  BTW what the heck is a 'Bin' Master? like a safety copy of the master?

[August Bleed]

Diamond Dogs (my personal favorite aside from S2S and SM) is something I still would love to hear a proper version of.  Funny to recall when he was recording YA he was so strung out he was btw 70-90 pounds and people had to invite him over to their homes to make him eat.  Not my favorite album but definitely a well recorded and mastered disc.

[elektrolad]

Considering how many times his catalogue has been reissued I'm very surprised there wasn't a 5.1 cash-in. I have them all except for the S2S package. I prefer the Ziggy sacd, but the DVD-a does have a great hi-rez stereo mix.
At the very least they should release an hdtracks type version. ( long as it is true hd.)
I would love to hear a proper surround mix of Low. Perhaps after his new album drops there will be some new/old product.

[lokkerman]

A bin master is a master tape from which usually cassettes, 8 tracks and Reel to reel retail packages were mastered from.  It is next to  a master in terms of the processing chain. The Bowie bin-masters in my opinion sound better and are indeed sometimes different mixes from the originals. Before raising this as a question, no one knows why these may be alternate mixes as these tapes were genuine basement tapes.

[lokkerman]

I love YA as it is a very soulful album and really conveys the time period, which I am old enough to remember very well. It is an album were I do like the DTS (there you are on record as me saying I like a DTS recording) I would love to hear the genuine Flacs for the surround of this,

 

From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of August Bleed
Sent: 17 January 2013 20:04
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie

 

Diamond Dogs (my personal favorite aside from S2S and SM) is something I still would love to hear a proper version of.  Funny to recall when he was recording YA he was so strung out he was btw 70-90 pounds and people had to invite him over to their homes to make him eat.  Not my favorite album but definitely a well recorded and mastered disc.

[August Bleed]

Wait are they basement tapes or real masters?  So that would be similar in nature to the safety copy yes? I've yet to hear them.  I was going to DL some but I haven't gotten to that point.  Probably a good idea to delete his commercial offerings as most of them aren't that great.  Honestly all the reissues and masters and this and that I've heard over the years I've yet to hear something that really blew my mind in terms of quality.  That's too bad.  A LOT of groups have certainly gotten my attention with their remasters and 5.1 stuff.  Even the vinyl of his stuff isn't the best thing I've ever heard by any stretch.

[lokkerman]

Analogue masters from the days when tape duplication was indeed analogue. Not a safety copy but a second generation master used to make your Cassette, a safety copy is also a 2^nd gen, unless you make a second master copy with all of the same settings from the multitrack mixdown (with an automated studio). Basement because that’s where they ended up in storage. They are BTW in this instance exceedingly good. “Space Oddity” is astounding.

[lokkerman]

Just to add - Space Oddity is brickwalled @ 22k5 but still sounds
great - showing that 24 bit flat transfers can still sound goood

On Jan 17, 8:33 pm, "lokkerman" <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Analogue masters from the days when tape duplication was indeed analogue.
> Not a safety copy but a second generation master used to make your Cassette,
> a safety copy is also a 2nd gen, unless you make a second master copy with
> all of the same settings from the multitrack mixdown (with an automated
> studio). Basement because that's where they ended up in storage. They are
> BTW in this instance exceedingly good. "Space Oddity" is astounding.
>
> From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
> On Behalf Of August Bleed
> Sent: 17 January 2013 20:21
> To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie
>
> Wait are they basement tapes or real masters?  So that would be similar in
> nature to the safety copy yes? I've yet to hear them.  I was going to DL
> some but I haven't gotten to that point.  Probably a good idea to delete his
> commercial offerings as most of them aren't that great.  Honestly all the
> reissues and masters and this and that I've heard over the years I've yet to
> hear something that really blew my mind in terms of quality.  That's too
> bad.  A LOT of groups have certainly gotten my attention with their
> remasters and 5.1 stuff.  Even the vinyl of his stuff isn't the best thing
> I've ever heard by any stretch.
>

> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:16 PM, lokkerman <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A bin master is a master tape from which usually cassettes, 8 tracks and
> Reel to reel retail packages were mastered from.  It is next to  a master in
> terms of the processing chain. The Bowie bin-masters in my opinion sound
> better and are indeed sometimes different mixes from the originals. Before
> raising this as a question, no one knows why these may be alternate mixes as
> these tapes were genuine basement tapes.
>
> From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
> On Behalf Of August Bleed
> Sent: 17 January 2013 20:04
> To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie
>
> Diamond Dogs (my personal favorite aside from S2S and SM) is something I
> still would love to hear a proper version of.  Funny to recall when he was
> recording YA he was so strung out he was btw 70-90 pounds and people had to
> invite him over to their homes to make him eat.  Not my favorite album but
> definitely a well recorded and mastered disc.
>

> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:58 AM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> young americans is DTS--anniversary edition I think.  Probably the best
> recorded of the high res stuff he has put out.  Not impressed with Ziggy.
> Same mix as 2003 on SACD and that was nothing to write home about.  BTW what
> the heck is a 'Bin' Master? like a safety copy of the master?
>

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "SurroundSound" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

>
> --
> August
> Bleed, Inc.
> Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog
>
> --
> August
> Bleed, Inc.
> Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "SurroundSound" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "SurroundSound" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

[Steven Sullivan]

Confused.  I'm only aware of one release of Young Americans in surround -- in DTS.  What are these 'genuine Flacs for the surround' purporting to be?

 

Btw put me on records someone who loves Ken Scott's Ziggy 5.1  (DVD-A or SACD it does not matter, of course, as it is the exact same mix).  I think he got the feel and spirit of he album just right.

[bobc...@hotmail.com]

The Young Americans 5.1 Flac files I was referring to (still uploading to the hub at the moment I think) were created by me from the DTS DVD files using DVD Audio Extractor.

[lokkerman]

So they are not genuine Flacs but loss conversions, which makes sense.

 

From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of bobc...@hotmail.com
Sent: 18 January 2013 08:21
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie

 

The Young Americans 5.1 Flac files I was referring to (still uploading to the hub at the moment I think) were created by me from the DTS DVD files using DVD Audio Extractor.

--

[Robert Coogan]

Correct me I’m wrong but I believe they’re lossless conversions from 24/96 DTS multichannel files albeit converted to 48khz.

[lokkerman]

However you play it unless it is DTS MA with a lossless core, they are still lossy - DTS is similar in some respects to MP3.  It’s like flaccing MP3. Use something like Sonic Visualiser (free) to do a comparison. You will see a semi-brickwall  (in Mp3 it is around 16khz)and above it vast areas  in V shapes where there is no audio content whatsoever. DTS has a less pronounced signature.

Also I also question whether these extracts are indeed 24bit, as it was historically not within DVD audio extractors’ capability.

[Steven Sullivan]

What is a 'genuine flac'?  FLAC doesn't mean the input file is lossless, it means the compression of the input file is lossless.  Lossy or lossless audio can be the input to the flac encoder.  A lossy input file needs to be put into a .wav wrapper first, though.  FLAC in this case is not done to reduce file size, but to allow tagging -- DTS file can't be directly tagged by any method I'm aware of...

 

In my experience, converting .DTS to .flac actually increases file size slightly, due (I'm guessing) to the added wav wrapper.

[lokkerman]

Just to beg to differ, in collecting circles the biggest crime is to convert lossy (whatever format) to lossless, be it flac or wav, Ape, wv or whatever - and even for tagging. “Genuine Flac” is used as term to describe genuine lossless from source, DTS source is lossy; period. This means if you want to do it don’t share.  In the case of DTS it actually increase the payload by about 5 or 6 times as it is a composite of the 6 discrete channels, it looks similar in size, obviously, as a red book upmix to #5.1

 

From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Sullivan
Sent: 18 January 2013 11:57
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie

 

What is a 'genuine flac'?  FLAC doesn't mean the input file is lossless, it means the compression of the input file is lossless.  Lossy or lossless audio can be the input to the flac encoder.  A lossy input file needs to be put into a .wav wrapper first, though.  FLAC in this case is not done to reduce file size, but to allow tagging -- DTS file can't be directly tagged by any method I'm aware of...

[bobc...@hotmail.com]

I am using DVD Audio Extractor 6.3, according to their website they have supported 24 bit audio since version 2.2.

[lokkerman]

Wave is what it refers to, there was a thread in the forum a while ago discussing how to playback DTS 96/24 and If I recall it was inconclusive.

 

From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of bobc...@hotmail.com
Sent: 18 January 2013 13:12
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie

 

I am using DVD Audio Extractor 6.3, according to their website they have supported 24 bit audio since version 2.2.

--

[realafrica]

May I respectfully suggest that ripping a DTS-DVD be done to iso rather than to flac to preserve sound Quaility.
Thank you.

[bobc...@hotmail.com]

I think it already appears on the hub in iso format - I was not aware of this at the time, or I would not have bothered converting and upoading it.

 

Personally (perhaps wrongly) I see nothing wrong with the FLAC format and invite opinions to the contrary.

 

For my setup - using foobar I have difficulty playing back some of the DTS files via SPDIF on my Windows 7 PC.

 

Multichannel FLAC files work much better for me in this instance.

 

Also one can cherry pick individual audio files for download rather than having to download the complete album in its entirety.

 

It sounds ok to me but am I again venturing into the old debate about this is better than that etc?

[Steven Sullivan]

The DTS 96/24 tracks that I have ripped with DVD-AE  show as 96/24 on my receiver.  That would not happen if there was any data corruption.

[RW]

Lokks wrote:

>> Just to beg to differ, in collecting circles the biggest crime is to convert lossy (whatever format) to lossless, be it flac or wav, Ape, wv or whatever - and even for tagging. “Genuine Flac” is used as term to describe genuine lossless from source, DTS source is lossy; period <

 

Well, Lokks, I must respectfully beg to differ.  Steven S. is absolutely correct.  FLAC is nothing more than a compression scheme for *any* file type.  The fact that there are players that can peek into a FLAC and then decode the file cotained within is simply a bonus.  But FLAC itself is NOT  a music codec like WAV, MP3, DTS, etc.  The codec itself is either lossy or lossless, FLAC has nothing to do with that.  FLAC is simply a lossless means of compressing a file, much like RAR and ZIP...

 

-RW-

On Friday, January 13, 2012 5:20:59 PM UTC-5, Blee...@yahoo.com wrote:

I've looked repeatedly for bowie stuff in surround.  There seem to be some out there and some out of print and some that aren't real.  I can't figure out which is which.  Anyone know if Bowie ever released in Quad?  Did he release DTS Cds?  I have found 2 SACDs, one ziggy in 5.1 and lets dance in stereo.  I found Young Americans but can't find a retail copy of it, which is suspicious.  Anyway I am not trying to pirate I'm just curious to what was actually released, are there good quality boots of this material, did he do quad (it seems like the perfect fit) but never have seen anything of his in this format?  Anyone know?  I've searched and Amazon makes allusions to enhanced CDs but these could be 20bit redos onto CD.   They mention nothing of multichannels.

[Nor22]

There's nothing wrong with the sound of your flacs. FLAC is a lossless compression format? The basic DTS format is lossy, which is more compressed. So, when you went from a lossy to lossless format, the same audio just took up more space. And you didn't improve the sound quality.

Storage space is pretty cheap these days and the flac format is convenient, so I see nothing wrong with your conversion.

--

[Lokkerman]

Tosh

[lokkerman]

RW Entirely missed my point…

Although Flac lends itself to do all these wonderful things as a container; collectors “in collecting circles” eschew using Flac other than as a methodology of compressing and storing lossless wav, my entire collection is that way. Flac is now used as an expression for the codec and compression, so you are splitting hairs. Most DAWs support flac right from source conversion from the analogue domain.

 

Why do you think we use things like audio-checker and Tau to verify that FLAC  archives  are not lossy formats encoded into space saving Flac?

 

Years ago we had this debate on the SSGG for the hub and decided that we would concur with other lossless collectors and NEVER ever, use DTS in Flac, or for the matter any other lossy codec. Perhaps in your later years you have forgotten this discussion  but I remember it well.

 

From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of RW
Sent: 19 January 2013 14:47
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie

 

Lokks wrote:

--

[lokkerman]

This is good news as I have number of 96/24 DVD-As that are DTS and I’ve not heard them at that rate on my PC.

 

From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Sullivan
Sent: 19 January 2013 11:10
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie

 

The DTS 96/24 tracks that I have ripped with DVD-AE  show as 96/24 on my receiver.  That would not happen if there was any data corruption.

[Nor22]

I can see your point. Most people assume the FLAC is an exact replication of the original uncompressed waveform. So using FLAC to store a previously lossy compressed DTS file is a little like putting  VW engine in a Porsche body. Looks good, but not quite the real thing.

[August Bleed]

So you guys are saying if I take a flac file and convert it to a wav or vice versa I don't have the same data?  Seriously?

[lokkerman]

No. This is all around the use by collectors of Flacs – you can do what you want with them personally in your own collection.

 

The issue is as follows : Take a CD wav file, for example, and convert it to MP3. Then convert this to FLAC (I don’t know why you should do this but it has been done), what you have is a Lossy encode in a container that most folks assume to be lossless (FLAC).

 

Likewise take a decoded DTS  file (there is no issues with encoded DTS files in FLAC, as they appear as a Hissing noise in a decoder that cannot identify the DTS signal) and convert it into FLAC and you have the same issue as above. I re-iterate that DTS encoded files in a FLAC container is no issue, it is when decoded files appear. These can be detected easily in a spectrum analyser but  we agreed historically that we would never do this.

 

From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of August Bleed
Sent: 19 January 2013 17:22
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie

 

So you guys are saying if I take a flac file and convert it to a wav or vice versa I don't have the same data?  Seriously?

[August Bleed]

Im still missing your point.  A flac file is a bit perfect copy of whatever you throw at it whether the file you use is lossy or lossless.  Doesn't matter.  It produces a bit perfect copy--not a 'more lossy' copy but a bit for bit identical copy when that flac file is decompressed.  It woud be no different than putting a DTS file in a .zip or an MP3 for that matter.  You've done absolutely nada to change the original nature of the file.  In fact because of these magical qualities you can reconstruct the original file from these wrappers whether that wrapper be a .zip or a .flac.  While I agree it would be somewhat pointless to put an MP3 in a lossless wrapper, a DTS file is not exactly the same animal and as such one would want to preserve that files attributes--not convert it to MP3 which WOULD result in a decrease in quality and be impossible to reconstruct from the MP3 file.  But even if it were it wouldn't make a bit of difference what you decide to 'wrap' it in.  Bit perfect means bit perfect.  I'm not even sure why this is being argued about...

[August Bleed]

Not to mention the uncompressed flac standard that came out last year that essentially acts as a wav.

[Cheezmo]

This is from DVD-Audio Extractor's FAQ...

"My disc comes with a 96kHz DTS stream, but the extracted result shows as 48kHz. Why?

This is a known limit. For DTS-ES and DT

S-HD MA streams which come with a core stream and one or more extended streams, only the core stream (48kHz) is currently decoded by DVD Audio Extractor. And this limit only exists on DTS format. For all other formats like MLP, TrueHD, LPCM, etc, all sample rates are supported. We do look forward to adding full DTS support in the future."

It is possible to rip 96/24 DTS, set DVD-Audio extractor to output 96/24 and end up with a 96/24 flac, but I believe in that case it simply upsampled the 48khz that it extracted back to 96khz.

[Steven Sullivan]

No, that is not true *at all*.

People are being very confused.

A flac file IS JUST LIKE A ZIP FILE: a means to compress filesize without
losing data. It decodes to whatever was input. It is LOSSLESS in the
sense that no data are lost *compared to the input*.

But the *INPUT* to a flac file can be either LOSSY (like DTS, AC3, even
mp3 if you wanted to) or LOSSLESS (PCM). By far the most common use is to
shrink the size of PCM audio (i.e., 'lossless' audio) .wav files.

In fact, 'genuine flac' is meaningless -- the collecting community should
say 'genuine lossless', meaning that the *input file* to the flac encoder
was lossless audio, rather than a .DTS, or .AC3 or .MP3 or any other
perceptual lossy encoded audio file.


Basically a DTS audio file encoded to flac has been compressed TWICE , in
two different ways, in two different places -- first, in the studio, when
the original lossless 'waveform' was perceptually encoded to lossy DTS
audio, decreasing both the filesize and the DATA CONTENT, and second
time, by a consumer, using FLAC, where ONLY the filesize is affected --
the audio information content is *not* altered. It is identical to the DTS
audio.

> So you guys are saying if I take a flac file and convert it to a wav or
> vice versa I don't have the same data? Seriously?
>
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Nor22 <nore...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I can see your point. Most people assume the FLAC is an exact
>> replication
>> of the original uncompressed waveform. So using FLAC to store a
>> previously
>> lossy compressed DTS file is a little like putting VW engine in a
>> Porsche
>> body. Looks good, but not quite the real thing.
>> On Jan 19, 2013 10:44 AM, "lokkerman" <phil.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>> RW Entirely missed my point�****

>>>
>>> Although Flac lends itself to do all these wonderful things as a
>>> container; collectors �in collecting circles� eschew using Flac other
>>> than
>>> as a methodology of compressing and storing lossless wav, my entire
>>> collection is that way. Flac is now used as an expression for the codec
>>> and
>>> compression, so you are splitting hairs. Most DAWs support flac right
>>> from

>>> source conversion from the analogue domain.****
>>>
>>> ** **

>>>
>>> Why do you think we use things like audio-checker and Tau to verify
>>> that
>>> FLAC archives are not lossy formats encoded into space saving Flac?

>>> ***
>>> *
>>>
>>> ** **

>>>
>>> Years ago we had this debate on the SSGG for the hub and decided that
>>> we
>>> would concur with other lossless collectors and NEVER ever, use DTS in
>>> Flac, or for the matter any other lossy codec. Perhaps in your later
>>> years

>>> you have forgotten this discussion but I remember it well.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From:* surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>>> surrou...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *RW
>>> *Sent:* 19 January 2013 14:47
>>> *To:* surrou...@googlegroups.com
>>> *Subject:* [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Lokks wrote:****

>>>
>>> >> Just to beg to differ, in collecting circles the biggest crime is to
>>> convert lossy (whatever format) to lossless, be it flac or wav, Ape, wv
>>> or
>>> whatever - and even for tagging. �Genuine Flac� is used as term to
>>> describe

>>> genuine lossless from source, DTS source is lossy; period <****
>>>
>>> ****

>>>
>>> Well, Lokks, I must respectfully beg to differ. Steven S. is
>>> absolutely
>>> correct. FLAC is nothing more than a compression scheme for *any* file
>>> type. The fact that there are players that can peek into a FLAC and
>>> then
>>> decode the file cotained within is simply a bonus. But FLAC itself is
>>> NOT
>>> a music codec like WAV, MP3, DTS, etc. The codec itself is either
>>> lossy or
>>> lossless, FLAC has nothing to do with that. FLAC is simply a lossless

>>> means of compressing a file, much like RAR and ZIP...****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> -RW-****

>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 13, 2012 5:20:59 PM UTC-5, Blee...@yahoo.com

>>> wrote:***
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> ****

>>>
>>> I've looked repeatedly for bowie stuff in surround. There seem to be
>>> some out there and some out of print and some that aren't real. I
>>> can't
>>> figure out which is which. Anyone know if Bowie ever released in Quad?
>>> Did he release DTS Cds? I have found 2 SACDs, one ziggy in 5.1 and
>>> lets
>>> dance in stereo. I found Young Americans but can't find a retail copy
>>> of
>>> it, which is suspicious. Anyway I am not trying to pirate I'm just
>>> curious
>>> to what was actually released, are there good quality boots of this
>>> material, did he do quad (it seems like the perfect fit) but never have
>>> seen anything of his in this format? Anyone know? I've searched and
>>> Amazon makes allusions to enhanced CDs but these could be 20bit redos
>>> onto

>>> CD. They mention nothing of multichannels.****
>>>
>>> --
>>> August
>>> Bleed, Inc.
>>> Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog****

>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups
>>> "SurroundSound" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
>>> For more options, visit this group at

>>> http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound****

[Steven Sullivan]

The error is in assuming ".flac" means 'the audio was lossless before
being subjected to flac'. Apparently this faulty assumption is rife in
the collecting community....

> Im still missing your point. A flac file is a bit perfect copy of
> whatever
> you throw at it whether the file you use is lossy or lossless. Doesn't
> matter. It produces a bit perfect copy--not a 'more lossy' copy but a bit
> for bit identical copy when that flac file is decompressed. It woud be no
> different than putting a DTS file in a .zip or an MP3 for that matter.
> You've done absolutely nada to change the original nature of the file.
> In
> fact because of these magical qualities you can reconstruct the original
> file from these wrappers whether that wrapper be a .zip or a .flac. While
> I agree it would be somewhat pointless to put an MP3 in a lossless
> wrapper,
> a DTS file is not exactly the same animal and as such one would want to
> preserve that files attributes--not convert it to MP3 which WOULD result
> in
> a decrease in quality and be impossible to reconstruct from the MP3 file.
> But even if it were it wouldn't make a bit of difference what you decide
> to 'wrap' it in. Bit perfect means bit perfect. I'm not even sure why
> this is being argued about...
>
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 9:34 AM, lokkerman <phil.s...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> No. This is all around the use by collectors of Flacs � you can do what

>> you want with them personally in your own collection. ****
>>
>> ** **

>>
>> The issue is as follows : Take a CD wav file, for example, and convert
>> it
>> to MP3. Then convert this to FLAC (I don�t know why you should do this
>> but
>> it has been done), what you have is a Lossy encode in a container that
>> most

>> folks assume to be lossless (FLAC).****
>>
>> ** **

>>
>> Likewise take a decoded DTS file (there is no issues with encoded DTS
>> files in FLAC, as they appear as a Hissing noise in a decoder that
>> cannot
>> identify the DTS signal) and convert it into FLAC and you have the same
>> issue as above. I re-iterate that DTS encoded files in a FLAC container
>> is
>> no issue, it is when decoded files appear. These can be detected easily
>> in
>> a spectrum analyser but we agreed historically that we would never do
>> this.

>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:

>> surrou...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *August Bleed
>> *Sent:* 19 January 2013 17:22
>>
>> *To:* surrou...@googlegroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie****
>>
>> ** **
>>

>> So you guys are saying if I take a flac file and convert it to a wav or

>> vice versa I don't have the same data? Seriously?****
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Nor22 <nore...@gmail.com> wrote:****

>>
>> I can see your point. Most people assume the FLAC is an exact
>> replication
>> of the original uncompressed waveform. So using FLAC to store a
>> previously
>> lossy compressed DTS file is a little like putting VW engine in a
>> Porsche

>> body. Looks good, but not quite the real thing.****

>>
>> On Jan 19, 2013 10:44 AM, "lokkerman" <phil.s...@gmail.com>

>> wrote:****
>>
>> RW Entirely missed my point�****

>>
>> Although Flac lends itself to do all these wonderful things as a
>> container; collectors �in collecting circles� eschew using Flac other
>> than
>> as a methodology of compressing and storing lossless wav, my entire
>> collection is that way. Flac is now used as an expression for the codec
>> and
>> compression, so you are splitting hairs. Most DAWs support flac right
>> from

>> source conversion from the analogue domain.****
>>
>> ****

>>
>> Why do you think we use things like audio-checker and Tau to verify that
>> FLAC archives are not lossy formats encoded into space saving Flac?

>> ****
>>
>> ****

>>
>> Years ago we had this debate on the SSGG for the hub and decided that we
>> would concur with other lossless collectors and NEVER ever, use DTS in
>> Flac, or for the matter any other lossy codec. Perhaps in your later
>> years

>> you have forgotten this discussion but I remember it well.****
>>
>> ****

>>
>> *From:* surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>> surrou...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *RW
>> *Sent:* 19 January 2013 14:47
>> *To:* surrou...@googlegroups.com
>> *Subject:* [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Lokks wrote:****
>>

>> >> Just to beg to differ, in collecting circles the biggest crime is to
>> convert lossy (whatever format) to lossless, be it flac or wav, Ape, wv
>> or
>> whatever - and even for tagging. �Genuine Flac� is used as term to
>> describe

>> genuine lossless from source, DTS source is lossy; period <****
>>
>> ****

>>
>> Well, Lokks, I must respectfully beg to differ. Steven S. is absolutely
>> correct. FLAC is nothing more than a compression scheme for *any* file
>> type. The fact that there are players that can peek into a FLAC and
>> then
>> decode the file cotained within is simply a bonus. But FLAC itself is
>> NOT
>> a music codec like WAV, MP3, DTS, etc. The codec itself is either lossy
>> or
>> lossless, FLAC has nothing to do with that. FLAC is simply a lossless

>> means of compressing a file, much like RAR and ZIP...****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> -RW-****

>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 13, 2012 5:20:59 PM UTC-5, Blee...@yahoo.com

>> wrote:****
>>
>>
>> ****

>>
>> I've looked repeatedly for bowie stuff in surround. There seem to be
>> some
>> out there and some out of print and some that aren't real. I can't
>> figure
>> out which is which. Anyone know if Bowie ever released in Quad? Did he
>> release DTS Cds? I have found 2 SACDs, one ziggy in 5.1 and lets dance
>> in
>> stereo. I found Young Americans but can't find a retail copy of it,
>> which
>> is suspicious. Anyway I am not trying to pirate I'm just curious to
>> what
>> was actually released, are there good quality boots of this material,
>> did
>> he do quad (it seems like the perfect fit) but never have seen anything
>> of
>> his in this format? Anyone know? I've searched and Amazon makes
>> allusions
>> to enhanced CDs but these could be 20bit redos onto CD. They mention

>> nothing of multichannels.****
>>
>> --
>> August
>> Bleed, Inc.
>> Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog****

>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> "SurroundSound" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at

>> http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound****

>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> "SurroundSound" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at

>> http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound****

>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> "SurroundSound" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at

>> http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound****
>>
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> --
>> August
>> Bleed, Inc.
>> Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog****

>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> "SurroundSound" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at

>> http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound****

[August Bleed]

Didn't I just say that?

[Steven Sullivan]

I suspect any upsampling of the DTS audio stream before it hits the
decoder would result in white noise output.


The way to check sampling rate would be to start with something known to
have 'visible' spectral content above 24 khz, and see what the extracted
audio 'looks' like. If there's a hard cutoff at 24 kHz, then it is a
48kHz sampled stream.

Also, the original question was whether the audio stayed 24bit, not about
the sample rate. My understanding of lossy audio is that the 'bit depth'
metric is not directly applicable -- because bit*rate* varies during
output. "96/24" in this case would mean that the *input* audio to the DTS
encoder was '24 bit'.


(also, that FAQ may well be out of date, or may apply only to DTS-ES and
DTS-HD, rather than DTS 96/24)

[Steven Sullivan]

I said it a week or two ago. Yet people still seem confused.

[August Bleed]

Gotcha.  I am unclear why this is a difficult concept.  Let's take a word document.  If you take that word document and put it in a zip file, the words do not come out differently.  They do not switch their order, they do not take on alternate meanings, they do not become nonsensical unless they were already that way.  If the document is in English, it will decompress into English--not a slightly altered version of the English language the original document contained, but an exact word for word copy of the original document. You take a document put it in a zip file, decompress it, and you have the identical file you placed in the zip.  Now replace the word zip with flac and word document with lossless or lossy audio files. You are able to extract from that flac container the original file within which you placed it.  If that file is a 24/44.1 stereo wav, that is what you will extract from the flac.  If the file is a 320kbps MP3 file wrapped in a flac, when decompressed it will be a 320 kbps MP3 file.  If you place a DTS file in a flac container and decompress it, you will have the exact same DTS file you started with.  If you place a word doc in a zip container and unzip it what would you get?  The same word doc you zipped in the first place.  If this were untrue, the resultant word file would have changed meanings, become nonsensical, have missing information, or in some way be different from the original file.  This is not the case.  Bits don't change unless you change them.

[Steven Sullivan]

And to address this.. Young Americans 5.1 DTS/DD is most certainly a
legitimate commercial release. It's sitting on my shelf right now.

It is readily available. E.g. here:

http://www.amazon.com/Young-Americans-David-Bowie/dp/B000NA2348

And reviewed on QQ
http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?8075-David-Bowie-Young-Americans-%28DTS-DD-DVD-V%29

>>> On Friday, January 13, 2012 5:20:59 PM UTC-5, Blee...@yahoo.com

>>> wrote:***
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> ****

>>>
>>> I've looked repeatedly for bowie stuff in surround. There seem to be
>>> some out there and some out of print and some that aren't real. I
>>> can't
>>> figure out which is which. Anyone know if Bowie ever released in Quad?
>>> Did he release DTS Cds? I have found 2 SACDs, one ziggy in 5.1 and
>>> lets
>>> dance in stereo. I found Young Americans but can't find a retail copy
>>> of
>>> it, which is suspicious. Anyway I am not trying to pirate I'm just
>>> curious
>>> to what was actually released, are there good quality boots of this
>>> material, did he do quad (it seems like the perfect fit) but never have
>>> seen anything of his in this format? Anyone know? I've searched and
>>> Amazon makes allusions to enhanced CDs but these could be 20bit redos
>>> onto

>>> CD. They mention nothing of multichannels.****
>>>
>>> --
>>> August
>>> Bleed, Inc.
>>> Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog****

[Steven Sullivan]

I'm with ya. If people would just think of .flac as the audio file
version of .zip, maybe they'd 'get it'. But maybe people don't know what
a .zip file is either....

[Stephen Disney]

Guys... no one is confused.  Its a rule in trading circles that only lossless files may be in flacs.  Has nothing to do with what can be done, what a flac is, how it works, or tagging.  Its really simple.  In trading circles, all Flacs must be checked for lossy origin before trading.  As such, one can assume that within an established trading circle any flac you encounter would be lossless.  The Hub is one such trading circle... with the caveat that anything out of the norm be clearly marked.
S

[lokkerman]

Correct

-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]

On Behalf Of Steven Sullivan

Sent: 19 January 2013 18:53
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie

>> No. This is all around the use by collectors of Flacs - you can do

>> RW Entirely missed my point.****

[Stephen Disney]

Quit assuming everyone is stupid...
S

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:

[lokkerman]

Totally agreed  - the point I was trying to make is not about what can be done with FLAC or what it is  but the fact that a lossless at source (core) FLAC file is the defacto standard for archiving and trading, with possibly a certificate to prove it is genuine. Perhaps the nomenclature has now reached another meaning but that is the nature of the English Language – Hoover for Vacuum cleaner, Bic or Biro for ballpoint pen and so on.

 

From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Disney
Sent: 19 January 2013 19:31
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie

 

Guys... no one is confused.  Its a rule in trading circles that only lossless files may be in flacs.  Has nothing to do with what can be done, what a flac is, how it works, or tagging.  Its really simple.  In trading circles, all Flacs must be checked for lossy origin before trading.  As such, one can assume that within an established trading circle any flac you encounter would be lossless.  The Hub is one such trading circle... with the caveat that anything out of the norm be clearly marked.
S

[Steven Sullivan]

If a surround mix only exists as DTS or DD, but the 'collecting'
community forbids 'trade' in such mixes when they are usefully repackaged
in taggable FLAC format, what can one say?

What's that phrase from Forrest Gump again?

[lokkerman]

Hence why ISO is used...

-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]

On Behalf Of Steven Sullivan
Sent: 19 January 2013 19:41
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie

[Stephen Disney]

I've seen them in .dts or .ac3 as well.  But basically only the original format is allowed in trading.
S

[Cheezmo]

I don't agree with this the way you stated it.

If you start off with a 320 kbps MP3, and convert it to flac, you can not decode that flac back into the identical 320 kbps mp3.

You can decode the flac to a WAV file that is identical to decoding the 320kpbs MP3 to a wav file, but you can not reconstruct the original mp3.

So in that regard, it really isn't the same as a ZIP.  It is not a container that can be decoded back to the original source.  BUT, it can be decoded to exactly what the original source WOULD BE DECODED TO.

And we wonder why people are confused...

MP3 -> FLAC -> WAV == MP3 -> WAV

In fact, converting the MP3 to flac requires decoding the MP3 as in intermediate step so it is more like...

MP3 -> WAV -> FLAC -> WAV == MP3 -> WAV

So, the FLAC and the MP3 have identical bits when decoded, but you can not reconstruct the original MP3.

On Jan 19, 2013, at 1:16 PM, August Bleed <blee...@gmail.com> wrote:

If the file is a 320kbps MP3 file wrapped in a flac, when decompressed it will be a 320 kbps MP3 file.  If you place a DTS file in a flac container and decompress it, you will have the exact same DTS file you started with.  If you place a word doc in a zip container and unzip it what would you get?  The same word doc you zipped in the first place.  If this were untrue, the resultant word file would have changed meanings, become nonsensical, have missing information, or in some way be different from the original file.  This is not the case.  Bits don't change unless you change them.

[August Bleed]

I never assumed anyone was stupid nor would I resort to that.  To my reading there seemed to be some confusion about a flac being different from a wav or iso or whether it contains a lossy or lossless format.  I was not only trying to clarify the issue myself but there were a couple folks who were confused by the discussion.  But I am an enthusiast of music files and a listener.  I'm apparently not a collector so my apologies if the criteria for those folks who for some reason demand their bit perfect copy in a different format is different than my own.  As long as everyone is clear there is absolutely no difference between them.

[August Bleed]

You're correct in that it is not a strict container in the sense zip is.  But the fact remains that you still end up with a bit perfect copy of whatever you decide to put in the flac file. 

[Cheezmo]

Agreed.

[Stephen Disney]

But alas, only "bit perfect" to a wav.  Maybe "audio perfect" to mp3.  But Cheezmo is right.
And August... you're not the one who gives off a vibe of assumed mental superiority.
S

[Steven Sullivan]

You can wrap an mp3 in a .wav header ('mp3.wav') . If you 'compress' this
with flac, it will decompress to mp3.wav. And if you strip the .wav
header, you have the original mp3. There is even a tool to do such
stripping:
http://mark0.net/soft-riffstrip-e.html


AIUI, dts.wav and ac3.wav are like this. They are just dts/ac3 data
wrapped in a WAV header. They have not been converted to PCM.

[Steven Sullivan]

AIUI, flac IS a strict container in the sense zip is.

You get out only what you put in.

BUT: you can't directly input an mp3 or dts/ac3 file. So you have to
either 'decode' it (mp3 -->decode to PCM-->.wav) or do the 'trick' of
wrapping the native lossy audio in a .wav header, without decoding. This
header is not audio information and it does not affect the audio
information. Furhtermore when you tag the flac file, you add some more
non-audio information.

If you have converted your input file (say from mp3 to 'decoded' mp3)
before compressing with flac, then you get the converted version back when
you decompress the flac file

If you wrap the input file in a .wav header before you compress with flac,
you get back the file with the .wav header when you decompress the flac
file.

[August Bleed]

But you can trivially convert an MP3 to flac, a dts file on a Mac can be changed to a wav in the finder just changing the suffix from DTS to wav, and a dts wav converts to DTS flac in many media players.  If the media player is doing some internal conversion before this I wasn't aware. The intermediary pcm step is something I've never had to do to accomplish these tasks.

[Cheezmo]

I guess, sure.

You could also take a .jpg, add a .wav wrapper, and encode it with flac.

But, playing that flac in an audio player won't get your picture back.

But, you could decode it to wav, use some tool to strip the wav header and have your picture back.

That is all academic and not relevant to how flac is actually intended to be used.

If you use an audio tool to convert mp3 to flac, it will decode it to wav, and compress the flac with wav. That flac will be playable on any flac decoder. It will be identical in quality to the original mp3 but take up more space. If you decode it you get wav back, not the original mp3. It will also be identical in quality but much larger than the original mp3.

I think we all understand how it works at this point and are just arguing semantics. I should have stopped by now, sorry.

[Steven Sullivan]

Me neither.

I have never had any need to convert mp3 to flac, since mp3s can be tagged
natively. DTS and AC3 can't, and that's the only reason I send them
through FLAC.exe.


If all one does is adding a .wav header/wrapper to a file (which I am
guessing is all that's happening in the Mac, wouldn't know, I use PCs),
then the original wrapperless file *can* be recovered from the flac file,
though it will require stripping the .wav information. If the wrapper
manipulation is all done 'invisibly' by software going into and coming out
of flac, all the better.

[Stephen Disney]

You can physically change the suffix from DTS to Wav, but that doesn't make it a DTS-wav (which pads the dts bits out to an approved format within the wav wrapper).  The fact that you've tricked the Flac encoder and many media players can internally figure out what its looking at regardless of suffix, doesn't mean you've done something legitimate or within the normal working parameters of the flac format. Steven refers correctly, but I would argue that the fact that you HAVE to start from a wav (which has traditionally been used to wrap lossless pcm, irregardless of the ability to do more outside of its originally intended parameters) suggests that flac, despite the capability to be used in other ways, was always intended to losslessly reproduce LOSSLESS material.  If its lossy, why bother?  The DTS tagging thing is such an obscure exception to the norm...
S

[Stephen Disney]

In fact... the ability to tag flac is relatively new and not universally acknowledged.
S

[Steven Sullivan]

> That is all academic and not relevant to how flac is actually intended to
> be used.

Flac is hardly intended for mp3, that's for sure.

> If you use an audio tool to convert mp3 to flac, it will decode it to wav,
> and compress the flac with wav.

But that is not what happens when you convert dts or ac3 to flac (unless
you want it to). In my experience, dts-->dts.wav-->flac is how it goes.
There is no intermediate decoding of the dts file.

And for those who are converting mp3 to flac (WHY?) there are in fact
tools to do it without decoding, i.e., wrapping the mp3 in a wav header,
eg.http://www.winasm.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=2890

That's rare because hardly anyone ever needs/wants to convert mp3 to flac
in the first place. Focusing this on the extremely special case of
mp3-->flac is the real diversion here, not 'semantics'.

[Steven Sullivan]

Tagging's been around for a long time and its utility is not in question,
I hope. For the many people who are now streaming all their audio files --
CD, hiigh rez, DTS, AC3, MP3, 2channel, multichannel -- from hard drives,
tagging is hardly 'and obscure exception to the norm' -- it's a necessity.
If DTS and AC3 could be tagged directly like an mp3 file can be, then
there would be no need for FLAC in this context. But they can't, and so,
there is.

[Cheezmo]

Most software I've seen (mac, PC, unix, whatever), ea3cto, for example, don't do any wrapper stuff. If you convert dts to flac, you get a larger file, but cause it has been converted to WAV/PCM as an intermediary, and that is what the flac compresses and decodes to. You would not get the original dts back.

Your posts are the first I have heard of encoding the native dts bitstream as flac in a wav wrapper (similar to how DTS CD's are encoded), I didn't know that was common. In fact I doubt that most hardware/software (Oppo players for example) that can play flacs, would handle it, as they would think the output was WAV/PCM and not try to decode it as dts or ac3 but just play white noise. Maybe I'm wrong there and it is part of some standard. I may play with that.

[Steven Sullivan]

I've been tagging my flac files for as long as I've been using flac. And
that's got to be about a decade now. AFIAK metadata tagging has always
been a part of FLAC.

[lokkerman]

Can we just get to the point that nowadays we use flac for lossless encoding
of wav and not anything else. All the rest is very academic. Encoded DTS is
still wav; albeit unlistenable with a wav decoder. Decodes of lossy to wav
(FLAC) are not acceptable as an archive.

-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Steven Sullivan
Sent: 19 January 2013 21:46
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: David Bowie

[Stephen Disney]

The MP3 > Flac issue was a problem in the trading world, where certain unscrupulous types would try to pass lossy sourced material off as lossless to gain more widespread acceptance and popularity.  Some things are a lot more rare in lossless form than lossy form due to people who originally leaked the stuff never releasing lossless copies.  This was all discovered and verification systems and apps sprang up to ensure this no longer happens.  Many trading forums don't allow lossy at all, let alone transcoded lossy.  Almost all, in the least, require that it stay in original format with exceptions clearly documented.  So it sounds silly to argue MP3>flac, but to a trader its a natural example.
S

[Steven Sullivan]

> Most software I've seen (mac, PC, unix, whatever), ea3cto, for example,
> don't do any wrapper stuff. If you convert dts to flac, you get a larger
> file, but cause it has been converted to WAV/PCM as an intermediary, and
> that is what the flac compresses and decodes to. You would not get the
> original dts back.

You sure about that? Open a dts.wav file created from a .dts file by
Audiomuxer (which, I think, incorpoate eac3to) in an editor like Audition
and tell me what you see.

(I'll tell you what I see: a solid block of green at full scale. To me
that suggests there has been no conversion to PCM)

The DTS.wav files I have are only a little larger than the .dts files from
which they come. And the flac files are a little larger still. that's
because the latter have metadata in them.

> Your posts are the first I have heard of encoding the native dts bitstream
> as flac in a wav wrapper (similar to how DTS CD's are encoded), I didn't
> know that was common. In fact I doubt that most hardware/software (Oppo
> players for example) that can play flacs, would handle it, as they would
> think the output was WAV/PCM and not try to decode it as dts or ac3 but
> just play white noise. Maybe I'm wrong there and it is part of some
> standard. I may play with that.

I have no idea what a hardware player would do ; I know for a fact that
foobar2000 has no qualms passing a DTS file (flac'ed as I've described),
bitperfectly to my AVR. There is no DTS decoding involved until it gets
to the AVR.

[Stephen Disney]

Of course tagging is normal.  I'm saying that transferring DTS as a flac from one person to another (trading) and in that format only to allow for tagging, is an exception to the norm (in terms of trading) not the norm.  What you do on your own HDD was never at issue.
S

[Stephen Disney]

If you're seeing a solid block of green, that would suggest it is not in fact an actual dts-wav... which should be stuttered.
S

[Steven Sullivan]

> Can we just get to the point that nowadays we use flac for lossless
> encoding
> of wav and not anything else. All the rest is very academic. Encoded DTS
> is
> still wav; albeit unlistenable with a wav decoder.

Encoded DTS is not wav; the *input* file could be. Encoded DTS can be put
in a .wav wrapper which is what the Surcode DTS Pro Encoder does when you
specify the 'dts.wav' *option* for encoding PCM to DTS. DTS.wav can also
be made Redbook compliant by specifying 44.1 kHz/16 bit, but that too is
an *option*.

> Decodes of lossy to wav
> (FLAC) are not acceptable as an archive.
>

There are no 'decodes of lossy to wav' in my archive. And that is not what
I am suggesting. Wrapping a DTS file in .wav header is not 'decoding' it.

[Stephen Disney]

No one has an issue with DTS wav... they are known lossy if so marked.  One could arguably mark a file MySong.DTS.Flac  and note in the info sheet that the song is wrapped in flac for tagging purposes and this conversation wouldn't have occurred.  This convo occurred because it was done and not marked.
S

[Steven Sullivan]

I'm talking about low resolution view, of course. At very high resolution,
of course, you see a waveform emerge -- but it is not listenable audio.

And that's true for me whether it is a .dts file put into a .wav wrapper
by third part software, or created directly from a PCM file using
'dts.wav' output of the Surcode DTS Pro Encoder.

So I don't know what 'stuttering' you are seeing.

[Stephen Disney]

Maybe Im thinking of ac3?

[Stephen Disney]

Doesn't matter,

[Cheezmo]

I am talking about using eac3to to convert straight from dts to flac. In that case I believe it decodes first, as opposed to encapsulating.

What you are talking about can be done in two steps, dts to dtswav, dtswav to flac. If a decoder like the Oppo supports playback of dtswav like that it would be a more efficient way to store it (smaller files).

Actually, looking at eac3to documentation, it says it supports "WAV (PCM, DTS and AC3)" for decoding, and "WAV (PCM only)" for encoding. So I don't see how what you are describing could be done with eac3to by itself as is simply does not support creation of dtswav. Encoding to dtswav must be an Audiomuxer feature.

If I find a dtswav encoder I can play with I will try things out, I don't have Audiomuxer.

[Cheezmo]

I just looked at Audiomuxer.  I presume you are using the DTS to SPDIF WAV/FLAC feature which includes the following warning...

So, maybe nice if your decoders all support it.

[Steven Sullivan]

That warning is just for people who are perplexed as to why white noise is
coming out of their speakers when they're playing a 'wav' file. The same
would happen if they tried to play .DTS or .AC3 files without decoding
them properly too.

None of those are 'standard' audio files in that sense. They might just as
well have written, 'these aren't ordinary wav files'.

> I just looked at Audiomuxer. I presume you are using the DTS to SPDIF
> WAV/FLAC feature which includes the following warning...
>
>
>

[Steven Sullivan]

Encoding a DTS or AC3 to .wav is indeed an Audiomuxer feature.

dts.wac output is also a feature of DTS's own encoding software.

[Sam Edwards]

All of this talk of file formats is fascinating, really.

But has anybody heard the surround sound version of Station to Station?  It appears to be only available with 3 LP's and 3 CD's but I really do like that album and would love to hear it in surround sound. I see it used on Amazon. 

Anybody want to weigh in on 'Stage'? I saw that tour way back in the day and don't have it on any other format. I'm sorry I missed it in retail.

I already have Ziggy, Heathen, David Live, Young Americans, Let's Dance and Reality, mostly in SACD. 

I have been a fan since the early '70's. 

-Sam

[RW]

Lokks (Who loves, ya baby?!) wrote:

 

>> Perhaps in your later years you have forgotten this discussion but I remember it well. <<

 

I have forgotten nothing, dear boy.  But you, like so many others, keep confusing a lossless file compressor with a codec.  FLAC (and ZIP and RAR) was around long before it came to prominent use in audiophile circles.  It is,  simply, a program that takes ANY file and endeavors to compress it with no loss of quality - ie, none of the bits are lost in the compression.  And you will find that some files do not compress at all, there is no "air" to be suqeezed out of them.  The biggest advantage to FLAC is that it provides a very rugged container for the storage and transmission of those files.  Plus,  It is handy to have a single file that contains multiple files within it.

 

The fact that some folks will take lossy audio files and then package them up into a FLAC is generally done for convenience.  In no way does it convert the lossy files into a lossless version of those files.  This is more properly called transcoding.  And I am definitely against the transcoding of lossy files to a lossless format.  No audio quality is gained, you simply get a bunch of lossy files that have un-necessary padding added, thus increasing the file size for no good effect.

 

And I don't much care what a bunch of self-appointed audiophiles think about the packaging of lossy files into a lossless FLAC container.  All they have to do is extract the files from the FLAC archive onto their disc and they then have the original lossy files.  What is the big deal about doing that?  Much ado about nothing, methinks...

 

-RW-

 

On Friday, January 13, 2012 5:20:59 PM UTC-5, Blee...@yahoo.com wrote:

I've looked repeatedly for bowie stuff in surround.  There seem to be some out there and some out of print and some that aren't real.  I can't figure out which is which.  Anyone know if Bowie ever released in Quad?  Did he release DTS Cds?  I have found 2 SACDs, one ziggy in 5.1 and lets dance in stereo.  I found Young Americans but can't find a retail copy of it, which is suspicious.  Anyway I am not trying to pirate I'm just curious to what was actually released, are there good quality boots of this material, did he do quad (it seems like the perfect fit) but never have seen anything of his in this format?  Anyone know?  I've searched and Amazon makes allusions to enhanced CDs but these could be 20bit redos onto CD.   They mention nothing of multichannels.

--
August
Bleed, Inc.
Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog

[August Bleed]

He's already said he knows all this (?) and he is a collector so these bit perfect files are not apparently what collectors want.  God knows why.  But that's not for us to judge.  So long as everyone realizes that any audio file you put in a flac container comes right out just the same as it went in (pretty much) and can be converted to any other format as well including the original CD, DVD, whatever, then it doesn't really matter.  But lossy doesn't become more lossy in a bit perfect container, nor does it become less lossy.  Bit perfect is bit perfect.  Why all this back and forth when wikipedia will tell you all this?  I feel like I've stepped into bizzarro world.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

[Steven Sullivan]

Using  track 1 of 'Thick as a Brick' 5.1 as an example

 

1) open with DVD Audio Extractor (DVDAE v6.2.0), select Title 3, 'English DTS surround sound mode 6 Channel (48 kHz 6 ch)'  , Chapter 01

 

2) set DVDAE output to 'DEMUX'.  Result:

filename: Title3 - Chapter 01.dts

filesize: 251,044  KB

note: Adobe Audition can't open this file

 

3) set DVDAE output to 'WAV  -- PCM Uncompressed Wave', sample rate 'same as input' , channels 'All 6 channels' , bits per sample '16 bits'.  Result:

filename: Title3 - Chapter 01.wav

filesize: 766,225 KB

note: in Adobe Audition at default zoom, this file appears as set of 6 normal-looking waveforms (btw with lots of dynamic range! Well done, Steven Wilson)

 

3) open Audiomuxer-->Tools-->Convert AC3/DTS to SPDIF Wav/Flac.  Select 'Title3 - Chapter 01.dts' as input file. Deselect default FLAC output. Result:

filename:  Title3 - Chapter 01.wav

filesize: 255,409 KB 

note: in Adobe Audition at default zoom, this file appears as a set of 6 solid blocks of green.

 

 

Hopefully this illustrates the difference between a dts.wav file  --  DTS audio in a WAV wrapper, which is what Audiomuxer (and DTS Pro Encoder*) can generate  --  and a WAV file that was made from *decoded* DTS , which is the only 'wav' DVDAE  can generate from a DTS file.

 

(*NB Pro Encoder properly uses the suffix 'dts.wav'for its files, while Audiomuxer uses '.wav', which is unfortunate.)

 

 

 

 

[lokkerman]

I have no confusion over the difference between a codec and a compression technique. It’s just that all the world uses the term FLAC for pure lossless files and I support why. -  Having now started to discover some files that are not lossless but lossy codings under the pretence that it is lossless and in FLAC containers (note the correct term).

I also think you totally misunderstood what I was saying – if you have DTS as a Carrier in FLAC files – that is acceptable as the output in a non DTS decoder, is unlistenable (unless you like white noise).

We do not need the confusion by people stuffing lossy decodes in FLAC files and that was the debate then.

--

[Steven Sullivan]

And again: the reason to convert a DTS or AC3 (as dts.wav/ac3.wav) file to flac is to permit standard metadata tagging.  It is a perfectly legitimate reason and a highly useful practice for those who stream their audio.  To prevent 'confusion' among traders, one could even add a comment tag describing what the file is.