Flac vs Wav

firedog · June 8, 2014

Part of this discussion is ridiculous.

Uncompressed flac and wav are both envelopes for containing PCM audio. There is zero difference in the way they are processed in a computer- the data in them is identical.

If you hear a difference between uncompressed flac and wav then it has nothing to do with the format.

sandyk · June 8, 2014

Part of this discussion is ridiculous.

In your opinion.

Far better ears than mine or yours say otherwise.

Many people find an advantage in converting a .flac file to either .wav or .aiff beforehand, instead of doing it "on the fly"

It all comes down to just how electrically quiet your computer or playback device is.

wgscott · June 8, 2014

I think Firedog is being too generous. The entire discussion is ridiculous.

sandyk · June 8, 2014

I think Firedog is being too generous. The entire discussion is ridiculous.

As are the vast numbers of sarcastic,and often irrelevant posts in numerous threads by a Professor qualified in an entirely unrelated field to Audio.

Garf · June 9, 2014

They aren't copied there ,as copying .wav files to another location may degrade SQ a little. My best sounding stuff is ripped to there directly from my internal LG BR writer with it's JLH PSU add on. I just plug in a memory stick with the compilations that I wish to listen to. With my favourites, I store the full albums on Corsair Voyager GTs, otherwise I make compilations of the tracks I enjoy most by ripping only those tracks that I enjoy most. Many albums have only a few stand out tracks.

Not too much more would, as some of the stuff from the dawn of the CD format sounds quite poor compared with what we can do these days if there is a will to do so. In fact, I have to move to a new address in several months time, and I expect to turf out many of these older CDs that I no longer listen to. I have also amassed >300GB of high res material, but much of it also shows it's age and rarely gets played either. Don't forget that being retired, I get more opportunity than most to go through my collection. Musical tastes may also change with time.

So copying files degrades SQ, but having a blu-ray on your playback machine and all the overhead to support burning in your music server doesn't?

sandyk · June 9, 2014

So copying files degrades SQ, but having a blu-ray on your playback machine and all the overhead to support burning in your music server doesn't?

I.M.E. copying .flac files does not cause any degradation, whereas copying .wav files to other locations may.It comes down to how quiet electrically the PC is.

I use an LG BR writer in my PC for ripping purposes, not BluRay or CD/DVD playback. The optical blocks in this writer are markedly superior to most cheaper CD/DVD Roms due to the accuracy needed for quality BluRay playback of a much higher disc density. There have been photos posted on the Internet of the superior discs burned by this kind of writer, that were taken using specialised hospital imaging equipment.

It is supplied power via a JLH PSU add on which converts the PCs +12V and +5V SMPS power to squeaky clean low impedance supplies for the writer, with a noise level on the supply rails of around 4uV.The JLH PSU Add On also markedly reduces interaction via the PSU to other areas of the PC, including the Master Clock.

As the power supply to the writer is highly stable and low noise it is also likely to result in higher quality disc burns with less Jitter.

The Corsair Voyager GTs that my best sounding material is ripped to directly, are also powered by an external low noise +5V JLH PSU and a short modified USB cable.

IF electrically quiet power for the digital areas of a PC , and linear PSUs for some media players, even the S.B.T. , doesn't make any worthwhile improvement, then why are quite a few prepared to pay for a decent Linear PSU such as the John Swenson designed linear PSU for the Mac Mini, which is more expensive than the Mac Mini itself ?

John has also designed and posted details of a very good linear PSU for the S.B.T.

Quite a few others have opted for special order linear PSUs from Paul Hynes and other suppliers for their PCs and Music servers.

The forums are full of people fitting, and retro fitting linear PSU to music servers.

Are they all imagining the benefits of high quality low noise, and low impedance power ?

Teresa · June 9, 2014

Part of this discussion is ridiculous.

Uncompressed flac and wav are both envelopes for containing PCM audio. There is zero difference in the way they are processed in a computer- the data in them is identical.

If you hear a difference between uncompressed flac and wav then it has nothing to do with the format.

There is a real difference in the sound quality in my system fully justifying the larger file size. Many of us feel it is in the "real time" unpacking of FLAC files take makes them suffer in comparison to WAV and AIFF as once I convert a FLAC or ALAC file to a AIFF or WAV file it's sonic qualities are restored. The Absolute Sound discovered there was losses going from WAV to FLAC to WAV, I have not heard that in my system so it may be system dependent.

I think Firedog is being too generous. The entire discussion is ridiculous.

To you perhaps, not to me. It could be this is not the tread for you?

Teresa · June 9, 2014

I.M.E. copying .flac files does not cause any degradation, whereas copying .wav files to other locations may.It comes down to how quiet electrically the PC is...

I have a question, for my high resolution PCM files I save them as both AIFF and WAV. AIFF for my Pure Music / iTunes combo and WAV for my Teac HR Audio Player, both on my Mac Mini. And WAV for Foobar on my PC laptop.

Thus on my Seagate back up drive I have AIFF and WAV as well as my DSF and DFF files. I am concerned when you stated that WAV files can be degraded by coping to other locations such as my Seagate. Is this also true for my AIFF files in your opinion?

I don't want to create FLAC files for backup as to be totally honest FLAC and ALAC just don't sound good enough to me after enjoying music from uncompressed WAV and AIFF music files.

sandyk · June 9, 2014

Hi Teresa

I would be surprised if .aiff doesn't have similar problems, but I haven't tried them.

It would be best to save both .aiff and .wav files to the most electrically quiet location on a PC or laptop.

Superdad has discussed this area at length in some of his threads with long names. If you have downloaded .flac files, no matter where they are saved,(even a CD-R) you will also benefit from copying them to the electrically quieter location, and converting them to either .wav or .aiff for playback from that location.

Have you tried the simplistic cPlay freeware for playing your best sounding high resolution .wav files ? I use cPlay and ASIO with my Asus Xonar D2X and coax SPDIF for improved SQ over Foobar 2K

Regards

Alex

kumakuma · June 9, 2014

Thus on my Seagate back up drive I have AIFF and WAV as well as my DSF and DFF files. I am concerned when you stated that WAV files can be degraded by coping to other locations such as my Seagate. Is this also true for my AIFF files in your opinion?

Easy enough to test. Simply copy the files back from your backup drive to a different directory on your hard drive and see if you notice any difference between the originals and those files that have made a round trip back to your hard drive.

Kal Rubinson · June 9, 2014

The Absolute Sound discovered there was losses going from WAV to FLAC to WAV,...

Did they, really? Or did they just print something that was submitted for consideration?

kumakuma · June 9, 2014

Did they, really? Or did they just print something that was submitted for consideration?

I think they "reported" it as part of the four part series discussed in this thread:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/tas-audio-quality-article-series-9995/

sandyk · June 9, 2014

Sounds like a bit of professional jealousy ?

Perhaps some of your contributions to Stereophile have also suffered the same fate ?

"Anything T.A.S. can do, Stereophile can do better" ?

kumakuma · June 9, 2014

Sounds like a bit of professional jealousy ?
Perhaps some of your contributions to Stereophile have also suffered the same fate ?

"Anything T.A.S. can do, Stereophile can do better" ?

Actually many TAS readers also panned this series:

Forums | The Absolute Sound

sandyk · June 9, 2014

Actually many TAS readers also panned this series:

Forums | The Absolute Sound

That's not surprising given scepticism about such possibilities, which was even greater a couple of years ago. Now we are even discussing issues such as improved Linear PSUs for Mac Minis , Music Servers and S.B.Ts . as well as better sounding USB cables.

The 1s and 0s coming out are the same, yet most people who go the linear PSU route or the higher quality USB cable route, report SQ improvements.

It would also appear that the vast majority of those replying in the thread linked to,(post 37) hadn't even read the relevant TAS articles.Surprise, surprise !

kumakuma · June 9, 2014

That's not surprising given scepticism about such possibilities, which was even greater a couple of years ago. Now we are even discussing issues such as improved Linear PSUs for Mac Minis , Music Servers and S.B.Ts . as well as better sounding USB cables.
The 1s and 0s coming out are the same, yet most people who go the linear PSU route or the higher quality USB cable route, report SQ improvements.

It would also appear that the vast majority of those replying in the thread linked to,(post 37) hadn't even read the relevant TAS articles.Surprise, surprise !

I can't speak for anyone else but I read all four parts of this series and was very disappointed that a once great magazine would publish this crap. I still subscribe but only read the music reviews. Stereophile may not be perfect but it is light years better than TAS.

sandyk · June 9, 2014

can't speak for anyone else but I read all four parts of this series and was very disappointed that a once great magazine would publish this crap.

As a self declared sceptic, of course it will all be crap to you, but not to the many C.A. members who can hear differences between .flac and the original .wav or .aiff file before and after conversion.

I do however disagree about continuing degradation with further generations of copies. They must have been using PCs with lots of RF/EMI and perhaps earlier generation operating systems. Recent W7 and W8 PCs sound considerably better than older XP "clunkers", perhaps with SMPS using main storage capacitors past their use by date. Earlier PCs had PSUs that ran quite a bit hotter, and low ESR electrolytic storage capacitors do degrade with age and hotter temperatures.

Recent SMPS designs are much better in this respect, often using larger speed controlled fans as well as being quieter electrically.

It's called progress.

firedog · June 9, 2014

Hi Teresa, you didn't read my post apparently. I compared UNCOMPRESSED FLAC to wav. There is no unpacking going on with uncompressed flac because it isn't compressed - in computer terms it is the same as a wav file. They are both uncompressed PCM files in an envelope. One envelope is called FLAC, the other WAV. The PCM data inside is identical.

There is no added processing in comparison to wav, so there can't be an issue of added computer noise and processes.

That's why I said PART of this discussion is ridiculous.

I'm sorry but I think that if the situtuation was reversed and WAV had originally been a compressed format and FLAC had originally been uncompressed, some of you would now be saying that "uncompressed WAV" is inferior to FLAC.

There is a real difference in the sound quality in my system fully justifying the larger file size. Many of us feel it is in the "real time" unpacking of FLAC files take makes them suffer in comparison to WAV and AIFF as once I convert a FLAC or ALAC file to a AIFF or WAV file it's sonic qualities are restored. The Absolute Sound discovered there was losses going from WAV to FLAC to WAV, I have not heard that in my system so it may be system dependent.

To you perhaps, not to me. It could be this is not the tread for you?

sandyk · June 9, 2014

I compared UNCOMPRESSED FLAC to wav. There is no unpacking going on with uncompressed flac because it isn't compressed - in computer terms it is the same as a wav file.

You still need to do a conversion from .wav to Uncompressed .flac to start with. HD Tracks and others are never going to provide their high res files as uncompressed .flacs either, as it doesn't result in smaller files and bandwidth savings.

Nevertheless, if you had a far better than average electrically quiet PC, and required metadata , uncompressed .flacs could be a worthwhile option.

Teresa · June 9, 2014

Hi Teresa, you didn't read my post apparently. I compared UNCOMPRESSED FLAC to wav. There is no unpacking going on with uncompressed flac because it isn't compressed - in computer terms it is the same as a wav file. They are both uncompressed PCM files in an envelope. One envelope is called FLAC, the other WAV. The PCM data inside is identical.

There is no added processing in comparison to wav, so there can't be an issue of added computer noise and processes.

That's why I said PART of this discussion is ridiculous...

Oops! I must have read over the word "uncompressed" or flipped the words "flac" and "wav" as it didn't register correctly in my brain as evidenced by my incorrect reply. My reply was based on FLAC vs. uncompressed WAV. I am sorry.

You are correct, uncompressed FLAC versus uncompressed WAV is the subject of the original poster, Gary Francis. While I use both uncompressed WAV and uncompressed AIFF I have not tried uncompressed FLAC. But since uncompressed WAV and uncompressed AIFF don't sound the same on my computer I wouldn't expect uncompressed FLAC to either. I find WAV music files have more attack in the high frequencies and a greater feeling of being in the presence of the musicians, whereas AIFF music files have warmer low frequencies among other differences, even though the same 1's and 0's are supposedly sent to my Teac DAC. My only guess is perhaps the timing (jitter) is slightly different between the two? I have no clue, overall I do prefer WAV to AIFF. However, well recorded AIFF music files sound fantastic if not played directly after the WAV version. YMMV.

Once again I am sorry I didn't realize the words uncompressed in your post applied to the FLAC as well as the WAV files your statement. Since I have XLD I may experiment with uncompressed FLAC in the future. For now I'm only downloading DSD, preferably at 5.6MHz. Also I don't know if there is a sonic difference between DSF and DFF as I don't have a way to convert one to the other.

firedog · June 9, 2014

You still need to do a conversion from .wav to Uncompressed .flac to start with. HD Tracks and others are never going to provide their high res files as uncompressed .flacs either, as it doesn't result in smaller files and bandwidth savings.
Nevertheless, if you had a far better than average electrically quiet PC, and required metadata , uncompressed .flacs could be a worthwhile option.

except that other sites allow you to download wav so "conversion" to uncompressed is trivial and takes about 2 seconds per file. Also, don't forget that discs can be ripped directly to uncompressed flac, just as they are ripped to wav.

sandyk · June 9, 2014

except that other sites allow you to download wav so "conversion" to uncompressed is trivial and takes about 2 seconds per file. Also, don't forget that discs can be ripped directly to uncompressed flac, just as they are ripped to wav.

It doesn't make sense to convert to another format if you don't need to.

I don't know about dBpoweramp, but I prefer EAC for ripping, and it does not provide an option for non compressed .flac A.F.A.I.K.

Other than converting to DSD for it's superior filtering, I seriously doubt that converting from .wav or .aiff to non compressed .flac or ANY other format can have any possible SQ advantage. You are talking theoretically about a perfect world where system noise has no influence on results. Also, ALL conversions introduce the possibility of increased "Jitter", at the very least.

garyfrancis100 · June 9, 2014

Perhaps some of that music would get some more air time if it were a little more accessible.

For me the real joy of CA is the ability to instantly play any album or song that I want. Nothing give me more pleasure than scrolling through my collection on my iPad (with cover art!) rediscovering albums that I haven't listened to in months or years.

I agree with instant access I mentioned use of memory stick as a means to do direct a/b listening test on a non pro level. As some just do not have the CA expertise or setup similar to your own which would most definitely compromise sound and A/B flac (zero compression) vs Wav.

garyfrancis100 · June 9, 2014

Oops! I must have read over the word "uncompressed" or flipped the words "flac" and "wav" as it didn't register correctly in my brain as evidenced by my incorrect reply. My reply was based on FLAC vs. uncompressed WAV. I am sorry.

You are correct, uncompressed FLAC versus uncompressed WAV is the subject of the original poster, Gary Francis. While I use both uncompressed WAV and uncompressed AIFF I have not tried uncompressed FLAC. But since uncompressed WAV and uncompressed AIFF don't sound the same on my computer I wouldn't expect uncompressed FLAC to either. I find WAV music files have more attack in the high frequencies and a greater feeling of being in the presence of the musicians, whereas AIFF music files have warmer low frequencies among other differences, even though the same 1's and 0's are supposedly sent to my Teac DAC. My only guess is perhaps the timing (jitter) is slightly different between the two? I have no clue, overall I do prefer WAV to AIFF. However, well recorded AIFF music files sound fantastic if not played directly after the WAV version. YMMV.

Once again I am sorry I didn't realize the words uncompressed in your post applied to the FLAC as well as the WAV files your statement. Since I have XLD I may experiment with uncompressed FLAC in the future. For now I'm only downloading DSD, preferably at 5.6MHz. Also I don't know if there is a sonic difference between DSF and DFF as I don't have a way to convert one to the other.

Hi Teresa,

Can I ask (if I am allowed to on this site) where do you download you DSD from. Also do you know the original format of these DSD files. I am interested in people who have A/B comparison with upsampled DSD files from 16/44 right up to 32/384 pcm conversion as well as original native DSD 64 & 128 masters which I assume are rare at the moment.

Regards, Gary

garyfrancis100 · June 9, 2014

Hi Sandy K

I am interested in the method you use for upsampling to DSD. Do you find this beneficial when converting from lower formats / files ?

For example is it worth upsampling and converting ones whole library of say Flac or Wav based on 16/44 to DSD.

Do you convert to 64 or 128

Regards, Gary

Flac vs Wav

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in