Flac vs Wav

[sandyk]

Most people use the original version of .flac mainly for it's space saving capabilities.

For this reason very few are likely to start using non compressed .flac. .flac has also become a defacto standard, although it was never designed to be , and was non commercial, thus no royalty payments needed to use it.

[kumakuma]

Most people use the original version of .flac mainly for it's space saving capabilities.

For this reason very few are likely to start using non compressed .flac. .flac has also become a defacto standard, although it was never designed to be , and was non commercial, thus no royalty payments needed to use it.

 

I think the real reason why few people use the uncompressed flac format is that they don't know it exists.

 

From a technical standpoint, it is a very good solution for those Apple haters who are hesitant to use AIFF but still want a raw PCM format with meta data support.

[sandyk]

I think the real reason why few people use the uncompressed flac format is that they don't know it exists.

 

Rubbish. Most people use .flac because they can fit around twice the amount of content on the same storage medium with little or no discernible loss in quality. That would be even more important with non easily upgradable computers.

Your average Joe wouldn't know about Music Servers capable of vast amounts of music storage, and that storage of large amounts of non compressed formats is no longer the problem it once was .Hopefully, Pono will change some of those attitudes, and eventually as technology further processes, non compressed music formats will become more used in portable devices too.

[elcorso]

Most people use the original version of .flac mainly for it's space saving capabilities.

For this reason very few are likely to start using non compressed .flac. .flac has also become a defacto standard, although it was never designed to be , and was non commercial, thus no royalty payments needed to use it.

 

Hi Alex,

 

The other reason is for the easy conversion:

 

Mac: To AIFF (including art)

 

Windows: To WAV.

 

I didn't knew it existence as "uncompressed" until now, most of the time from the DL sites when the only choice is FLAC, it's compressed. Even if I can listen with A+ this kind of FLAC, the SQ is far lesser than the expanded AIFF or WAV.

 

Kind regards,

 

Roch

[kumakuma]

Rubbish. Most people use .flac because they can fit around twice the amount of content on the same storage medium with little or no discernible loss in quality. That would be even more important with non easily upgradable computers.

 

I think we are both right.

 

People use the compressed FLAC format for the ability to store more data in the same amount of space.

 

People do not use the uncompressed FLAC format as an alternative to AIFF or WAV because, like Roch, they simply don't know it exists. I have been working with this stuff for years and only found out in the last few months about uncompressed FLAC files.

[sandyk]

Even if I can listen with A+ this kind of FLAC, the SQ is far lesser than the expanded AIFF or WAV.- Roch

 

If Roch can still hear the difference when living in a rainforest, then why bother with it over normal .flac for saving artwork etc. ? (grin)

It may have a small advantage over .wav for Internet transmission due to it's protective container, and I expect still having internal checksums for file verification purposes ?

It may even be a viable alternative to Uncompressed Zips as used by Cookie Marenco for DL purposes?

[kumakuma]

If Roch can still hear the difference when living in a rainforest, then why bother with it over normal .flac for saving artwork etc. ? (grin)

 

Alex,

 

I think you might need that second cup of coffee/tea this morning or your reading glasses. Roch was obviously talking about compressed FLAC files, not uncompressed.

 

BTW, I have no personal interest in using this format. AIFF works just fine for me but there are others here who refuse to touch anything that Apple has had a hand in so this would be a great alternative for those folks as it gets around the limitations of WAV.

 

KK

[sandyk]

I think you might need that second cup of coffee/tea this morning or your reading glasses. Roch was obviously talking about compressed FLAC files, not uncompressed.

Perhaps he was, but it still isn't obvious to me from his post that he was. I still marvel that people like Roch and Peter St. manage to be in the main understood, given that English isn't their native language. Perhaps using Peter wasn't such a good example ? (wink)

I am just enjoying my 1st cup of coffee for the day after 2 school transport runs for grandchildren.

[kumakuma]

Perhaps he was, but it still isn't obvious to me from his post that he was. I still marvel that people like Roch and Peter St. manage to be in the main understood, given that English isn't their native language. Perhaps using Peter wasn't such a good example ? (wink)

I am just enjoying my 1st cup of coffee for the day after 2 school transport runs for grandchildren.

 

I assumed that he meant compressed because he said he had just now found about uncompressed. I agree with you about our non-native speakers ... and Peter.

 

Driving the grandchildren to school before your first cup of coffee. Not sure I could do it.

[Allan F]

I think we are both right.

 

People use the compressed FLAC format for the ability to store more data in the same amount of space.

 

People do not use the uncompressed FLAC format as an alternative to AIFF or WAV because, like Roch, they simply don't know it exists. I have been working with this stuff for years and only found out in the last few months about uncompressed FLAC files.

 

+1

 

In fact, shortly before RMAF last year, I exchanged a number of emails with Mark Waldrep, principal of AIX Records and iTrax. He was not aware of the existence of uncompressed FLAC until I brought it to his attention.

[sandyk]

Given that the vast majority of C.A. members appear to be unable to hear the difference between the original version of .flac (which may save around 50% storage space,) and the original .wav or .aiff files , and some even claim that that it is impossible for there to be a difference, it seems kind of pointless for them to use it instead of .flac original.

IFyou are able to hear differences between .flac files and the original .wav or .aiff files, need metadata and have plenty of free storage capacity, then by all means use it.

[Allan F]

Given that the vast majority of C.A. members appear to be unable to hear the difference between the original version of .flac (which may save around 50% storage space,) and the original .wav or .aiff files , and some even claim that that it is impossible for there to be a difference, it seems kind of pointless for them to use it instead of .flac original.

 

IFyou are able to hear differences between .flac files and the original .wav or .aiff files, need metadata and have plenty of free storage capacity, then by all means use it.

 

Given how cheap and plentiful it is today, for me HDD storage capacity is a non-issue and the reason that I ripped my CDs to uncompressed FLAC. I have used only 30% of the capacity of my NAS and, at the rate I add music, I doubt that I will ever come close to running out of space.

[YashN]

Given that the vast majority of C.A. members appear to be unable to hear the difference between the original version of .flac (which may save around 50% storage space,) and the original .wav or .aiff files , and some even claim that that it is impossible for there to be a difference, it seems kind of pointless for them to use it instead of .flac original.

 

The phenomenon may very well be system-dependent based on my recent stab at building a custom USB cable. I was only concentrating on separating the signal and power lines and listening for any positive effect from that (inspired by the LightSpeed cable and iFi's Gemini), so let's just say the craftsmanship at the sockets has room for improvements.

 

The unfinished sockets allow that DIY cable to pick up some interference as can be heard from putting my ear to the speakers at moderate-to-high volumes.

 

It is from this point that I could hear a difference between FLAC compressed and AIFF (I much prefer AIFF, and actually, in my system, I much prefer the AIFF converted to DSD 2x with Korg Audiogate, through the iFi iDSD Nano) and other differences.

 

Before that DIY cable, I couldn't perceive the differences. Did my ability change in the meantime? Nope, or else if at all, for the worse.

 

So, sometimes the people aren't to blame: their system is just well-shielded and impervious to the deleterious effects of extra processing, noise or interference.

 

As for those who would stick to their guns based on theory alone, experiment - you may be surprised.

[Paul R]

As for those who would stick to their guns based on theory alone, experiment - you may be surprised.

 

Well said! Well said indeed!

 

But also don't be afraid to believe your results, whether they are what you expect or not. That's actually a lot of the fun of the hobby, at least to me. Getting surprised is kinda fun!

 

-Paul

[YashN]

Much fun, and it's also much fun to consequently understand existing designs or to make new ones which bring better sound quality and modest costs compared to what is available commercially.

[sandyk]

So, sometimes the people aren't to blame: their system is just well-shielded and impervious to the deleterious effects of extra processing, noise or interference.

 

Given that even internal PC fans controlled by PWM ( around 25kHz.) from the Motherboard can degrade performance a little, without people realising it,( AlexC reported this recently too) I doubt that there are too many off the shelf computers, whether Windows or Macs, that are truly optimised for audio.

[dean70]

Given that even internal PC fans controlled by PWM ( around 25kHz.) from the Motherboard can degrade performance a little, without people realising it,( AlexC reported this recently too) I doubt that there are too many off the shelf computers, whether Windows or Macs, that are truly optimised for audio.

 

I have noticed some of the newer boards now have selectable DC or PWM fan control settings in the BIOS...

[4est]

Hmm, I haven't notice that....

I have noticed some of the newer boards now have selectable DC or PWM fan control settings in the BIOS...

[Music Matters]

I think we are both right.

 

People use the compressed FLAC format for the ability to store more data in the same amount of space.

 

People do not use the uncompressed FLAC format as an alternative to AIFF or WAV because, like Roch, they simply don't know it exists. I have been working with this stuff for years and only found out in the last few months about uncompressed FLAC files.

 

I use compressed FLAC for music of lesser quality, and music I don't listen often... for my main library I use uncompressed FLAC, but there is one more neat plus for FLAC. That carries checksum information so you can easily check if files are OK. For example on my two backup locations with dBPoweramp batch converter you simply select top folder and check all the files.

[sandyk]

I use compressed FLAC for music of lesser quality, and music I don't listen often... for my main library I use uncompressed FLAC

Are you saying that you can hear a difference between compressed FLAC and uncompressed FLAC, or are you just being cautious ?

If you get a checksum error, does the file still play ?

[Music Matters]

I don't know if I hear it, or it's mind playing games with me it is hard to describe like the music has some tension, and with uncompressed or WAV it's more liquid, sorry I am not good at describing the music.

 

Anyhow I don't care anymore, and don't want to spend time doing tests, I just want to enjoy the music, and for the pace of mind I've settled on ucomp. FLAC for my main music files and are very happy.

[sandyk]

Thanks for your honest impressions.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

[Music Matters]

Sorry, forgot second question... I had situation that corupted file could be played but you hear pop at some point.

[Chodi]

I listen mostly to classical music. I have done this comparison between compressed flac and uncompressed wav files on my own system and uncompressed wav wins hands down. The difference on my system is not subtle. There is more air, more sense of the recording space and a more liquid presentation overall with uncompressed wav. I can only conclude that something about the decompression process with flac on the fly is degrading the sound. Nothing else in my system is changed when I did this test therefore it must be a computer dependent issue. I am using an I7 based computer running Windows 7x64. The results might be different on a different computer but on my computer uncompressed wave is obviously superior.

[Allan F]

FWIW, using a small sample of tracks, I could hear no difference between uncompressed FLAC and AIFF. I didn't compare uncompressed FLAC to WAV as almost all report hearing no difference between AIFF and WAV.