Thread: Any sound quality difference between FLAC & WAV?

I can't sseem to find credible articles comparing FLAC to WAV. Most are other discussions on other sites. So I thought if I can only get help from others, bring it here. Most everyone is already into playing files here.

My first concern is whether either sounds better. If having a choice which is best to rip a CD to? I realize FLAC compresses and decompresses where WAV remains the same size. FLAC fans claim no loss of data, where another person claims the folding and unfolding of the FLAC file could cause distortions or time issues.

So educate away.

I rip to ALAC, and buy downloads in FLAC, or DSD. They all sound great with Lumin. I think the gear used to store/play the files is more important than how the file is ripped. Obviously, I mean uncompressed.

Of course, being audio, someone else will feel the opposite.

WAV - sounds best. You can also then select files and easily make a CD of music to play in the car. Also, easily convert to another format.
FLAC/AppleLossless - both equal for second IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I very much prefer WAV to Flac in my setup. But it may be a system situation. Maybe my setup creates noise as it uncompresses the file. I'm guessing. I don't know the real reason. A friend sent me a couple hundred albums, some Flac, some WAV and some AIF. The WAV was best across the board. The AIF was not that bad. I might actually call it good. The FLAC was just dead sounding. Something was wrong. I tossed everything accept the WAV.

Originally Posted by Kingrex

I very much prefer WAV to Flac in my setup. But it may be a system situation. Maybe my setup creates noise as it uncompresses the file. I'm guessing. I don't know the real reason. A friend sent me a couple hundred albums, some Flac, some WAV and some AIF. The WAV was best across the board. The AIF was not that bad. I might actually call it good. The FLAC was just dead sounding. Something was wrong. I tossed everything accept the WAV.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong but you could have taken the Flac files and converted them back to Wav with no loss.

You know. I started another thread and asked why I couldn't upsample and save the file to stroage, then playback the high rez file later. I was told it did not provide any gain. As I learn more I sometimes question that. I gather a part of getting the 44.1 to 88.2 is the filter to role off would not be so steep and ringing could be eliminated. Resolution would not improve, but a reduction in noise is always welcome. Now I have been told if I go from 44.1 to 96, I have deviated from a simple doubling of the rate and the math becomes complex so the sound suffers. Anyhow, that is totally different from what you suggest. it makes sense to me that DBPoweramp would probably have the ability to take a FLAC file and uncompressed and convert to WAV. I don't have any of the files any more. Maybe someone has tried this and wants to chime in.

Originally Posted by Audiophilehi

Someone correct me if I’m wrong but you could have taken the Flac files and converted them back to Wav with no loss.

Originally Posted by Audiophilehi

Someone correct me if I’m wrong but you could have taken the Flac files and converted them back to Wav with no loss.

True. For those who believe WAV and FLAC must sound the same and heard no difference, the reason is that they are exactly the same digitally after FLAC decoding.

For those who heard a difference, the reason is that the process of the FLAC decoding needs additional CPU and memory accesses, which cause additional noise. Additional CPU usage also means slightly increased power requirements. Power is of utmost importance to audio SQ.

(Note: WAV is not good for tagging. For a non-compressed alternative consider AIFF.)

While it is true that Flac labels better than Wav, it is also true that we depend on the server software that we use later to read the files. A Wav file obtained and labeled with dbpoweramp, is perfectly read (in its labeling) by Mimimserver and horribly by Twonky.

Yes, that's one of the reasons MinimServer has been the official recommended server software for Lumin since Day 1.

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

I can't sseem to find credible articles comparing FLAC to WAV.

That should be a hint.

Rip to FLAC lossless with no compression. That way you get all the better tagging benefits of FLAC without potential issues from decoding.

Something else to consider; if you load the entire file or folder from a spinning HD into memory or SSD in order to play it, it uses less CPU processing to decode FLAC as part of that transfer than it does to just transfer the (larger) WAV file (it also takes less time). You can observe this by watching in Task Manager as you do it.

I had some friends over last year and one guy wanted to know if WAV sounded better than FLAC. So he brought over some music that was both in FLAC and WAV. There were 5 of us present and we did a blind test and found we all thought WAV sounded better. It was subtle but it sounded better. 100% of the time we preferred WAV.

I am not saying that WAV is inherently better but on this one test it was and there could be may reasons for that.

Originally Posted by wklie

For those who heard a difference, the reason is that the process of the FLAC decoding needs additional CPU and memory accesses, which cause additional noise. Additional CPU usage also means slightly increased power requirements. Power is of utmost importance to audio SQ.

This is EXACTLY what I heard when I compared FLAC to AIFF files and why I chose to rip my discs to AIFF.
There was background noise/haze that was unmistakable to my ears. It affected the sound in other ways besides just the background noise, as well.

Originally Posted by nicoludio

I was wondering if you or Lumin has compared the sound of WAV vs AIFF files? Thanks.

I have always used a server running JRiver or Roon and never had an issue with metadata. Roon actually looked at gaps in my metadata and filled them in.

I would use a device that ripped the disc to hard drive. I'm not a big computer guy. I also wouldn't be moving the files from one place to another so if the album info was with the WAV file that should be good. Hopefullyat least the same amount of info as if ripping to Windows Media Player.

I did see the Enjoy The Music article but couldn't see the graphs so got lost after a bit and gave up.

Thanks for everyone's input

Originally Posted by nicoludio

As for articles, there is an interesting write-up with some empirical data/findings on WAV vs FLAC sound quality on EnjoyThe Music.com and HiFiCritic.com.

That article is total nonsense. The authors tried to get it published in Stereophile and were rejected, since JA reviewed and saw that it was total nonsense. That's how it ended up in those 2 publications.
If there is a difference "heard", something is broken, equipment or more likely, test method (as in none).

cheers,

AJ

Originally Posted by wklie

True. For those who believe WAV and FLAC must sound the same and heard no difference, the reason is that they are exactly the same digitally after FLAC decoding.

For those who heard a difference, the reason is that the process of the FLAC decoding needs additional CPU and memory accesses, which cause additional noise. Additional CPU usage also means slightly increased power requirements. Power is of utmost importance to audio SQ.

(Note: WAV is not good for tagging. For a non-compressed alternative consider AIFF.)

I'm curious. If decoding FLAC requires enough CPU and memory resources to noticeably affect the sound (and BTW, have you ever looked at the CPU and memory resources that takes, using the Resource Monitor? Barely enough to register, less than copying a WAV file from one drive to memory or another drive), then why do so many people say that upsampling music before playing (to 24/352.8, or DSD 512, or whatever) and/or MQA sound better than native playback? Either of those processes uses at least an order of magnitude more CPU and memory resources than decoding FLAC..

I have had two servers. Both sounded Much better in WAV than Flac. It wasn't even close for me. I am playing nearly all 24/192 or some home made 32/384 music.

On a number of occasions over the last few years I've tried to identify differences between Flac and WAV.

There have been several variables:
Totally different computer platforms from i5 up to and now including i7. (all ASUS Motherboards)
Windows 7 and Windows 10
JRiver as the player, up to now including version 24.
WAV recordings purchased as WAV.
Purchased WAV, converted to FLAC and back to WAV (by me, using JRiver)
Different FLAC compression levels (when ripping CDs)
Purchased FLAC, converted to WAV and back to FLAC (by me, using JRiver)
DAC's changed a few times over the years, W4S, Esoteric, Meitner.
Local spinning storage, NAS, and more recently local SSD storage.

..and a few things that have remained the same:
In all cases I've used USB for connection to DAC.
I've always used: "Load decoded file loaded into memory" - JRiver setting. (To be clear, I don't remember when this became an option in JRiver, but I've used it since it became available)
Never any DSP and/or output format changes within JRiver.

The result has always been the same for me.
I've never been able to discern any differences.

One thing I've not tried is playing around with DSD. I suppose one of these days I may get the bug to convert some purchased DSD files
to WAV/FLAC and see what I can see.

I'm not sure where you have purchased WAV files. The "big 5" hi-res audio retailers (HDTracks, Prostudiomasters, Qobuz, Highresaudio, 7digital) all send you FLAC, decoded by their download manager software into the format you purchased. Prestoclassical and nugs.net don't offer WAV as an option, not sure about Onkyo.

Yea I always assume purchased WAV were FLAC at some point anyway... only other thing I tried but forgot to mention was ripping CDs to FLAC and WAV.

I have tried JRiver vs Roon /HQ player. The JRiver is very thick and full. It seems to hide deficiency. It's a pleasant listen and great for rock. I personally gravitate to more neutral and clean. When in Roon /HQ the details are more apparent. You hear system changes more readily. It's easier to hear flac vs wav. It does not mean you should use Roon /HQ. Many may find a more robust fat sound more enjoyable.

To my understanding FLAC still isn't compatible with Apple, is it convertible to ALAC or AIFF?

Originally Posted by nicoff

Long long ago as I was converting my collection for use with a squeezebox I ripped my CDs to FLAC. I used EAC and a 50% compression level (storage was expensive then). The result was not great. I felt that the FLAC files did not sound as good as the CDs. But I did not attribute the problem to FLAC or the compression level. I believe that the problem was an operator/hardware issue during ripping or playback.

Fast forward several years. I re-ripped my CD collection with DBPoweamp and I still used FLAC (this time uncompressed just because storage space/price is not an issue). Result: I cannot tell a difference between FLAC and Wav.

I much prefer FLAC because of the ability to add metadata and also because I can convert FLAC to any format that I want anytime. FLAC is now the de facto standard in my opinion.

Originally Posted by rbbert

I'm not sure where you have purchased WAV files. The "big 5" hi-res audio retailers (HDTracks, Prostudiomasters, Qobuz, Highresaudio, 7digital) all send you FLAC, decoded by their download manager software into the format you purchased. Prestoclassical and nugs.net don't offer WAV as an option, not sure about Onkyo.

This is exactly what I was about to say. I know that HDTracks stores and sends you FLAC files. As Rob stated, their download manager software converts to the format you purchased when you download the file.

I believe DSD sounds the best, especially if sampled at DSD256 or above (I can't explain exactly why, but I have read in multiple sources that DSD64 and DSD128 have artifacts that can fall in the audible range, DSD256 and up do not). Up-sampling everything to DSD512 sounds amazing, but does require some computing horse power. I also look to get the highest resolution file I can get because I do believe the better in the better out with HQPlayer.

Originally Posted by nicoff

Yes. Flac can be converted to ALAC and AIFF and vice versa.
By the way, ALAC is Apples version of FLAC. The letter A (which means Apple) replaces the letter F ( which means Free).

Yup. Apple has to always do their own thing... no reason to think people might actually want universal compatibility in their computer equipment .... they also try to lock you into Apple forever...

I rip to AIFF. This format is portable (I can use it with my LUMIN, Apple phones and tablets), sounds terrific and supports lots of metadata.

Originally Posted by Ritmo

I rip to AIFF. This format is portable (I can use it with my LUMIN, Apple phones and tablets), sounds terrific and supports lots of metadata.

+1

but it does almost double the storage space required versus FLAC or ALAC. as an example, the neil young dreaming man CD is 331.4 MB when ripped to ALAC format but is 591.2 MB in AIFF format.

...and hi-res file can get insanely large in uncompressed formats, ~3 GB for a 24/96 album.

File size is becoming less important now with storage being cheap. However, add a few DSD256 albums in there if you want to see storage space get eaten up ....

I keep all of my music on my custom built server (of course backed up in three other locations). I have three SSD drives in my server that handle all my music. I think latest count is I am approaching 1000 albums with about a third of those in DSD (both downloads and ripping my SACDs).

Originally Posted by Kingrex

I very much prefer WAV to Flac in my setup. But it may be a system situation. Maybe my setup creates noise as it uncompresses the file. I'm guessing. I don't know the real reason. A friend sent me a couple hundred albums, some Flac, some WAV and some AIF. The WAV was best across the board. The AIF was not that bad. I might actually call it good. The FLAC was just dead sounding. Something was wrong. I tossed everything accept the WAV.

Were all the files the same with regards to bits and sampling rates?

I have no idea Michael. I sent the drive back. In that situation there was no real validation behind anything other than playing albums and going this one sounds good this one doesn't. None of the flac files played well in my system. That all went down about 3 weeks ago.

I have in the past ripped to different formats using dbpoweramp. I riped to all the different formats available and selected the format that sound the best in my system. That ended up being wav. I then loaded my NIMBY robot with CDs and spent the next couple weeks moving 1800 CDs to my NAS.

I also find in my setup, upsampling is not an improvement. My system is designed specifically to be as low power as possible. It's designed to run as few processes as possible. Any additional processes degrade the sound quality.

I would guess if someones system was something along the lines of a laptop feeding an Ethernet stream to an endpoint like an ultrarendu, that the conversion process of decompressing the flac file would not be as harmful to the sound quality. I have never tried as I have never used an endpoint, but maybe somebody on this thread using an endpoint can tell us if he hears the difference between a flac and WAV file. Would be interesting to know.

Originally Posted by aKnyght

+1

but it does almost double the storage space required versus FLAC or ALAC. as an example, the neil young dreaming man CD is 331.4 MB when ripped to ALAC format but is 591.2 MB in AIFF format.

...and hi-res file can get insanely large in uncompressed formats, ~3 GB for a 24/96 album.

Storage is so cheap these days; for me, it’s a non issue.

If not using FLAC, nor many high res, how many albums on a TB? I'm guessing maybe 3k, sound right?

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

If not using FLAC, nor many high res, how many albums on a TB? I'm guessing maybe 3k, sound right?

I have 1800 album in WAV and its about 1.2 TB

I believe it truly depends on the server and playback mechanism. I am ripped to WAV64 at 32/44.1 for Redbook CD. The sound difference on my music server/DAC combo was significant between FLAC, WAV and W64.