Any sound quality difference between FLAC & WAV?

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.
 
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.
 
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?

nicoff said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Any sound quality difference between FLAC & WAV?

Mr Peabody said:
To my understanding FLAC still isn't compatible with Apple, is it convertible to ALAC or AIFF?
Click to expand...

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).
 
rbbert said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Any sound quality difference between FLAC & WAV?

nicoff said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ritmo said:
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.
Click to expand...

+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 :D....

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).
 
Kingrex said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
aKnyght said:
+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.
Click to expand...

Storage is so cheap these days; for me, it’s a non issue.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top