WAV vs FLAC

rbbert said:
Since most experienced users of computer audio prefer playback from RAM (or at least an SSD) to typical hard drive playback, one can take advantage of the storage and metadata convenience of FLAC and the (perhaps) sonic advantages of wav by decoding FLAC to wav into memory and playing from there (as I posted earlier).
Click to expand...

Boy is that a big jump in assumptions. Many of us prefer it for its user friendliness, and not for SQ.
 
still-one said:
Boy is that a big jump in assumptions. Many of us prefer it for its user friendliness, and not for SQ.
Click to expand...
Right, but if you're going to get into minutia like FLAC vs WAV, you should really use memory playback as well.

Memory playback is a feature of some music players like Jplay, JRiver, Audirvana, etc. Some, like Jplay, can be set up to convert FLAC on hard drive to WAV in memory when you choose what you want to play. I would expect that feature will soon be offered on all higher-end (i.e. ones you pay for, as opposed to iTunes) music playing programs, if it isn't already. Certainly the dedicated systems I've seen demo'ed at shows are often set up this way.
 
I don't have access to the article that Mike first talked about, but I have done numerous tests with Flac vs Wav over the years and some systems there is a definite repeatable difference and some systems I couldn't tell. Flac (0) I have never heard a difference.

As time goes on, there appears to be less difference if at all. I attribute this to be the thought that the less you make the CPU of the computer to work, the less noise the computer inputs back into the system and that is what causes the difference in sound and not exactly the ones and zeros, in the flac and wav. I wish 5-10 years ago we knew and / or had the power isolation devices we have now because that would have been great comparison. Plus as CPUs have gotten more powerful it's a lot easier to mathematically change flac to wav on the fly, thus less noise coming from the computer.

If in fact (who knows), its the bad elements/noise from the computer converting/serving/playing the flac vs the wav affecting - for example - the preamp, then it's the computer noise, not the actual digital source/conversion. To me, from a logical standpoint, this sorta makes sense. 1 and 0s don't change, but if to play them you ruin the preamp - on the whole - makes a difference. Again - the whole / system is what we listen to, not just one part in isolation.

Just my $.02.
 
I wholeheartedly agree on the whole (digital source has tremendous impact on SQ which doesn't mean the 1 and 0s are what's different from one to the other), but why would the noise not affect the DAC itself? We tend to speak as if a DAC chip was that magical thing that took an imperfect signal (even if it is logically unambiguous) and turned into the same analog signal irrespective of what actually goes in, noise, shape of the signal, etc. A DAC chip is a very delicate machine.
 
Hi Mike,

I believe that there can be some differences when you play flac files on your streamer, because they needs to be converted in to something that can be accepted by your streamer DAC chip's. In general you need to "unzip" them and it will be done by streamer cpu, so it can cause some SQ degradation.

But if you are using minimserver it is very easy to test it, your NAS can convert your flac files to wav "on-the-fly" before they will be send to the streamer, so your streamer will get wav file.
You can have the same file on NAS in both versions flac/wav to test.

I prefer to keep my files zipped in flac(tagged) but converting them using minimserver on my Qnap NAS.

Regards,
Darius
 
Thanks Darius. All my cd's are ripped to AIFF. I wonder how it compares to WAV. Should be the same, no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mike said:
Thanks Darius. All my cd's are ripped to AIFF. I wonder how it compares to WAV. Should be the same, no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
At a show earlier this year (Chicago? CES? I can't remember) Steve of Empirical Audio had a setup for listeners to compare WAV to AIFF, and reported that nearly everyone preferred WAV. I don't know what that means.

I strongly suspect that many of these opinions/comparisons that end up preferring one lossless format over the others are uniquely system dependent, but I have no proof of that.
 
I have heard a slight difference between AIFF and uncompressed FLAC, in favor of the latter, but that was very subtle even on excellent systems. Nothing like the difference between compressed and uncompressed. I definitely use both formats quasi-indifferently (AIFF for downloads actually, and FLAC uncompressed for ripping, because I'm too lazy to convert files).
 
Here's an interesting twist on the most recent comments. Steve at Empirical has fairly consistently said that WAV sounds better (not sure by how much though) than flac, until he heard the Antipodes. So since Julot has several antipodes servers, perhaps he can chime in on the WAV vs flac debate as respects the server impact?
 
Are you asking if, depending on the servers, WAV may or may not sound better than FLAC?

When talking about FLAC on Antipodes, there are two things to keep in mind:
1- it is uncompressed FLAC (which is not the same as 0) -- the Apple equivalent is AIFF
2- they are ripped by the Antipodes server in paranoid mode, without error correction, which can take a very long time or be impossible on CDs that are in bad condition

Under these circumstances, I would be surprised if one could hear much of a difference between WAV and uncompressed FLAC on any server -- I don't think I hear one on my Antipodes DX. But as I said earlier, there is a clear difference between compressed and uncompressed formats.
 
Alpinist said:
Good post Rbbert, especially the last part. I have numerous high res. recordings, some in FLAC, some in WAV and some in both. After having done a number of head to head comparisons, I'll only purchase high res. WAV files now. I hear a material difference in soundstage depth and nuance with the high res. WAV compared to high res. FLAC. But if you can convert from FLAC to WAV before you play, then go for it!

Ken
Click to expand...

My previous comments were referring to compressed FLAC, as you would find when you're purchasing on HDTracks. I wouldn't expect any of the uncompressed formats to sound materially different, whether WAV, AIFF or uncompressed FLAC. But I did find through direct comparison that uncompressed WAV files sounded materially better than compressed FLAC files through my system. Materially more soundstage depth and nuance.
 
Julot, yes, based on what Steve nugent said about the antipodes making flac sound as good as WAV (which was quite an endorsement given how adamant he's been about WAV being better). However, no idea if the flac files he heard on the antipodes server was compressed or uncompressed, so was wondering if you had compared both against WAV and come to same conclusion.

Alpinist, I really don't want to hear that, lol! I want to believe flac is as good so I can enjoy the ease of flac (metadata, accessibility of hires from hd tracks, etc). I really don't want to try and figure out the mechanics and hardware/software required to convert flac to WAV "on the fly." I am not a techie and relish simplicity :). Btw, nice speakers! :tup:
 
FWIW, I would be wary of on-the-fly conversion to any format. I'm not quite sure how it works but if uncompressing has an impact on the SQ, wouldn't converting? What I do with FLAC or ALAC files like the ones I buy online, is turn them into uncompressed FLAC or AIFF using dBPowerAmp or iTunes for instance. I'm sure you can program your computer to do batches of such conversion, so that it's no problem that your whole library is in compressed formats right now.

Uncompressed FLAC is no compromise on SQ, but compressed FLAC is. While Antipodes server are great indeed, I don't think other servers are different in that regard. I suspect Steve Nuggent was hearing uncompressed FLAC more or less for the first time -- it wasn't that common not so long ago. Compressed FLACs do sound less good, even on Antipodes server.
 
Jeffkad said:
Julot, yes, based on what Steve nugent said about the antipodes making flac sound as good as WAV (which was quite an endorsement given how adamant he's been about WAV being better). However, no idea if the flac files he heard on the antipodes server was compressed or uncompressed, so was wondering if you had compared both against WAV and come to same conclusion.

Alpinist, I really don't want to hear that, lol! I want to believe flac is as good so I can enjoy the ease of flac (metadata, accessibility of hires from hd tracks, etc). I really don't want to try and figure out the mechanics and hardware/software required to convert flac to WAV "on the fly." I am not a techie and relish simplicity :). Btw, nice speakers! :tup:
Click to expand...

Hi Jeff,

You have a terrific system, especially the speakers! The first 17 albums I purchased from HDTracks were compressed high res. FLAC files. They sound great and there's absolutely no need to convert them to uncompressed WAV files. However, since I've discovered uncompressed WAV files sound better through my system, the last 6 albums I've purchased have been uncompressed WAV files. All future purchases from HDTracks will be uncompressed WAV files. The WAV files work just great. They do take more memory and load slightly slower than compressed FLAC files through my Audirvana software but the album art comes right up on the screen once it loads. Consequently, I will not purchase any more compressed FLAC files.

Best,
Ken
 
Thanks for the info guys. Have a happy and healthy Thanksgiving (Julot, although you don't celebrate thanksgiving in Europe, feel free to have some turkey today to signify your solidarity with your american audiophile brothers :hey:)
 
Jeffkad said:
Thanks for the info guys. Have a happy and healthy Thanksgiving (Julot, although you don't celebrate thanksgiving in Europe, feel free to have some turkey today to signify your solidarity with your american audiophile brothers :hey:)
Click to expand...

Happy Thanksgiving, Jeff!

Ken
 
Alpinist said:
Hi Jeff,

You have a terrific system, especially the speakers! The first 17 albums I purchased from HDTracks were compressed high res. FLAC files. They sound great and there's absolutely no need to convert them to uncompressed WAV files. However, since I've discovered uncompressed WAV files sound better through my system, the last 6 albums I've purchased have been uncompressed WAV files. All future purchases from HDTracks will be uncompressed WAV files. The WAV files work just great. They do take more memory and load slightly slower than compressed FLAC files through my Audirvana software but the album art comes right up on the screen once it loads. Consequently, I will not purchase any more compressed FLAC files.

Best,
Ken
Click to expand...

When I purchase music from HDTracks I use DBpoweramp to uncompress them before copying to my dedicated music storage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top