WAV vs FLAC

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...

I don't know if it makes any difference to you or not, but when you buy WAV files from HDTracks, you are really buying FLAC files which are decoded in your computer to WAV by the JRiver (HDTracks) download manager. And as audioseduction noted, using memory playback can allow you to load FLAC files from your hard drive into memory playback as WAV.
 
I stumbled on this thread as I am normally on HeadFi or CA but boy am I glad I found this. I signed up just to comment that I also believe that playback in wav is superior to flac. I have made that comment on HeadFi and was almost buried for making the comment. It seems everyone there is convinced there can be no difference. In my own experience using a Windows 7 computer wav files clearly sound better to me. This is the first thread I've seen where others who feel the same can make such a comment without being called nuts. I convert my flac files to wav before playback and when have compared the wav to flac of the same file the wav is clearly better. Glad I found this forum.
 
Hi there (also from France),


I concur that WAV file sounds a tiny bit better than Flac or even Aiff. My 'drive' is a Linux based DiY PC with Daphile or VortexBox audio players (both being written around LMS & Squeezelite).
My DAC is the uber transparent dCS Vivaldi used on its USB input.

But I would like to comment that, much more important than the file format, is the storage drive and its power supply. I used SSD (much less 'noisy' than HDD) and a dedicated power supply [ 5 volts ] for the SSD. I even sometimes use a battery pack to power my SSD. These two tricks are much more efficient on SQ than file format or even memory playback (no difference with RAM playback on my system because of the SSD and its independant supply).

If your H/W configuration allows you to implement a SSD with its own power supply, I do encourage you to try and feedback to me if your findings are similar to mine ... Thanks guys.
 
Cellindo said:
Hi there (also from France),


I concur that WAV file sounds a tiny bit better than Flac or even Aiff. My 'drive' is a Linux based DiY PC with Daphile or VortexBox audio players (both being written around LMS & Squeezelite).
My DAC is the uber transparent dCS Vivaldi used on its USB input.

But I would like to comment that, much more important than the file format, is the storage drive and its power supply. I used SSD (much less 'noisy' than HDD) and a dedicated power supply [ 5 volts ] for the SSD. I even sometimes use a battery pack to power my SSD. These two tricks are much more efficient on SQ than file format or even memory playback (no difference with RAM playback on my system because of the SSD and its independant supply).

If your H/W configuration allows you to implement a SSD with its own power supply, I do encourage you to try and feedback to me if your findings are similar to mine ... Thanks guys.
Click to expand...

Bienvenue Cellindo,

It is also my experience that the difference between drives and their power supply are more important than file format differences (especially between WAV and AIFF for instance). Power supplies, including that of the router have a significant influence. Also, not all drives are created equal -- using my Antipodes server as a NAS for example gives better results than any other NAS I've tried, even SSD.
 
Cellindo said:
Hi there (also from France),


I concur that WAV file sounds a tiny bit better than Flac or even Aiff. My 'drive' is a Linux based DiY PC with Daphile or VortexBox audio players (both being written around LMS & Squeezelite).
My DAC is the uber transparent dCS Vivaldi used on its USB input.

But I would like to comment that, much more important than the file format, is the storage drive and its power supply. I used SSD (much less 'noisy' than HDD) and a dedicated power supply [ 5 volts ] for the SSD. I even sometimes use a battery pack to power my SSD. These two tricks are much more efficient on SQ than file format or even memory playback (no difference with RAM playback on my system because of the SSD and its independant supply).

If your H/W configuration allows you to implement a SSD with its own power supply, I do encourage you to try and feedback to me if your findings are similar to mine ... Thanks guys.
Click to expand...

I would like to point out that I play all my wav files from ramdisk which eliminates the noise created by hard drives. I also have an ssd but the ramdisk is superior since it loads everything sequentially. Ramdisk is also faster access than ssd. I can hear the difference. The ramdisk is not going through the sata bus. I load the files for my listening session using xrecode II. The entire process takes less than five minutes to select the flac files from hard disk and transpose them to wave loaded into the ramdisk for playback with HQPlayer, In this way all my Redbook files are automatically played back as DSD 256. Sounds amazing.
 
Chodi said:
I would like to point out that I play all my wav files from ramdisk which eliminates the noise created by hard drives. I also have an ssd but the ramdisk is superior since it loads everything sequentially. Ramdisk is also faster access than ssd. I can hear the difference. The ramdisk is not going through the sata bus. I load the files for my listening session using xrecode II. The entire process takes less than five minutes to select the flac files from hard disk and transpose them to wave loaded into the ramdisk for playback with HQPlayer, In this way all my Redbook files are automatically played back as DSD 256. Sounds amazing.
Click to expand...

Interesting information. Thanks. Never thought about it before. :)
 
Because I have been slowly switching over to computer audio versus CD player, I have researched and read countless articles by various recording and mastering engineers, articles from The Society of Audio Engineers, and findings from noted DAC manufacturers about the sound quality of the various computer formats and why they use and recommend certain ones. Along the way I also read many essays on 16/44.1 vs. 24/192 and if iTunes output of a ripped CD is the same quality as the various aftermarket software packages. I have my own personal 'take-aways' from these readings and experiences which may vary from that of others.

When it was all said and done there were some common threads: AIFF and WAV are the same, more recording engineers use AIFF, if the quality of the recording and mastering is the same 16/44.1 sounds the same as 24/192 (although 24/192 has more noise), ripping a CD into iTunes using the internal program gives a perfect copy of the master, output from iTunes is the same quality as the aftermarket programs, 'uncompressing' a compressed format creates potential jitter and timing issues, computer audio is 'truer' to the master than a CD transport because of all the extra mechanical steps and decoding that the transport has to perform, and downloaded hi-rez recordings may not in fact be honest 24/192 and the sound quality probably will not be as good if played from a SACD transport or from a computer ripped version.
 
Never compared FLAC to WAV, but clearly prefer the sound of AIFF over FLAC when feeding music both from my Mac and Bryston's BDP. source of files - mostly HDTracks.
 
Hiker said:
Because I have been slowly switching over to computer audio versus CD player, I have researched and read countless articles by various recording and mastering engineers, articles from The Society of Audio Engineers, and findings from noted DAC manufacturers about the sound quality of the various computer formats and why they use and recommend certain ones. Along the way I also read many essays on 16/44.1 vs. 24/192 and if iTunes output of a ripped CD is the same quality as the various aftermarket software packages. I have my own personal 'take-aways' from these readings and experiences which may vary from that of others.

When it was all said and done there were some common threads: AIFF and WAV are the same, more recording engineers use AIFF, if the quality of the recording and mastering is the same 16/44.1 sounds the same as 24/192 (although 24/192 has more noise), ripping a CD into iTunes using the internal program gives a perfect copy of the master, output from iTunes is the same quality as the aftermarket programs, 'uncompressing' a compressed format creates potential jitter and timing issues, computer audio is 'truer' to the master than a CD transport because of all the extra mechanical steps and decoding that the transport has to perform, and downloaded hi-rez recordings may not in fact be honest 24/192 and the sound quality probably will not be as good if played from a SACD transport or from a computer ripped version.
Click to expand...

True!
I also prefer WAV over FLAC now that I have concluded my tests. I find WAV to sound more DSD-ish, more relaxed, more open with increased ambient retrieval capabilities. :audiophile:
 
In my opinion, the question is not WAV vs. FLAC, it is uncompressed vs. compressed files. And based on my tests, all other things being equal, uncompressed sounds better than compressed. If you choose to use uncompressed in the WAV format, AIFF format or uncompressed FLAC format doesn't really matter. But all other things being equal, they will sound superior to compressed FLAC or ALAC. It's been my experience that a powerful computer can close the gap somewhat between uncompressed and compressed files.

Ken
 
Mike said:
Did anyone read the WAV vs FLAC study in the Dec TAS? Very interesting. Does this mean rip to WAV (and use up gigabytes like crazy) or return....GASP....to spinners?

Thoughts? What did you make of that article?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not sure about the scientific substance of the article, but based on subjective tests WAV sounds more natural. FLAC tends to produce a bit sharper highs (more hi-fi).

With the processing power of chips today it is most likely not an issue, but the DAC has to work less with an uncompressed file.

All my library is ripped to AIFF (for metatags).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Julot said:
Bienvenue Cellindo,

It is also my experience that the difference between drives and their power supply are more important than file format differences (especially between WAV and AIFF for instance). Power supplies, including that of the router have a significant influence. Also, not all drives are created equal -- using my Antipodes server as a NAS for example gives better results than any other NAS I've tried, even SSD.
Click to expand...

WAV and AIFF is the same audio format, latter just adding metatags.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Both WAV and AIFF can use metadata tags, the latter just has better support. FWIW, some listeners claim WAV sounds better than AIFF. Personally I think it's all a bit of hooey to make generalizations about this (so I will now make one :D ); I think everyone has to try various options for oneself, realizing that significant changes in your digital chain may change your earlier conclusions.

A couple of things to remember, though. I've mentioned it before but it obviously bears repeating: when you buy from HDTracks, Prostudiomasters, Highresaudio, QoBuz, etc, you are buying FLAC files in all cases, the download manager software just transcodes to whatever format you actually purchased. In many cases HDTracks etc. receive their files from the labels in FLAC. So if you think your hires PCM files aren't going through a compression/decompression process you are mistaken. Second, The Absolute Sound appears to be lost in the ether when it comes to computer/digital audio; it's hard even to begin to list the farcical misinformation they have put in print over the years.
 
If everything distributed from the labels is packaged as FLAC, then whatever HI-RES format comes next will be a reconstitution from an earlier FLAC archive as well.

Unless the Master Quality files types and definition of hi-res become de facto standard. Still the generation will probably come from FLAC. For MQ to work, files will need an encrypted checksum tag that can be decoded and verified by hardware. I'm not aware of any such system available today. And when it does come, your prior digital purchases will be classified as uncertified unless the download retailer chooses to honour a re-download of an updated file with a MQ checksum tag. I doubt that very much...

Rather, there will be another industry marketed regurgitation to sell the same music over again.


  • MQ-P: from a PCM master source 48kHz/20-bit or higher (typically 96/24 or 192/24 content).
  • MQ-A: from an analogue master source.
  • MQ-C: from a CD master source (44.1kHz/16-bit).
  • MQ-D: from a DSD/DSF master source (typically 2.8MHz or 5.6MHz content).
  • MQ-?: from an alien ultrasonic brane space.
 
That was a confusing post. First, MQA is a lossy compression as opposed to lossless FLAC. Second, FLAC provides an internal checksum, verified by software than hardware, it is true, but the idea of anything being dependent on computer "hardware" is counter-productive.
 
Drive space is no longer an issue, why convert to flac and just leave it as .wav or .aiff. I use Apple products, so .aiff is what I use...unless someone gives me a .wav file. I like .aiff because I am able to affix metadata. But both are raw.
 
Drive space is an issue for SSD's and RAMdisks, and for easy quick access to a large music collection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top