[trackball02]

I'm a newbie to music servers and am starting to rip all of my CDs to my HTPC running JRiver Media Center version 17, WASAPI event style, output 192khz, playing files from memory, via USB to Eastern Electric DAC Plus.

So far I've ripped about 2 dozen CDs via FLAC level 5. There seems to be a perception that Uncompressed Wave gives a superior sound. I've tried ripping a few songs using both techniques, and not sure if I could convince myself if Wave is better. Sould I delete all of my FLAC files, and start over?  I would love to get any opinions on how others have approached this situation.

[mhconley]

Both are the same - FLAC is simply a losslessly compressed WAV file.  FLAC files can be expanded to WAV files and WAV files can be compressed to FLAC.  The only benefit to having WAV files is to rid the music player of the task of converting on the fly.  Rip to FLAC to save space.  If you are really picky you can use mgalusha's neat FLAC -> WAV loader tool several threads below this one to expand before you play.

Martin

[WGH]

... use mgalusha's neat FLAC -> WAV loader tool several threads below this one to expand before you play.

An excellent solution if running Windows, that is what I use. 
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=100921.0

Wayne

[Netdewt]

Another benefit of FLAC/ALAC is that they can contain song info within the file, where WAV has to have a sidecar file, which can be cumbersome when you have to shuffle things around. IIRC.

[Vincent Kars]

There seems to be a perception that Uncompressed Wave gives a superior sound

You phrased it very aptly, a perception, not to be mistaken for hard facts.
Some links:
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=101899
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=92780&hl=

If you don’t hear any difference, stick to FLAC.
It is lossless and has excellent tagging support.

If you do hear a difference between FLAC and WAV, check your system.
If the slight overhead of decompressing FLAC affects sound quality, your system is very sensitive to jitter.

[Pez]

Agreed with the sentiments here. I have FLAC, ALAC, and WAV. The only time there's a difference is with ALAC on hi Rez stuff. Don't know if I'm doing something wrong or what, but any time I change a 24/96 file to ALAC it converts it to 16/96. So I quit using it all together for anything more than 16/44.1.

[Delta Wave]

But you can't surf on a FLAC dude. 

[audioseduction]

Guys, just use dBpoweramp's FLAC Lossless Uncompressed and be done with it. No sense banging your head againts the floor just sit back and enjoy the music. That's what I do. 

[saisunil]

TAS is doing whole series of articles on computer audio

In Feb 2011 issues TAS said " ... In preliminary tests, we have also found that FLAC files sound worse than their parent WAV files. Even when WAV is converted to FLAC and then back again to WAV, we have found the resulting secondary WAV files do no sound as good as the original."

For reference quality - I'd say WAV is the way to go - otherwise FLAC is quite good for music enjoyment ...

Cheers 

[Crimson]

WAV's tagging isn't portable. A major drawback. For lossless uncompressed, I use AIFF.

PS: I find TAS's articles on computer audio quite amateurish and extremely subjective. JMHO.

[konut]

FWIW, TAS printed it after Stereophile declined to.

[Netdewt]

TAS is doing whole series of articles on computer audio

In Feb 2011 issues TAS said " ... In preliminary tests, we have also found that FLAC files sound worse than their parent WAV files. Even when WAV is converted to FLAC and then back again to WAV, we have found the resulting secondary WAV files do no sound as good as the original."

For reference quality - I'd say WAV is the way to go - otherwise FLAC is quite good for music enjoyment ...

Cheers

This makes zero sense. I don't know how to compare files bit for bit. If I did I would. Lossless means LOSSLESS. It is LOSSLESS-ly compressed and uncompressed while playing. The only possible drawback could be if the software is not uncompressing FLAC properly.

I'm using ALAC because I use iTunes with an Airport Express, and I don't have any music that's higher than 16/44. Otherwise I'd probably use FLAC. You can convert between them easily, anyways, because they are all LOSSLESS files. Do I need to type that word again?

[Pez]

To play devils advocate on both sides,  first there is a way to analyze waveform and discern whether or not bit perfection is achieved after decoding. I saw a very smart analysis that showed the original WAV converted to FLAC, then both the original and FLAC files were decoded with one being 180 degrees out of phase from the other.  The result, flat line which means that both conversions were 100% copies of each other. Other formats like AAC 256 or lower were compared to the original wav file and there ws a ton of noise, which translates into actual real world degradation of the copy compared to the original.  That in a nut shell should convince anyone that the actual files are identical. Now whether the actual decoding process is done right... Who knows there!

Now onto this idea that lossless means no loss at all. WRONG!!!!! Ever buy a stainless steel knife? StainLESS as in not as much? Ya I've taken stainLESS knives in the ocean and they were covered in rust as a result. Less does not mean 'proof' as in stainproof or lossproof there is ALWAYS the potential for loss. It is highly improbable that any transfer is 100% perfect, but most likely close enough.

LossLESS as in to a lesser degree than the alternative aka mp3, AAC, or other lossy processes. 

[ratso]

when i first started all this computer audio stuff, i went through the same thing. and the guy that said just use dbpoweramp to encode everything into lossless flac is what i would do.


EXCEPT:

if i could do the whole thing over and start from scratch, i would without a doubt convert all my cd (wav) files into apple lossless. if you will EVER at any time use itunes or any program that works with it like pure music, it definitely makes your life easier. 

[Netdewt]

To play devils advocate on both sides,  first there is a way to analyze waveform and discern whether or not bit perfection is achieved after decoding. I saw a very smart analysis that showed the original WAV converted to FLAC, then both the original and FLAC files were decoded with one being 180 degrees out of phase from the other.  The result, flat line which means that both conversions were 100% copies of each other. Other formats like AAC 256 or lower were compared to the original wav file and there ws a ton of noise, which translates into actual real world degradation of the copy compared to the original.  That in a nut shell should convince anyone that the actual files are identical. Now whether the actual decoding process is done right... Who knows there!

Now onto this idea that lossless means no loss at all. WRONG!!!!! Ever buy a stainless steel knife? StainLESS as in not as much? Ya I've taken stainLESS knives in the ocean and they were covered in rust as a result. Less does not mean 'proof' as in stainproof or lossproof there is ALWAYS the potential for loss. It is highly improbable that any transfer is 100% perfect, but most likely close enough.

LossLESS as in to a lesser degree than the alternative aka mp3, AAC, or other lossy processes. 

Not the same. It's a lossless file. It's like zipping the WAV file. You get the same thing out that you put in.

[Pez]

Not the same. It's a lossless file. It's like zipping the WAV file. You get the same thing out that you put in.

It IS the same! Though for different reasons. A stainless knife means less likely to stain. Similarly lossless means less likely to abberate data, though there are quite literally no gaurantees that said goal will be accomplished.

Take a wav file and convert it to flac, then back to WAV then flac several thousand times then compare the final copy to the original file. Are you telling me they would still be identical?

[mhconley]

TAS' statement is BS pure and simple...

From Wiktionary:
Adjective
 
lossless (comparative more lossless, superlative most lossless)
 1.free from loss, especially not losing electrical energy or force
 2.(Information theory) Not losing information.

I don't know how to compare files bit for bit.

It's called a checksum.  The checksums of an original WAV file and a second WAV file expanded from a FLAC compression of the original WAV file are identical.  The resultant WAV->FLAC->WAV copy is bit perfect copy of the original WAV file.  Try it yourself... Microsoft File Checksum Integrity Verifier

Are you telling me they would still be identical?

YES!

Checksums are used extensively in software development to ensure files are bit perfect identical.

Martin

[Pez]

Saying yes is easy, proving is much more difficult. Not saying I want you to prove it, that would be an exercise in insanity! I think the process is good enough to produce bit perfect transfers MOST (as in 99.999%) of the time. I know what a checksum is, but I am steadfast in my belief that nothing is perfect and there would likely be degradation at some point inspite checksum verification.

[Netdewt]

It IS the same! Though for different reasons. A stainless knife means less likely to stain. Similarly lossless means less likely to abberate data, though there are quite literally no gaurantees that said goal will be accomplished.

Take a wav file and convert it to flac, then back to WAV then flac several thousand times then compare the final copy to the original file. Are you telling me they would still be identical?

Yes. This argument is stupid. It is a computer copying a file into a different container. The chances of ONE BIT getting changed in 1000 copies should be very low. Very, very low. There is no way that anyone would ever be able to hear the difference. Anyone who says they can is without question hearing things.

LOSSLESS IS LOSSLESS. You are confusing lossless compression with the idea of bit-perfect copies. Look it up. Lossless compression literally means there is NO DATA LOSS. NO. DATA. LOSS. 

I do not have a PC, but apparently the program foobar2000 has a function called "bit compare". You should be able to convert a WAV to FLAC and back to WAV and compare them. If the result comes back that there are all kinds of differences, I'm going to give up completely on computers and go be a farmer.

[wushuliu]

I'm a newbie to music servers and am starting to rip all of my CDs to my HTPC running JRiver Media Center version 17, WASAPI event style, output 192khz, playing files from memory, via USB to Eastern Electric DAC Plus.

So far I've ripped about 2 dozen CDs via FLAC level 5. There seems to be a perception that Uncompressed Wave gives a superior sound. I've tried ripping a few songs using both techniques, and not sure if I could convince myself if Wave is better. Sould I delete all of my FLAC files, and start over?  I would love to get any opinions on how others have approached this situation.

What you hear is the only thing that really matters. If the flacs sound the same, enjoy them.