[Russtafarian]

Not trying to stir the pot, but… anyone else hear a distinct difference between WAV files and FLAC files encoded from the WAV files?

I tend to be a “bits is bits” guy and have dismissed this topic in the past.  I have terabytes of  FLAC albums and I convert any WAV rips or downloads to tagged FLAC files as a matter of routine.  But two recent albums I bought and downloaded have me wondering about this.

Last month I bought and downloaded Sam Phillips’ new record from her website.  One of the download options is 24/96 “source files” in the WAV format.  Cool!  That’s $10 well spent for one of my favorite artists.  I loaded the WAV files for a first listen and really liked what I heard.  Yes, the mixes were a little more compressed than I would prefer but the music still had a nice sense of space, air and contrast. 

Later, after I had FLAC converted/tagged the files and added them to my server, I went back for a second listen.   Wha… what happened?  Some of what I heard earlier had dried up.  The mixes sounded a bit more closed in and lacked some of the ease and liquidity that I had heard from the WAV files.  The mental arguments started (“I’ve always been mad, I know I’ve been mad like most of us are…"): bits is bits, I’m not hearing a difference, what else could be causing this? etc…

I set up Foobar’s ABX comparator to listen to both WAV and FLAC files on headphones.  The WAV files consistently delivered more music than the FLAC files.  What do I do with that?  Just when I thought I had this figured out…

Round 2: earlier this week I bought the just released vinyl reissue of Daniel Lanois’ album “For the Beauty of Wynona”, and downloaded 16/44 WAV files as part of the deal.  I know this record inside and out.  Lanois is a master craftsman when it comes to creating multi-dimensional sonic landscapes out of acoustic instruments and analog technology.  Once again, WAV consistently delivered more music than FLAC.  The differences are not huge, but they are significant.  The brain doesn’t seem to have to work as hard to decipher the sonic swirl.  As a result, rhythmic and spatial congruencies are revealed on the WAV files that seem to get buried or blurred on the FLAC files.

As a sanity check I compared different levels of FLAC compression.  I converted files at 0 (least compression), 5 (default), and 8 (most compression).  I could not reliably tell a difference between any of these levels, but could still hear a difference between the WAV file and any of the FLAC conversion levels.

So now I’m stuck with a “first world” problem (boo hoo for me).  I’ve invested a lot of time dumping music into FLAC for server playback only to find out I’ve been robbing myself of significant musical playback quality.  I don’t want WAV files. They're space hogs and a pain in the a$$ to manage on a music server because they have no capacity for metadata.  Jriver will tag WAV files, but as an extension that’s linked to the program, not the file.  I guess it’s better than nothing.

Am I going to go back and re-rip or convert all my FLAC files to WAV? Probably not.  But it has me thinking I may do this for some of my favorite music. 

Any thoughts or experiences with this?

Russ

[WC]

What Player are you using?

[ted_b]

My most favorite go-to albums (maybe 5% of my PCM library) are also in a separate master folder called WAV, with a separate custom view in JRIver and Jremote (wav) so finding them is simple.  To me there has always been a fairly easily discernible sonic difference.  DBpoweramp makes creating this folder simple and available in batch (i.e convert and copy/transfer 100's of albums overnight).


             




I know this subject is sooooo overly debated that I was close to locking this thread and saying to heck with it, but Russ, you have my respect and deserve feedback.  However, if this thread even strays into rudeness from either side of the coin, then I will.

P.S.  Have you tried uncompressed FLAC to see if the decompression is somewhere at fault?

[Russtafarian]

What Player are you using?

Current Jriver for PC.

I know this subject is sooooo overly debated that I was close to locking this thread

I didn't know that, but probably should have guessed...

Have you tried uncompressed FLAC to see if the decompression is somewhere at fault?

I did because that was something "objective" I could hang my hat on to explain what I was hearing.  But I couldn't reliably hear differences in FLAC compression levels.

Ted, I like your approach to setting up a master WAV folder.  I'll give that a try.  Thanks.

Russ

[Don_S]

I have other questions and reservations.  I do not accept on blind faith that conversions from one format to another are faultless.  In other words I wonder if something downloaded in uncompressed FLAC will sound different from something downloaded as a WAV file and then converted.

[JRace]

Am I going to go back and re-rip or convert all my FLAC files to WAV? Probably not.  But it has me thinking I may do this for some of my favorite music. 

Any thoughts or experiences with this?

Russ

You can convert FLAC to WAV without loss.
FLAC is lossless.
If you do want your music in WAV no need to re-rip.

[JRace]

I have other questions and reservations.  I do not accept on blind faith that conversions from one format to another are faultless.  In other words I wonder if something downloaded in uncompressed FLAC will sound different from something downloaded as a WAV file and then converted.

take a well recorded CD that you enjoy.
Rip it to WAV.
Then make a copy, then convert that copy to FLAC.
If you hear a difference, convert that FLAC file back to WAV.
Now compare the origanl WAV to the new WAV.

No blind faith needed! - Other than the faith that your brain is not playing tricks on you. (which it can and does!)

[ted_b]

I did because that was something "objective" I could hang my hat on to explain what I was hearing.  But I couldn't reliably hear differences in FLAC compression levels.

Ted, I like your approach to setting up a master WAV folder.  I'll give that a try.  Thanks.

Russ

Russ, "0" level compression is not "no compression".  Zero is just the lowest level of compression.  FLAC also has (with newer FLAC decoders) a "no compression" option which some say delivers wav quality with the benefit of universal metadaa support, etc..

JRace, no offense but yes we are aware that FLAC is "lossless".  Hence this ad nauseum debate.  If FLAC were a lossy codec then there would be no debate.  And this debate extends to every audio forum ever invented.  And in 99% of the cases the thread gets ugly and starts to issue comments about each other's mother...etc. 

[Russtafarian]

Russ, "0" level compression is not "no compression".

I did not know that.  I've only used FLAC Frontend, EAC or Jriver for FLAC conversion and have not seen a no compression option in these tools. 

Any recommendations on a FLAC encoder that will do no compression?  Thanks.

Russ

[golfugh]

DBPoweramp

As a point of reference I've gone from "0" compression to No compression and now WAV.  Biggest change IMO was from FLAC to WAV; this is with both RB and Hi-res...smoother, more detail yet easier to listen to poor recordings.

Mark

[asliarun]

Apologies in advance for getting pedantic. A WAV file is just a container format. We normally use it to store uncompressed PCM audio data, but it can very well hold any other format, including mp3.

To JRace's point, it would be worthwhile converting the FLAC back into a WAV and then doing an A/B comparison with the original WAV file. If there is a difference, then somehow something is getting lost. If there is no difference (but still a difference between the original WAC and the FLAC version of *that* original WAV), then the player is doing something different (and something inferior) when it is playing back the FLAC. Then it is the problem of the player and not the file.

[mr_bill]

I'd love to hear the results
Original rip to FLAC converted to WAV
compared to
Original rip to WAV

[skunark]

FLAC supports replaygain and volume normalization where WAV doesn't so make sure you have that disabled when comparing.      FLAC also has features like checksums and accuraterip support (audiotools trackverify command) so you can always be sure you have the correct data, a rare and much needed feature with very large libraries.     In the end they all get converted to PCM, and both all lossless, so if there is a difference it doesn't necessary mean the FLAC is the culprit.

Jim

[WGH]

Am I going to go back and re-rip or convert all my FLAC files to WAV? Probably not.  But it has me thinking I may do this for some of my favorite music. 

Any thoughts or experiences with this?

I like simple solutions to complex problems. My music server is a low powered fanless, solid state computer running Win7 loosely based on the Computer Audiophile C.A.P.S. FLAC files are stored on the main computer in another room. Files are moved over ethernet.

The music server runs Mike Galusha's Flac Wav Loader http://www.mikegalusha.com/ which expands FLAC files into WAV and loads them into memory. No more noisy spinning hard drives, no more decoding on the fly, once the WAV files are loaded into memory FWL starts your favorite music player automatically.

I still haven't found an elegant album system, I usually go by memory - the same way I learned to find that one song in a thousand vinyl albums.

Windows Explorer is a crude tool for browsing albums:


Does anyone use a more elegant viewer? I would like to click to open the album, choose the songs and drag them into FWL.

Wayne

[rbbert]

What WGH said.  I think JPlay and JRiver can also do this.

[JRace]

JRace, no offense but yes we are aware that FLAC is "lossless".  Hence this ad nauseum debate.  If FLAC were a lossy codec then there would be no debate.  And this debate extends to every audio forum ever invented.  And in 99% of the cases the thread gets ugly and starts to issue comments about each other's mother...etc. 

No offense take!
I did assume that you knew Ted! I wanted to save the OP the un-needed hassle of re ripping his collection.

Nice to know about the FLAC no comp option.

That FLAC WAV loader looks slick...if i can find a decent gui!

[sts9fan]

Just because OTHER people have talked about is no reason to lock a thread!
Anyway, I would be interested in wether it is reversible. Not that I am going to decompress all my FLaC but it would be interesting.

[ted_b]

Just because OTHER people have talked about is no reason to lock a thread!

No, it's not...and I haven't (not sure your point, really).  What I clearly implied was that if THIS religious debate becomes unruly or disrespectful (as so many other WAV vs FLAC debates have become, on seemingly friendly forums) then I will.  But again...I haven't. 

FLAC can be converted to no compression, or converted back.  The biggest issue, aside from any sonics, is overall storage requirements.  But one thing to try is to make a small demo folder of faves..and convert them to uncompressed...then have someone pick them for you somewhat blindly. 

BTW, I am also convinced that some folks hear decompression byproducts easier than others...and that's not a better or worse thing.  Just like in eyesight, there are varying degrees of color blindness (which is a somewhat poor analogy since I would think no degree of colorblindness can be deemed a good thing). 

[*Scotty*]

Apparently XRECODE, see link   http://xrecode.com/  can convert almost any file format to any other format and back again.
There is also a converter available from CNET see link http://download.cnet.com/FLAC-WAV-Converter/3000-2140_4-75893420.html
I haven't tried either one.
Scotty

[DTB300]

DBPoweramp

As a point of reference I've gone from "0" compression to No compression and now WAV.  Biggest change IMO was from FLAC to WAV; this is with both RB and Hi-res...smoother, more detail yet easier to listen to poor recordings.

+1 on both for me.   Started FLAC, then No Comp FLAC, then WAV...staying with WAV

Batch conversion with DBPowerAmp is superb.