FLAC vs. WAV on BDP-1

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 6798 times.

Johnny2Bad

Re: FLAC vs. WAV on BDP-1
« Reply #20 on: 4 Sep 2016, 08:32 am »
nevermind.

Have I mentioned how much I hate the placement of the "quote" button in the Simple Machines Forum software this site runs?

CanadianMaestro

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 1796
  • Skepticism is the engine of progress
    • Hearing Everything That Nothing Can Measure
Re: FLAC vs. WAV on BDP-1
« Reply #21 on: 4 Sep 2016, 12:32 pm »

Systems where this is not audible are just not to the level of my system. 

Just for you.....

http://www.audionervosa.com/ :deadhorse:

zoom25

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 897
Re: FLAC vs. WAV on BDP-1
« Reply #22 on: 17 Jun 2017, 09:00 am »
A year and a half later. Finally got around to adding FLAC uncompressed. Not compression level 0, which is still compressed. No compression here and it's the same size as WAV and AIFF. I put it against WAV, AIFF, and compressed FLAC. Everything done via XLD and it's running on its most up to date version as of the date of this posting, just for reference.

I still feel the same way about compressed vs. uncompressed lossless. Uncompressed wins, but FLAC over ALAC.

What's new? I prefer uncompressed FLAC over compressed FLAC. Finally, I have a third uncompressed format to better get a reference of what WAV and AIFF sound like.

Everything on a flash drive with a Jitterbug attached to it and directly connecting that to BDP-1's USB input. Nothing else running on other USB ports or in Manic Moose besides MPD + USB mount. Database is disabled.

Testing was done in both long sessions (switching after one or multiple song) as well as rapid (10-30 second switching).

4 Listening environments: Headphones (HD 800 - least useful), Nearfields (Amphion) in equilateral triangle, nearfields but with me sitting slightly far but still in middle (isosceles) and at times to the side (to get a different perspective, equally useful and interesting), and finally on midfields at 10 feet apart.

I'll post my results and sonic impressions more in depth soon. Still haven't decided how I feel about uncompressed FLAC either from a preferential standpoint or how I think it's rendering. HOWEVER, despite me not having a final conclusion on how uncompressed FLAC is differing from the other two, it still provides solid help in nailing down what I've often felt and heard when I've done AIFF vs. WAV comparison.
« Last Edit: 17 Jun 2017, 08:49 pm by zoom25 »

zoom25

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 897
Re: FLAC vs. WAV on BDP-1
« Reply #23 on: 17 Jun 2017, 09:05 pm »
The jury's still out on uncompressed FLAC. However, I finally can describe an analogy to lots of members here how I hear AIFF vs. WAV.

Lots of us here have done comparisons of playing the same file via Roon and via MPD. IMO, WAV sounds like MPD, and AIFF sounds like Roon. I think FLAC uncompressed is more closer to WAV than AIFF.

On midfields in a 20x60 room, there's enough space to hear that WAV has more depth. AIFF comes off as flatter. WAV is more liquid like as well.

The release in transients in WAV sounds more satisfying. AIFF on the other hand seems to be loading up on the attack. I'd recommend playing a few tracks with just vocals and a solo instrument or drums. This can make AIFF sound tighter and upbeat, however, this may not be natural. In long term sessions, I find WAV always wins.

I also find WAV to go deeper in bass, with AIFF having more midbass presence. This could be due to loading up on the attack. The difference in how vocals are rendered tonally and in the soundstage is also apparent. AIFF makes it seem like it's more detailed and how you can visualize it better in direct fast switching comparison. I'd say it sounds more raw, but potentially processed. WAV on the other hand sounds more relaxed and timed correctly. The sound originates from a deeper point.

So depending on how somebody's system sounds, they might very well prefer WAV or AIFF, just like some prefer MPD or Roon (sonically). I think those with a sloppy system might like AIFF as it makes it tighter and more detailed (like turning up sharpness on TV or DSLR, even if something isn't there). If you already have a top front chain and TOTL tight speakers, you'll enjoy WAV. It's the long listening session KING.

If I had to bet and invite an artist and playback both WAV and AIFF and ask them without telling which one sounds more like themselves, my bet would be WAV.

Next up, nailing down FLAC uncompressed.

CanadianMaestro

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 1796
  • Skepticism is the engine of progress
    • Hearing Everything That Nothing Can Measure
Re: FLAC vs. WAV on BDP-1
« Reply #24 on: 18 Jun 2017, 12:06 am »
 :scratch:

testsound

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 29
Re: FLAC vs. WAV on BDP-1
« Reply #25 on: 1 Jul 2020, 07:03 pm »
I came to the same conclusion using my Salk Stream Player.  WAV sounds best and to rip CDs I use XLD .  I avoid using iTunes at all costs.

When ripping to WAV on XLD, does it automatically find album cover etc? I heard FLAC grabs the metadata while WAV doesn't, so it worries me.

testsound

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 29
Re: FLAC vs. WAV on BDP-1
« Reply #26 on: 1 Jul 2020, 07:06 pm »

Next up, nailing down FLAC uncompressed.

Did you ever figure out how FLAC uncompressed compares to WAV?

NorthMac

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 45
Re: FLAC vs. WAV on BDP-1
« Reply #27 on: 2 Jul 2020, 03:15 pm »
When ripping to WAV on XLD, does it automatically find album cover etc? I heard FLAC grabs the metadata while WAV doesn't, so it worries me.

WAV has never well supported metadata, or art, it was not part of the file spec.  Its metadata is partly related to the software used to work with WAV files ie. can be done but more work required.  FLAC has internal metadata that XLD will populate, and you can edit it yourself if its is wrong, which happens, and any software will see the metadata with no issues. I think many people use a separate album art image, inside your music folder for each album, labelled Folder.jpg or something consistent.  Virtually all player control apps will correctly read this and integrate into your player.  So to some extent, having FLAC with its internal metadata, and an external art image in the folder, means your music is not locked to any system of playing or viewing, you should be able to use almost anybody's system and it will work.

gbaby

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 547
Re: FLAC vs. WAV on BDP-1
« Reply #28 on: 2 Jul 2020, 09:29 pm »
WAV has never well supported metadata, or art, it was not part of the file spec.  Its metadata is partly related to the software used to work with WAV files ie. can be done but more work required.  FLAC has internal metadata that XLD will populate, and you can edit it yourself if its is wrong, which happens, and any software will see the metadata with no issues. I think many people use a separate album art image, inside your music folder for each album, labelled Folder.jpg or something consistent.  Virtually all player control apps will correctly read this and integrate into your player.  So to some extent, having FLAC with its internal metadata, and an external art image in the folder, means your music is not locked to any system of playing or viewing, you should be able to use almost anybody's system and it will work.

I don't think this it true. I rip my CDs to wav using dbpoweramp and I get all cover art.