[Freo-1]

  Yes Martin. Ripped same CD to FLAC and WAV. I'll be darned to my ears WAV took the cake.


charles

Do an internet search on the subject.  From strictly a sound quality metric, the .wav files do sound better than .flac.   


Agree with your assessment.

[zoom25]

If you rip to ALAC and then later convert it to WAV, is there any loss in quality compared to if you ripped it in WAV in the first place?
I read somewhere that ALAC ripped through iTunes doesn't sound good as FLAC.

No, you can go back and forth between lossless formats infinite times and they'll carry the same data. It's entirely in the digital domain and can be verified. If data started changing, we'd have to worry about far bigger problems. There is no room or need for subjective interpretation or validation.

Any differences in SQ between lossless formats has nothing to do with the data itself. PCM streams are identical. SQ differences can only arise due to the byproducts of the processing of these files that somehow make their way across the circuits and impact audio circuitry.

The data is identical. The only thing I've heard in the data realm being different was something to do with how the padding can vary between different ripping softwares. I can't recall any further information or conclusion about that discussion.

[mhconley]

Do an internet search on the subject.  From strictly a sound quality metric, the .wav files do sound better than .flac.   

Agree with your assessment.

My internet search on the subject turns up the exact opposite results. There is no difference in sound between .wav files and .flac.

As with politics it all depends upon whom you choose to believe.

I believe ABX testing on my own system with my own ears. I hear no difference. And before you say my hearing is not good enough or my system is not resolving enough I suggest you to try true ABX testing yourself. You may be surprised...

Martin

[Freo-1]

My internet search on the subject turns up the exact opposite results. There is no difference in sound between .wav files and .flac.

As with politics it all depends upon whom you choose to believe.

I believe ABX testing on my own system with my own ears. I hear no difference. And before you say my hearing is not good enough or my system is not resolving enough I suggest you to try true ABX testing yourself. You may be surprised...

Martin

We shall agree to disagree then.  I'll post links that support deltas between the two.  There is a delta with the processing,  which means there should indeed be some difference.  Many of the modern DACs have different filtering options, which DOES change the sound. 




I wish there wasn't a delta, as now I have to redo a fair amount of my stored recordings.   The differences are heard with both tube an SS, speakers and headphones. If you don't hear it, fine.  I do, and it's real, not imagined. 


Here's an argument regarding ABX testing


https://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-news/why-double-blind-testing-cant-work-for-audio.html

[AKLegal]

We shall agree to disagree then.  I'll post links that support deltas between the two.  There is a delta with the processing,  which means there should indeed be some difference.  Many of the modern DACs have different filtering options, which DOES change the sound. 

I have never heard of a dac that decodes flac and wav.  That sounds like a digital transport.  Filtering options for wav and flac files?  Never heard of that either.  Filtering for PCM?  Yep, I have heard of that and those definately change the sound for PCM streams.  They have nothing to do with flac, wav alac or anything else.
I dont think that anyone ever argued that there wasnt a processing delta either.  Flac is compressed and has to be decompressed before playback.  How large is the delta though? 

A person would have to have a really old computer with terrible software or some old obsolete "audiophile" digital transport with poor implementation if it cant handle flac without a performance hit that affects sound quality.  Lack of performance on that scale would likely result in playback dropouts not the usual comparison speak like "I thought the treble was less extended". 

What you are really arguing is that there is some flac "artifact" left over in the pcm stream after it is decompressed or that flac is actually a lossy format. This is false and was covered in previous posts.

[mhconley]

Here's an argument regarding ABX testing

https://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-news/why-double-blind-testing-cant-work-for-audio.html

I love it. Toss out a bunch of questions about variables that have zero bearing on the actual ABX test, what is being tested, and the validity of the results, and claim they throw the entire process into question. That's how audiophilia works - obfuscation and slight of hand. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Pop in a CD you know very well and rip a track to FLAC and WAV on your system. Use foobar2000's ABX comparator on the tracks and report how you did. Ripping software, cables, headphones or speakers, DAC, amplifier, ad infinitum - the playback chain does not matter one iota in this test. Have fun!

Martin

[Freo-1]

I have compared .flac and .wav of many  recordings.  With some, the deltas are not noticeable.  However,  with others, there indeed is a noticeable delta,  and it's always in favor of .wav.  The deltas can be best described as a more open and transparent playback in the presence region.




I'm also quite familiar with processing chain.  Of course the DAC filters the incoming bitstream after the codec does it's thing.  BTW, my Sony can perform additional processing prior to the DAC, which is DSEE-HX.  That can also impact the sound.


The issue regarding sound quality deltas is likely hardware processing related.  The hardware can be working as designed (not broken), and still, there can be a noticeable difference in sound in some recordings.


This link provides some additional insight:


https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/WAV-FLAC.htm

[Rusty Jefferson]

I think we're at the point. Also, some seemed to have missed the OP was curious about ripped .WAV files compared to files ripped (presumably) with dbPoweramp in Uncompressed FLAC.

I think most will agree that a good system will expose the differences between .WAV and Compressed FLAC presumably because of the unfolding of the compressed file on the fly. If however, you can easily discern the differences between Uncompressed FLAC and  .WAV you are a golden ear to be sure or have a simply amazing system.  Either way, I continue to stand by my original comment that EVERYTHING else in the digital chain will have far greater impact on the sound quality than this. 

[Freo-1]

I think we're at the point. Also, some seemed to have missed the OP was curious about ripped .WAV files compared to files ripped (presumably) with dbPoweramp in Uncompressed FLAC.

I think most will agree that a good system will expose the differences between .WAV and Compressed FLAC presumably because of the unfolding of the compressed file on the fly. If however, you can easily discern the differences between Uncompressed FLAC and  .WAV you are a golden ear to be sure or have a simply amazing system.  Either way, I continue to stand by my original comment that EVERYTHING else in the digital chain will have far greater impact on the sound quality than this. 

Sounds good to me.