[Double Ugly]

Also, can anybody else concur with acd483's opinion on WAV being superior sounding to FLAC? 

No, but I can offer a dissenting voice.  I've also compared WAV and FLAC files, and heard no difference whatsoever. 

FWIW, I comparisons were performed with having the FLAC files uncompressed at the PC prior to transfer to the SB.  I don't know what (if any) difference that made, but it might be relevant to some.

Of note is that I've moved to an OSX platform since making the aforementioned comparisons, and oddly enough, I *can* hear a difference between files ripped to Apple Lossless and files ripped to FLAC.  For whatever reason, the FLAC files sound better.   

-Jim

[60srok]

Another dissenting vote,

There is no difference in sound quality, the flac file in uncompressed when read for playback = original quality playback = best of both worlds..quality and size.

Steve

[60srok]

Here is a link to more information:
http://flac.sourceforge.net/faq.html

Steve

[Scott F.]

I'm another in DU's camp. I've played FLAC and WAV files side by side and I here no difference. The thing is, if you are using a Squeezebox, it automatically decodes the FLAC file and plays it in its native WAV format so there shouldn't be a difference in sound.

I'm not sure if you plan on using Foobar to a USB DAC but I think it decodes FLAC into WAV and sends it to the DAC just like the SB does.

The obvious advantage of the FLAC format is space savings. Though some claim 50%, I've only gotten about 40% over about 600 CDs.

[zybar]

BTW,

I have done a head to head on formats. It is very easy to tell the difference between uncompressed and compressed, regardless of bit rate.

If you're spending money on any aspect of your system, for God's sake, spend a couple hundred bucks on a big, external hard drive!

How did you do the comparison?  What exactly were the formats?

On my pretty revealing system I can' tell any difference between wav and flac files.

On the other hand, I can hear the difference in connectors, power cords, ic's, cables, tubes, etc...



George

[lcrim]

acd483:
The issue of whether wav or flac sounds better is a debate that is moot.  You have offered an opinion as fact that has no physical basis to bring clarity to an already clarified situation.
Tagging, which is not possible w/ wav's allows you to convert from one lossless format to another and keep track of thousands of tracks in a convenient manner.
Lossless  = Lossless  There could be no reliable data communications if bits are somehow changed as you suggest.

[boead]

ALL the lossless algorithms are capable of reducing file size without any loss in data. The same technique is used for archiving images as well as data. Its drawback are that it requires processing power to ‘decode’ back to its original format state. In the past, computers were simply not fast enough to decode an audio file in real time; a lossless file would have to have been decoded prior to being played. Thank goodness computers are fast enough now.

WAV and AIFF are both entirely uncompressed. A 16/44 audio sample uses a 1400kbps format stream. WAV was embraced by Microsoft Windows while AIFF was developed by Apple. I believe it required QuickTime to be played on a Windows PC in the past.

Regardless, there is absolutely no loss in data or sound quality by using lossless algorithms. Apple Lossless is approximately 1000kbps in its lossless state which is about 40% savings.

I choose WAV not because of quality concerns but because of capability. The FLAC wrapper is widely used and popular but it’s not guaranteed to be supported in the future. WAV certainly is and if you are on an Apple platform and plan on keeping it that way, then you can certainly have the same reinsurance with AIFF or Apple Lossless for that matter although WAV will be universal indefinitely.


True, WAV or AIFF can’t be tagged with additional text data but if you archive your WAV’s with an application like iTunes, Windows Media Center, MusicMatch and others you can tag with the associated library and this information can be transposed over to another file format that supports tagging. For example, if you associate information (tags) with WAV’s in iTunes, you can freely convert these files into MP3, AAC or Apple Lossless without loosing any of the text information (title, author, date, composer, genre, etc.).

[Jon L]

I choose WAV not because of quality concerns but because of capability. The FLAC wrapper is widely used and popular but it’s not guaranteed to be supported in the future. WAV certainly is and if you are on an Apple platform and plan on keeping it that way, then you can certainly have the same reinsurance with AIFF or Apple Lossless for that matter although WAV will be universal indefinitely.

I think of it this way.  Sure, Flac may not be supported 30 years from now (I doubt it won't be), but if that happens, all one has to do is select the hard drive with your Flac files and use something like dBpoweramp (or any conversion software) to convert EVERY file to the format that IS supported, even Wav. 

In doing this, you don't lose a single bit of data comparedd to Wav, and much more importantly, all your tags are preserved. 

If you had everything in Wav, when you convert them to some other format later, you will suddenly sweat bullets as you realize none of your songs are tagged... Trust me when I say typing in all your tags manually for a couple hundred thousand tracks will ruin your day (or month, year).

[WGH]

I am glad hard drive space is cheap these days, I am one of the unfortunate few that can hear the difference between flac and wav. Is it a big difference? No, but once you know it is there flac is a non-starter.

Now it could just be the player that is making the difference. The Squeezebox may decode flac perfectly, I don't have one to test so it is up to others to try out. Option 2 is the Squeezebox is just not resolving enough to hear the difference.

Perhaps I need a new player that decodes flac better, but until I find one then I must stay with wav files. I currently use Foobar2000 v.0.9.4.2 with the USB-ASIO driver http://www.usb-audio.com/ and a HagUSB into a Scott Nixon Tube DAC with the 3Xac power supply. The USB-ASIO driver completely bypasses the Windows KMixer for a cleaner sound compared to ASIO4ALL.

The difference in sound may not be apparent on all types of music. The best example I have recorded so far is the first track from the Cowboy Junkies first album "The Trinity Session". Mining For Gold is minimally miked in a church with natural acoustics. When listening to the flac copy the background is different and Margo's voice has a less defined echo during pauses. The space around her changes, less ambiance and a slight hardening to the sound. This is not a night and day difference, and without an A-B comparison I would never know there is a difference in sound quality.

Without a doubt, do your own comparisons and trust your own ears.

[jman66]

If you're hearing raw WAV sounding better than FLAC....

Have you tried configuring Slimserver to decode FLAC on the server (computer) side and streaming the resultant
WAV file to the SB?  This equates the same as having a raw, ripped WAV to begin with.

Let your CPU do the work, not the Squeezebox.

[ctviggen]

Flac is a lossless format, and therefore there should be no difference between it and an uncompressed version of the song.  Now, that's theory, and if there's an error in decoding, then there would be a difference.  Perhaps the decoder on the computer side of the Slimserver is correctly decoding things, while the decoder in the SB isnt'?

[acd483]

If any of you had bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see that I offered this piece of information:

FLAC can be decompressed without penalty. If your little Squeezebox or otherwise does it on the fly, than fantastic...best of both worlds...if you trust the decoder! My only point was that if you don't uncompress the FLAC prior to listening, it won't sound as good as WAV. In fact, to those who want to know my system, it doesn't matter mates, I hear the diff between AAC and aiff on my ipod!

If you're like me, and plug the Mac directly into a DAC or via Airport, there's absolutely no need for Squeezebox. I run uncompressed aiff files and store them on a Mac-mini matching LaCie harddrive. I don't care about any other compressed format at this point. It's like comparing cell phone plans...you can study, and read and compare all day, but if you're happy with the service, or in this case, the sound, enjoy it!

[acd483]

One last note. For all you tweakers...

Lossless codecs are like power cords, etc. Each one has it's own way of doing buisness. The only reason I jumped into this conversation was to offer an opinion as to why you should take a step out of the listening process. Coding and decoding, compressing and uncompressing...it all just weighs on the mind. I'm happy enough to rip freely to uncompressed and play it that way.

Let the codec debate continue...

[Brian T.]

snip...

Check out www.dbpoweramp.com  and download the program...i'm just starting with this, but its a great tool for managing computer audio files and has loads of plug-in.

How does 'dbpoweramp' compare with EAC for ripping?

Cheers!

[boead]

My only point was that if you don't uncompress the FLAC prior to listening, it won't sound as good as WAV.

?? uncompress FLAC prior to listening? Well, yeah you have to. That’s what lossless algorithms are, unreadable compression for storage. If you want to read the original file it needs to be decompressed first. It won't sound as good as WAV if you don’t – Umm, you can’t!

In fact, to those who want to know my system, it doesn't matter mates, I hear the diff between AAC and aiff on my ipod!

I have no comment that’s constructive. But I will say that after a couple of beers mate, the difference gets even larger.

If you're like me, and plug the Mac directly into a DAC or via Airport, there's absolutely no need for Squeezebox. I run uncompressed aiff files and store them on a Mac-mini matching LaCie harddrive. I don't care about any other compressed format at this point.

Then why bother replying to this thread at all? Does FLAC even work on a Macintosh? I didn’t think so but I can be wrong.
The SB is a DAC, right? It can also be just a digital output device. But its largest advantage regardless if its used for analog or digital output - it’s a song list player with a remote. The computer hosting the music don’t need to be manipulated and it doesn’t need to be in the same room.

[boead]

Coding and decoding, compressing and uncompressing...it all just weighs on the mind. I'm happy enough to rip freely to uncompressed and play it that way.
 

I thought you said you use Apple Lossless? That’s not uncompressed. If you want to eliminate the potential for any compression loss then you have to use WAV or AIFF, simple as that!

[acd483]

boead,

1. you owe it yourself to read the whole post
2. FLAC works on Mac
3. you can play compressed FLAC files, just like other compressed lossless formats, or you can uncompress the FLAC files back to WAV without penalty
4. if you own an ipod, I really suggest pitting an uncompressed song against a compressed one (in my case aiff v. aac) and listen for the difference...it's there!

[boead]

1. you owe it yourself to read the whole post
I did, but most is illegible and/or confusing.   


2. FLAC works on Mac
I didn’t think so but I said that, didn’t I? And not with iTunes or any other QT player.

3. you can play compressed FLAC files, just like other compressed lossless formats, or you can uncompress the FLAC files back to WAV without penalty
You didn’t understand me. You owe it to yourself to read my post.
ALL LOSSLESS FILES need to de decoded before they can be played. Its done behind the scenes, the player decompresses the file, creates the new file in memory and then plays it. That’s how its done. There is NO difference in the data if you play it outright or convert it to Wav first; you’re listening to the same file.

4. if you own an ipod, I really suggest pitting an uncompressed song against a compressed one (in my case aiff v. aac) and listen for the difference...it's there!
I do and I have. The more alcohol I drink, the bigger the difference. Stone cold sober shows no differences at all. Portable players are simply not good enough to display any discerning difference between a Maximum quality MP3 and a Apple Lossless or Wav. Maybe if you are comparing a 128k AAC to Apple lossless, sure.

 

[acd483]

and I bet you think aiff is apple lossless too!

it really wasn't my intent to get into a heated debate on this forum.

the bottom line is if you don't mind spending the time coding and decoding, compressing and uncompressing
all to save a few megabytes than use FLAC...it seems to be one of the better lossless codecs.

otherwise, use WAV or AIFF. there's really nothing left to say.

is that clear enough for you boead? and legibility or the lack thereof relates to handwriting, not coherence of thought.

[gooberdude]

Boed,

consider going 'back to school' if you cannot hear the difference between an MP3 file and a full-on WAV file when played through your Ipod.  Its a simple thing to hear the difference when listening with earbuds (the headphones which came with your Ipod)...not just a full-sized stereo. 

i don't mean to step in on someone's toes, but get real.   You are on an audio forum, guy.   

If i took your car & chopped it up so its 85% smaller, would it run the same??


Anthony, don't waste your time!