flac or wav?

alexone · « **on:** 2 Dec 2008, 04:53 pm »

here we go:

what would you guys out there choose- flac or wav? and why...?

al.

ian.ameline · « **Reply #1 on:** 2 Dec 2008, 05:33 pm »

Large hard disks are cheap, so the major shortcoming of wav -- lack of compression -- is not really a problem -- the advantage of wav is that it works everywhere.

Flac supports lossless compression, so files will be smaller (50% or so), and the sound quality should be identical to wav. the drawback is that flac is not supported everywhere -- macs, in particular, do not have good flac support out of the box. (someone can correct me if I'm wrong -- I'd love to see a quicktime codec plugin for the mac that fully supports flac, and is not abandoned). And of course, ipods don't support it either.

Personally, being a mac/ipod guy, I use Apple Lossless.

--Ian.

Crimson · « **Reply #2 on:** 2 Dec 2008, 06:09 pm »

Quote from: alexone on 2 Dec 2008, 04:53 pm

here we go:

what would you guys out there choose- flac or wav? and why...?

al.

FLAC , ALAC, and other file compression schemes can have fidelity issues associated with real-time decoding.

WAV can have issues with metadata and tagging as it relates to portability.

I use AIFF which supports embedded tagging and does not require real-time decoding (similar to WAV).

Figo · « **Reply #3 on:** 2 Dec 2008, 06:11 pm »

I used wav for a long time but am in the process of converting everything to ALAC because I got sick of not having any tags.

Having album art / good tags overcomes any "possible" (read: imagined) fidelity issues, IMO.

kgturner · « **Reply #4 on:** 2 Dec 2008, 06:30 pm »

figo:

i use a program call tag&rename that allows me to tag my wav files with album art, title, artist, album, year...etc. it downloads the information from the internet and i can easily edit it. the program is only $30.00 and works like a champ.

kevin t

niels · « **Reply #5 on:** 2 Dec 2008, 07:30 pm »

I am so lazy that I use ITunes for ripping in Apple Lossless, with error correction on, its very quick, and files are automatically tagged, and album artwork downloaded, so, there is nothing for me to do....
I rarely buy a cd these days, but I download some stuff from Linn in WAV though, exceptional sound quality!! Makes most redbook cd blush in shame really....

mcgsxr · « **Reply #6 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 12:33 am »

I have been using FLAC for 3 years now, with no concerns at all. I have 400GB of flac, so in theory I could stand to have 900GB of wav, but would then need to buy another hd to back it up on. It may be cheap, but to date I find it a non starter to use wav.

I am a PC user, and I only use the music at home, for travel I do convert to mp3 (car or for use on a portable for working out) but both places lack the gear to reproduce with the fidelity to bother with flac or wav etc.

denjo · « **Reply #7 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 01:23 am »

I use EAC to rip CDs and have found that wav sounds better than flac! Not sure this should be the case but my ears seem to prefer wav.

satfrat · « **Reply #8 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 01:47 am »

I think this subject should be in The Discless Circle as it has a wider subject topic than just Bryston.

Anyways, I walk a differnt beat than most on my downloads, because I use Windows XP I use Windows Media Audio 9 with a variable bit rate (Quality 90). I obtain a 300+ kbps while only using slightly more hard drive than a 192kbps CD. With hard drives being so cheap, I see no reason to compress anything. As for quality, I've listened to my recordings on Zybar's system and am totally satisfied with what I heard when compared to flac. I use J-River Media Center 13, by far the best player I've ever used.

Cheers,
Robin

Crimson · « **Reply #9 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 02:05 am »

Quote from: satfrat on 3 Dec 2008, 01:47 am

I think this subject should be in The Discless Circle as it has a wider subject topic than just Bryston. Anyways, I walk a differnt beat than most on my downloads, because I use Windows XP I use Windows Media Audio 9 with a variable bit rate (Quality 90). I obtain a 300+ kbps while only using slightly more hard drive than a 192kbps CD. With hard drives being so cheap, I see no reason to compress anything. As for quality, I've listened to my recordings on Zybar's system and am totally satisfied with what I heard when compared to flac. I use J-River Media Center 13, by far the best player I've ever used.

Cheers,
Robin

Hi,

If you see storage as cheap (which it definitely is), why even consider VBR MP3s? Why not just go straight WAV or AIFF?

EDIT: What do you mean by 192 kbps CD? Standard redbook (PCM) is 1411 kbps.

ted_b · « **Reply #10 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 02:44 am »

Robin,
We're confused. Did you listen to MP3's at George's? And George allowed that?

JK...

When you say "I see no reason to compress anything" yet speak of 192k and 300k files vbr files you are indeed compressing everything. Please explain.

Ted

mpaulsen · « **Reply #11 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 03:12 am »

I've been using FLAC with cue sheets for about 4 years or so. The FLAC quality is perfect and the cue sheets are easy to use.

satfrat · « **Reply #12 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 04:15 am »

Quote from: ted_b on 3 Dec 2008, 02:44 am

Robin,
We're confused. Did you listen to MP3's at George's? And George allowed that? JK...

When you say "I see no reason to compress anything" yet speak of 192k and 300k files vbr files you are indeed compressing everything. Please explain.

Ted

Ted,,,, who's we?

I brought over a dozen or so CDR's that I burned from my WMA files.George downloaded them for his library and we played them back on George's system. I'm sure he'll convert them to flac. I use WMA 9 codec in a variable bit rate. I do not compress my hard drive files. What's to explain? If you want to know more about that codec, look it up.

Cheers,
Robin

Crimson · « **Reply #13 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 04:32 am »

Compression as it pertains to ripped audio files comes in two flavors: lossy and lossless. The former removes actual audio data while the latter does not.

WAV and AIFF are lossless uncompressed (identical to CD data; largest file sizes)

FLAC and ALAC are lossless compressed (identical to CD data when decompressed; roughly 50-60% the size of WAV and AIFF files)

MP3 and AAC are lossy compressed (not identical to CD data; smallest files sizes)

What you are listening to are lossy compressed files, which is the lowest resolution available. You may want to consider reripping to a lossless format to retain fidelity. Once a file has been ripped using a lossy codec, the lost information cannot be reclaimed i.e. converting lossy files to lossless files does not make them any better.

NewBuyer · « **Reply #14 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 05:21 am »

Quote from: denjo on 3 Dec 2008, 01:23 am

I use EAC to rip CDs and have found that wav sounds better than flac! Not sure this should be the case but my ears seem to prefer wav.

Totally with denjo on this. I have no idea why .wav sounds better than flac (they are ultimately supposed to be the same). But definitely .wav sounds a little better here, and it's been a mystery to me for a while now, what possibly could be the reason for it...

ted_b · « **Reply #15 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 05:28 am »

Lots of discussion on hydrogenaudio about wav vs flac sonic issues. Most come to the conclusion that either the decoders are mucking something up, or its a placebo. I thought I heard a slight wav superiority difference when wireless, but now that I run the MW Transporter wired I can't tell at all...and I've tried. But the wireless theory is counter-intuitive. Wav takes up more bandwidth and therefore should worsen the traffic..and theoretically worsen the system. Dunno.

And Robin, Crimson and I had both asked you the same question, so I said "we".

satfrat · « **Reply #16 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 05:33 am »

OK Ted, whatever you say.

niels · « **Reply #17 on:** 4 Dec 2008, 05:00 pm »

Unfortunately its true, if you dont believe us, look it up.......then explain your "300 kbps".

Maybe I am rambling, but I tend to believe the perceived "better audio quality" with WAV is because of the gain in the file.
I dont use WAV because of tags problems, but then I am not too familiar with everything.

satfrat · « **Reply #18 on:** 4 Dec 2008, 07:34 pm »

Quote from: niels on 4 Dec 2008, 05:00 pm

Unfortunately its true, if you dont believe us, look it up.......then explain your "300 kbps".

Maybe I am rambling, but I tend to believe the perceived "better audio quality" with WAV is because of the gain in the file.
I dont use WAV because of tags problems, but then I am not too familiar with everything.

I'm not an expert on any of this obviously,,, and obviously you are so why not enlighten me? I do know that in the codec I use there are quality choices which determine the kbps rate, the higher the quality, the higher the bit rate. I use Q90 for my downloads, Q99 for ripping CD's. When I rip a 192kbps CD and convert it to VBR, the Kbps is increased to over 300kbps and sounds much better than the original CD. On the Properties of my Hard Drive, I have an option to compress in order to save hard drive which I do not use. That's why I say I don't compress. Whether or not Windows Media Audio's VBR is compresion within itself, I do not know. I don't know all the particulars about codecs, I do know that I like what I hear from the one I'm using, it sounds better than a CD and it uses slightly more hard drive. The "us" can fill in the blanks if so desired.

Cheers,
Robin

miklorsmith · « **Reply #19 on:** 4 Dec 2008, 07:54 pm »

The Windows "file compression" function is separate from audio file (heh) treatment. The Windows check-box refers to contents of the entire drive and how it internally handles all data thereon.

Crimson's description is exactly correct, the two prevailing lossless, compressed file types are Apple's (ALAC) and an open-source standard called FLAC. I don't believe either can get much below about 700 kb/sec without using massive processor power on decode. The theory with these is they can be blown back up to full .wav files for burning or streaming. A CD's bitrate is 1,411 kb/sec, as stated previously. This is why an 80-minute CD comprises 700 MB of data.

To get files that are lower than 50% of the original file size, some data has to be thrown out. The Hydrogen Audio team has given the world the LAME MP3 format which as far as I know is still considered the best lossy choice. Other examples are out there too, of which the Microsoft proprietary WMA is one. To get 300 kb/sec streaming rate, data is lost. There is some debate as to how audible this is in the same way one might look at a bitmap photo versus a .jpeg. The latter format is more portable and can be done very well as long as it's not overly compressed. However, there is no doubt the primary waveform has been changed and cannot be recovered.

If it doesn't bug you I wouldn't sweat it.