[werd]

Please post any experiences with differences between the two formats. Are there differences in SQ and do they trump the storage benfits? Also links to a good conervting programs on the topic would be much appreciated.

[ted_b]

I will start by fanning the flame!!     I am one of the poor sobs that can fairly easily detect sonic differences among lossless codecs, with FLAC vs wav being an easy one for me, at least on my systems.  Most objectivists will say I'm wrong or I'm easily swayed into placebo effect, but I've done it blindly.  Oh, and I also believe many do not hear it (and believe I probably don't hear some anomalies that others do).  To me the loss of air and high frequency natural decay are enough to cause me to do wayyyyy more work when I convert FLAC to wav.   By the way, I use DBPoweramp to do all my format/codec conversions.
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/

Why all the work?  Cuz my ripping and archiving are on a Windows Vista pc, whilst my main music server is a MAC.  So I convert from FLAC to wav (and at the same time convert FLAC to low end mp3 for the temporary metadata heavy lifting)....and then move the files over to the MAC where I import them to iTunes (for Pure Music or Amarra's use).  Within iTunes, wav files can have a place to store metadata; outside iTunes......not so much.       So i use a product called itunify to copy the metadata from the mp3 file over to the wav container, then delete the mp3 file.  Yikes.   

Net/net, I wish I didn't hear a difference.  Oh, and for those that are wondering...."well, Ted, you idiot, just use AIFF, it's neither compressed nor tagless"......I don't like it as much either.   

[skunark]

Flac and Wav both are PCM containers in the end and can be bit equivalent.   AIFF and ALAC are also the same.   AIFF and WAV do nothing to the PCM stream other than a simple header to indicate the type of stream.  Flac and ALAC in a way "zips" the PCM data stream to conserve disk space.  Again, all can be bit equivalent. 

Any differences you hear is probably because of the actual software library used in playback even in the same application.  So to have this discussion, it's probably worth noting how you playback the files  So ted, it seems that with the iTunes w/PM or /Amarra, you prefer wave, which both of those applications will use the coreaudio library that the mac osx provides over the flac library.     

Also as Ted pointed out the main negative issue with wave is the lack of tag support.   Even if an application tags the wav file for it's own use, doesn't mean another application will understand it.   AIFF is probably the better choice over wave for mac users, it too will also utilize the coreaudio library.

If you are streaming the music from a computer to a player then there's all sorts of reasons why one would be better over the other.

[eclein]

I've heard both and prefer wav myself, my library is in wav with a few flac files mixed in from HD Tracks...I did an A/B thing when I first started ripping my CD's for playback in itunes, ipod, main rig etc..and without actually remembering specifics I liked wav better...

[Jon L]

Any differences you hear is probably because of the actual software library used in playback even in the same application. 

the main negative issue with wave is the lack of tag support.   

Lack of tag support for wav is an amazingly huge issue that many people will eventually run into in the future.  Let's say some genius  comes up with playback software that just sounds far better than anything else before it, including Amarra, Pure Music, Foobar, whatever.  Or, one is faced with some sort of situation requiring change on operating system and/or playback software.

it will be a rude awakening to experience at that time that you cannot sort, search, or do anything that requires tags with your terabytes of wav files 

If you are one of those people who swear by wav sound superiority (and one really needs to let someone else play back A/B for real blind comparisons before deciding so), at least keep a duplicate separate music library in lossless that keeps the tag info, so later when something unexpected happens, these lossless files can be turned into wav files or to some other codec you need at the time, while still maintaining tags.  IMHO.

[ted_b]

Skunark,
As you noted, in iTunes FLAC is not an option anyway...and my experiences are both outside of iTunes (FLAC vs wav on pc, say Foobar) and within iTunes/PM (wav vs aiff and/or Apple Lossless).  One would think Core Audio would, if anything, give a preference to aiff if there were one, but again I prefer wav.  Dunno why.  The end game is the same (bit perfect with identical info) but getting there must be the culprit.  And by getting there i mean the conversion program and/or the decoder and/or the network handling and/or library handling at the far end.  Dunno.  I reported years ago that SqueezeCenter FLAC playback showed a marked improvement to me when one decodes to PCM at the server vs at the client.  This make little sense as the network would have to deal with larger/more packets...but once again, was easy to discern.  In that example, others heard it too.

[baumer]

After reading what ted_b goes through, I consider myself lucky not to be able to hear a difference between the two! If I spent more time than I do now on all my music related stuff my wife would contact the lawyers 

I really like using db poweramp as well. It's ease of use made me choose it over EAC. It does a great job converting files as well.

On the Mac side of things I use Max to rip and Tag to, well, tag. The same software developer has another ripper called, you got it, Rip. But I have all sorts of problems using it.

I really wish db poweramp could be used for Mac's as well.

[mchuckp]

Flac and Wav both are PCM containers in the end and can be bit equivalent.   AIFF and ALAC are also the same.   AIFF and WAV do nothing to the PCM stream other than a simple header to indicate the type of stream.  Flac and ALAC in a way "zips" the PCM data stream to conserve disk space.  Again, all can be bit equivalent. 

Any differences you hear is probably because of the actual software library used in playback even in the same application.  So to have this discussion, it's probably worth noting how you playback the files  So ted, it seems that with the iTunes w/PM or /Amarra, you prefer wave, which both of those applications will use the coreaudio library that the mac osx provides over the flac library.     

Also as Ted pointed out the main negative issue with wave is the lack of tag support.   Even if an application tags the wav file for it's own use, doesn't mean another application will understand it.   AIFF is probably the better choice over wave for mac users, it too will also utilize the coreaudio library.

If you are streaming the music from a computer to a player then there's all sorts of reasons why one would be better over the other.

I can vouch for differences in software programs.  Recently did some comparos between Squeezeserver, iTunes, & Pure Music.  Squeezeserver is a bit different because it also uses a Squeezebox, so hardware wise not really the same in the comparison.  iTunes and PM where identical in it's output (Macbook>USB>DAC).  Difference is sound was VERY different.

Not doubting that people can or can't hear the difference between various formats, just making the point that if you are playing those formats in different players, it will make a difference.  Gotta admit I was quite surprised at how different they were playing the exact same tracks.

[ted_b]

Lack of tag support for wav is an amazingly huge issue that many people will eventually run into in the future.  Let's say some genius  comes up with playback software that just sounds far better than anything else before it, including Amarra, Pure Music, Foobar, whatever.  Or, one is faced with some sort of situation requiring change on operating system and/or playback software.

it will be a rude awakening to experience at that time that you cannot sort, search, or do anything that requires tags with your terabytes of wav files 

If you are one of those people who swear by wav sound superiority (and one really needs to let someone else play back A/B for real blind comparisons before deciding so), at least keep a duplicate separate music library in lossless that keeps the tag info, so later when something unexpected happens, these lossless files can be turned into wav files or to some other codec you need at the time, while still maintaining tags.  IMHO.

As stated above, that's what I recommended too.  And also stated above, I picked wav (10 out of 10) when blindly listening with someone else choosing.  All I asked is that I could go back and forth a couple times, if needed. 

I've been experimenting with the Voyage MPD (Linux) music server via an Alix board.  This minimalist low-power super-dedicated approach led to expect that maybe the FLAC vs wav differences would be minimized or eliminated due to "less other s$%t going on".  Nope (although this test was not blind, I'm up for the task...it was quite obvious).  DAMN!

[ted_b]

Mchuckp,
There is NO way to do these tests with another variable like "software player" in the mix.  We're talking subtleties that require some real a/b listening, and introducing PM vs iTunes is tantamount to insanity. 

[lcrim]

The lack of support for metadata tagging is of such overwhelming importance that even if wav sounded better (they are the same) I would choose flac. 
How does a 6 ft length of power chord make a difference with all the miles of stuff between the power station and your home, I have no explanation but I just know it does.  Its on the same order of belief that I know that wav and flac sound the same. 

[ted_b]

After reading what ted_b goes through, I consider myself lucky not to be able to hear a difference between the two! If I spent more time than I do now on all my music related stuff my wife would contact the lawyers 

Yeah, my first two wives hated all the computer music stuff.     Just kidding...my wonderful wife puts up with all of this, somehow.  Happily married for 13 years (and 13 out of 33 ain't bad).   

And yes, I find that the best tools for computer audio still reside in the pc world so far, so that's where I rip, burn, tag, edit, convert etc.  (I'm not including the more pro-grade spectrum analysis or DSP/SRC stuff.  The Mac world has Weiss Saracon and others).

[ted_b]

The lack of support for metadata tagging is of such overwhelming importance that even if wav sounded better (they are the same) I would choose flac. 
How does a 6 ft length of power chord make a difference with all the miles of stuff between the power station and your home, I have no explanation but I just know it does.  Its on the same order of belief that I know that wav and flac sound the same.

"They are the same"...to you.  Feel blessed.  I hate the metadata dance, but it's important enough to me and my ears.

[mchuckp]

Mchuckp,
There is NO way to do these tests with another variable like "software player" in the mix.  We're talking subtleties that require some real a/b listening, and introducing PM vs iTunes is tantamount to insanity. 

I was just making the point that if someone is going to compare different codecs that they need to make sure that EVERYTHING else is completely equal including the software used for playback.  If this is what someone has done and can hear the difference between WAV vs FLAC, the power to them.  Or some may it call it a curse. 

[jhm731]

In my digital play system: Seagate HD/Netgear WNDR 3700-PS Audio PWD/Bridge, I also prefer WAV
to FLAC.

PS Audio's music manager eLyric will work with all formats. You can access it at www.elyric.com.

[clent]

I'm pretty sure that FLAC generates output that can be bit perfect to the original WAV data (as somebody else mentioned). In fact, I think I've performed my own experiments to test this in the past.

A possible explanation for differences in FLAC vs WAV rendering is output-modifying tag directives, such as replay-gain (which many players currently obey by default). This would certainly account for a perceived difference in the output.

For those who prefer WAV, have you attempted to rig a media player to automatically transcode a FLAC to a WAV and then play that WAV (all during playback time)?

For my part, FLAC's tagging facilities are indispensable, not to mention the size difference (which is marginally useful for portables with limited space).

[Jon L]

In my digital play system: Seagate HD/Netgear WNDR 3700-PS Audio PWD/Bridge, I also prefer WAV
to FLAC.

LOL, the folks at PS Audio will have to pour over this some more since their whole marketing with the Bridge is how different inputs into the Bridge end up with exact same output from Bridge after the completely asynchronous way Bridge re-shapes and re-clocks data with no dependence on the input 

[saisunil]

Digitally same output ... but that does not mean that different "players" or for that matter even the same player would "play" different formats uniquely (depending on the algorithm) - resulting in different sound ...

LOL, the folks at PS Audio will have to pour over this some more since their whole marketing with the Bridge is how different inputs into the Bridge end up with exact same output from Bridge after the completely asynchronous way Bridge re-shapes and re-clocks data with no dependence on the input 

[lcrim]

I must do a complete about-face on this subject.
I will admit that following Soundcheck's recommendations, I send all music files from server to Logitech Touch as PCM and did hear a slightly improved playback this way.  The idea is to offload the use of resources from the Touch to the server to expand the flac.  On the Touch, you remember that flac is native and you must change the file settings to accomplish this.
All ripping and storage (and backups) are done as flac.

[wushuliu]

I found differences between the two based on how the source material was ripped. EAC Flac Burst mode = not so good. Flac secure  = better Wav Secure mode = best.