Wav. or flac?

werd · « **on:** 29 Mar 2011, 11:30 pm »

I was one who was content playing flac files off my bdp. There appears to be a difference between the two thats worth mentioning. I guess you lose usb stick file space but it might be worth while if you enjoy the wav. playback better. Thought i would past that on.

ted_b · « **Reply #1 on:** 29 Mar 2011, 11:33 pm »

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=92852.0

James Tanner · « **Reply #2 on:** 29 Mar 2011, 11:34 pm »

Album art (tag info) can be an issue with Wave as well. :duh

James

ted_b · « **Reply #3 on:** 3 Apr 2011, 05:09 am »

Quote from: Napalm on 3 Apr 2011, 03:32 am

If you can hear differences between the same PCM signal stored in two different lossless file formats, then your playback device is defective in some way.

Nap.

I think this is a huge over-generalization...and not at all true IMHO. I can hear wav's superiority all the time, in almost any system. As posted here dozens of times, I think it has to do with decoding, cuz it clearly has little if any to do with the final identical file.

mcgsxr · « **Reply #4 on:** 3 Apr 2011, 12:32 pm »

I am all FLAC personally, but I have been that way with a PC based system for over 5 years now.

Now that storage $ has dropped dramatically, if you prefer WAV, feel free to 2-3x your HD and enjoy!

ted_b · « **Reply #5 on:** 3 Apr 2011, 02:36 pm »

Sound quality is important to me, so I use FLAC only to archive everything, but use wav for my music server stuff. I wish I didn't hear the differences, as metadata tagging, etc is a PITA. But storage is not an issue, and I'd use uncompressed AIFF if I wasn't using wav anyway. So I will "feel free", thanks.

srb · « **Reply #6 on:** 3 Apr 2011, 03:28 pm »

Quote from: mcgsxr on 3 Apr 2011, 12:32 pm

Now that storage $ has dropped dramatically, if you prefer WAV, feel free to 2-3x your HD and enjoy!

For those considering using WAV vs FLAC, my WAV library converted to FLAC via dBpoweramp with Compression Level 5 (Default) is 55% the size of the WAV library.

Although using WAV (or AIFF) requires more drive space than FLAC, it is actually more on the order of approximately 1.8X.

Steve

mcgsxr · « **Reply #7 on:** 3 Apr 2011, 07:04 pm »

I agree that since the price of storage has dropped significantly over the past 5 years, saving music in WAV is a great way to go.

It is especially useful, if running wired (between server and DAC).

Lots of ways to skin the audio cat!

skunark · « **Reply #8 on:** 3 Apr 2011, 07:15 pm »

Try to describe your playback system when making a claim that one format is better than another. Flac and Wave formats are PCM containers and the sound card will only accept a PCM datastream so the difference you hear is with your setup playing different formats, but not the format itself.

ted_b · « **Reply #9 on:** 3 Apr 2011, 08:00 pm »

Quote from: skunark on 3 Apr 2011, 07:15 pm

Try to describe your playback system when making a claim that one format is better than another.

?? My playback system and room treatments have been described ad nauseum here on AC, and is available via my system link. It is ultra resolving and not a weak link. I hear wav vs flac differences on many/all systems, including my Mac music server - unpowered firewire- Weiss Dac2, or Metric Halo LIO-8, Or USb via Antelope Zodiac Plus - Concert Fidelity CF-080 - Modwright KWA 150 monoblocks - SP Tech Revelations w/custom Mundorf crossovers. I will put it's accuracy, resolution, timbre reproduction and overall musicality against anything. But I also hear the format differences on office pc-based foobar systems driving AudioEngine 5's.

To oversimplify and just conclude it's "your setup" is a mistake IMO. Although the DNA is clearly the same (no one is saying otherwise), the paths are quite different and include decoding/decompression algorithms, cpu utilization (little, typically), packet handling (in the case of streaming FLAC vs streaming decoded PCM like in Squeezebox's server-side decoding example as stated above), and maybe other issues we haven't quite figured out yet. But I'm not the only one out here that hears the differences consistently, and with systems of all types. The fact that you are among those that don't is fine; I assume others hear anomalies that I don't.

werd · « **Reply #10 on:** 3 Apr 2011, 08:52 pm »

i actually prefer the skeletal presence of flac over wav. on the Wings - Band on the Run Release. The flac seems to enhance the recording somehow.... i like it. On all my redbook i have tested - wav is the way to go but on 96khz and up some flac i like better....

werd · « **Reply #11 on:** 4 Apr 2011, 01:26 am »

Quote from: Napalm on 4 Apr 2011, 01:05 am

Werd you're using the wrong cables. You have to try these:

Nap.

Send them to me, i'll try em.

JDUBS · « **Reply #12 on:** 4 Apr 2011, 03:55 am »

Quote from: Napalm on 4 Apr 2011, 01:40 am

Have faith, Weird. That's how cables work.

Nap.

Thanks for setting us all free!

Yawn - time to take a "nap".

skunark · « **Reply #13 on:** 4 Apr 2011, 04:40 am »

Quote from: ted_b on 3 Apr 2011, 08:00 pm

?? My playback system and room treatments have been described ad nauseum here on AC, and is available via my system link. It is ultra resolving and not a weak link. I hear wav vs flac differences on many/all systems, including my Mac music server - unpowered firewire- Weiss Dac2, or Metric Halo LIO-8, Or USb via Antelope Zodiac Plus - Concert Fidelity CF-080 - Modwright KWA 150 monoblocks - SP Tech Revelations w/custom Mundorf crossovers. I will put it's accuracy, resolution, timbre reproduction and overall musicality against anything. But I also hear the format differences on office pc-based foobar systems driving AudioEngine 5's.

To oversimplify and just conclude it's "your setup" is a mistake IMO. Although the DNA is clearly the same (no one is saying otherwise), the paths are quite different and include decoding/decompression algorithms, cpu utilization (little, typically), packet handling (in the case of streaming FLAC vs streaming decoded PCM like in Squeezebox's server-side decoding example as stated above), and maybe other issues we haven't quite figured out yet. But I'm not the only one out here that hears the differences consistently, and with systems of all types. The fact that you are among those that don't is fine; I assume others hear anomalies that I don't.

You describe different paths the data can take, so you clearly understand the complexities that can be had. This is what should be stated. I don't doubt folks can hear differences between file formats that are bit equivalent when decoded to PCM. What they are hearing are issues with the software or other various issues with how the hardware is configured or setup.

Furthermore, squeezebox server has had or still has issues with streaming flac vs wave, a fact noted and should be understood. Others have stated this has been improved in later releases. It's clear here that the manufacture gave preference to one format over another, but that does not prove wave is better than flac for all systems.

----
Though I am waiting for Werd's review on various contact cleaning solutions for the USB thumbdrives. I assume it will be sometime after his review on Nap's cables.

werd · « **Reply #14 on:** 4 Apr 2011, 04:58 am »

Nice beating around the bush. Glad you cleared that up. I guess he's asking you Ted what software you are using. Here i'll ask him for ya Skunark

Hey Ted what SW are you using and do you think it effects the difference in flac or wav.?

skunark · « **Reply #15 on:** 4 Apr 2011, 05:13 am »

Quote from: werd on 4 Apr 2011, 04:58 am

Nice beating around the bush. Glad you cleared that up. I guess he's asking you Ted what software you are using. Here i'll ask him for ya Skunark

Hey Ted what SW are you using and do you think it effects the difference in flac or wav.?

I'm not really, just pointing out that you can't blindly declare one lossless format sonically better than another. For certain setups, sure one might be sonically better because of ____. i.e. For computer A, running OS/SW combo B -> connected to DAC C ... Format X is better than format Y and Z. For but Computer A₂, OS B₂, DAC C₂, Format Y might be better than X and Z. For the an ideal solution, the lossless formats for PCM should all be equal.

skunark · « **Reply #16 on:** 4 Apr 2011, 05:57 pm »

Quote from: Napalm on 4 Apr 2011, 12:25 pm

Werd I'm looking forward to your comments on the soundstage spaciousness and extended dynamics of .NET vs. C++.

Nap.

I'm curious if a static or dynamic linked library impacts low frequency dynamics.

werd · « **Reply #17 on:** 4 Apr 2011, 06:07 pm »

Why don't you try it and find out for yourself? Test it for yourself - manipulating files libaries vs low freq response and then report back. Why do you ask the question and hope other people do it ?

Hey its nice to see the Earth is so flat and yet so very digital for so many of the people who post here. I guess the amazing ability of generating signals from impulse stops there, nothing more can be had from it.

James Tanner · « **Reply #18 on:** 4 Apr 2011, 06:13 pm »

Hi Folks,

I have always said you 'can't' tell people they do not hear what they claim they 'can' hear. All we can do is try to understand the mechanisms and influences that could possibly affect what is being detected or perceived.

james

JDUBS · « **Reply #19 on:** 5 Apr 2011, 03:26 am »

Quote from: Napalm on 5 Apr 2011, 03:23 am

You actually can. The more inquisitive minds will try to find out a scientific explanation, like with an optical illusion. The less inclined to research will just sit mesmerized in front of their perceptions.

Nap.

Oh, I see, thank you for setting me free! You're efforts at liberation are to be aplauded. You are truly doing good work here.

Seriously...troll somewhere else.

-Jim