[JDUBS]

No I meant uncompressed vs lossless.  In otherwords the software engine is going to see a FLAC file. The question is what does the FLAC engine do?

Does it do less processing on the uncompressed file, or does it process all FLAC files the same way.

Think of a database engine.  Whether there is data in a field or not, if that field is to be processed the database engine processes it and consumes resources regardless.

This is a good question.  I'm curious what the flac engine actually does - I guess just encode and then decode the metadata. 

-Jim

[headshrinker2]

I will be trying the comparison with a few tracks.  Let's see what everybody hears...or doesn't hear.

Personally, I really like threads like these.  Ones that explore possibilities for better audio. 

[terrycym]

I will be trying the comparison with a few tracks.  Let's see what everybody hears...or doesn't hear.

Personally, I really like threads like these.  Ones that explore possibilities for better audio.

and maybe finally put this particular question to bed.
I got thinking about this yesterday at the Whittlebury Audio Show.
One of the exhibitors tested this and came to the conclusion that no compression is best sonically. It was in the Cyrus room

[Crimson]

I fail to see the reasoning behind uncompressed FLAC files. If you want lossless uncompressed with metadata support, simply rip to AIFF.

[skunark]

If one felt the level of compression for flac files alters the sound then either 1) the software converting to PCM is bad, which is hard to believe given FLACs checksuming features of the audio data and AccurateRIP validation at time of rip  or 2) the marginal increase in CPU utilization causes the increase in ambient temperature within the chassis influencing the output stage of the aes/bnc ports, just as hard to believe otherwise folks will be installing fans or water-cooling in/on their gear.  Also could trump any theories that you need to warm up gear before playback. 

BTW, AIFF has execellent support for tags.

[skunark]

I fail to see the reasoning behind uncompressed FLAC files. If you want lossless uncompressed with metadata support, simply rip to AIFF.

+1

[terrycym]

Hmm
As discussed elsewhere, AIFF causes issues for the BDP-1
Issues cataloging large amounts of music files. It's a known issue.
As James has said in the past, AIFF is also proprietary

[srb]

I originally had WAV files in my iTunes library.  I converted them to AIFF to preserve tagging when the library is monitored by J. River Media Center.  This works just fine, as I do like J. River, but I have subsequently found that AIFF does not have the universal support that I thought it did.
 
The AIFF files have no tags when the library is monitored by foobar 2000, and they don't show up at all when the library is monitored by Windows Media Player.
 
Steve

[skunark]

Hmm
As discussed elsewhere, AIFF causes issues for the BDP-1
Issues cataloging large amounts of music files. It's a known issue.
As James has said in the past, AIFF is also proprietary

There is no issue other a few folks reported it to be slow with the album art.   That's just a one time hit, which to be honest I've never noticed on with my 700GB of AIFF. An annoyance perhaps, but not a reason to avoid AIFF.

[terrycym]

There is no issue other a few folks reported it to be slow with the album art.   That's just a one time hit, which to be honest I've never noticed on with my 700GB of AIFF. An annoyance perhaps, but not a reason to avoid AIFF.

Lack of support in Windows?

[JDUBS]

Hmm
As discussed elsewhere, AIFF causes issues for the BDP-1
Issues cataloging large amounts of music files. It's a known issue.
As James has said in the past, AIFF is also proprietary

Yep, plus AIFF in general just sucks.  If you want universal, its FLAC.

-Jim

[skunark]

Lack of support in Windows?

Works fine for me.   

[skunark]

Yep, plus AIFF in general just sucks.  If you want universal, its FLAC.

-Jim

Do tell.  Lol   I've had no issues with AIFF. User experience varies for sure, but the only formats that "suck" IMHO are lossy and WAV only because of the lack of tags. 

[srb]

Yep, plus AIFF in general just sucks.  If you want universal, its FLAC.

Based largely on metadata, FLAC does seem to be more universal (except for iTunes, which doesn't support it), but when you say AIFF "sucks", the file format is exactly the same as WAV - both are simply linear PCM data - and only the file header (with its metadata) is different.
 
Because I presently use J. River Media Center (and if I switch platforms in the future it would likely be to Mac Mini/iTunes/Pure Music), I'll be staying with AIFF - for now.
 
Steve

[JfTM]

But uncompressed or compressed, the file is lossless!

True.  But the FLAC engine may (and that is the point of my question) have to do more work and put more stress on the processor to restore a lossless compressed file.

Or it may not make a difference.  The FLAC engine may process them the same way using the same processor resources; which may give the advantage to AIFF/WAV.

[Crimson]

AIFF is not proprietary. The A stands for audio, not Apple (Audio Interchange File Format). To each his own, of course. I just don't see the point in going with a format that was meant to use compression, and then storing it uncompressed, when straight PCM file formats are available.

[ted_b]

True.  But the FLAC engine may (and that is the point of my question) have to do more work and put more stress on the processor to restore a lossless compressed file.

Or it may not make a difference.  The FLAC engine may process them the same way using the same processor resources; which may give the advantage to AIFF/WAV.

So, why are you pushing back on my correcting your statement??  You said:

Do you know if the FLAC engine does less processing on an uncompressed file vs a lossless file? 

Lossless and uncompressed are not opposites!  Lossless has two flavors: uncompressed (wav, aiff, this topic's uncompressed FLAC) or compressed (standard FLAC, Apple Lossless, Ogg vorbis, Monkeys Audio, etc) so the statement is circular.  That's all I was saying, but you keep saying no, I have it wrong.

No I meant uncompressed vs lossless.  In otherwords the software engine is going to see a FLAC file. The question is what does the FLAC engine do?

    Many folks seem to think that the term lossless implies compression...it doesn't, it implies no loss of data (whether compressed or not). 

[JfTM]

So, why are you pushing back on my correcting your statement??  You said:
Lossless and uncompressed are not opposites!  Lossless has two flavors: uncompressed (wav, aiff, this topic's uncompressed FLAC) or compressed (standard FLAC, Apple Lossless, Ogg vorbis, Monkeys Audio, etc) so the statement is circular.  That's all I was saying, but you keep saying no, I have it wrong.

    Many folks seem to think that the term lossless implies compression...it doesn't, it implies no loss of data (whether compressed or not).

Thanks for the clarification.

So do you know if FLAC processes compressed lossless files differently than uncompressed files?

[ted_b]

My understanding is that this new uncompressed FLAC option saves decoding engine time and is a smaller footprint for the cpu.  While this may be miniscule it might not be the reason folks hear differences...that reason could be due to noise during decompression (not sure where this noise emanates from but that's some of the talk on other "I hear FLAC differences" threads on the net).  Frankly, I hear subtle but important enough differences among FLAC, aif and wav that I put up with the wav metadata issues on my Mac Mini (which are numerous) but we've gone over wav vs "x" in an ad nauseum number of threads.      By the way, I heard the same level of differences when eval'ing the wonderful BDP-1.  They are mostly a subtle change in noise floor, and air (or lack thereof)

[skunark]

My understanding is that this new uncompressed FLAC option saves decoding engine time and is a smaller footprint for the cpu.  While this may be miniscule it might not be the reason folks hear differences...that reason could be due to noise during decompression (not sure where this noise emanates from but that's some of the talk on other "I hear FLAC differences" threads on the net).  Frankly, I hear subtle but important enough differences among FLAC, aif and wav that I put up with the wav metadata issues on my Mac Mini (which are numerous) but we've gone over wav vs "x" in an ad nauseum number of threads.      By the way, I heard the same level of differences when eval'ing the wonderful BDP-1.  They are mostly a subtle change in noise floor, and air (or lack thereof)

At the end of they day just PCM is sent to the sound card. Any differences between WAV, AIFF, FLAC and ALAC is a software bug on the BDP

I did hit an ALAC SW bug causing popping between tracks and random coredumps with MPD, first device I've used that had issues with ALAC.  Hard drive space is cheap these days so a quick conversion to AIFF solved my problems and still works with my other devices.   Since then there has been a firmware update but I see no reason to go back.

I do use FLAC for Hi-Rez files, since th BDP is the only device I care to playback hires, I see no need to convert either.