FLAC vs. WAV (2nd post)
Giving it some more thought, in response to my first post, all my digital files are saved in FLAC or Apple Lossless... I don't use WAV format on my digital music server.
More important of course is the quality of the studio recording and the mix.
I don't hear any significant differences between the two, FLAC or Apple Lossless, when using my music server at home, and I enjoy them both tremendously.
At my age, most of the music I listen to is from Dead people.....same for my movies... LOL (baby boomer)
The differences I heard with WAV strictly have to do with burning CD's and using CD's, and who uses CD's anymore. I do, I use them all the time in my car, because I enjoy the convenience, you can use a CD in almost any car.
I just can't stand MP3 files in the car on a flash drive, and it appears each manufacturer have their own rules for using flash drives. It took me quite awhile to figure out why my iTunes files weren't working on my Kenwood Car Stereo when I created my first flash drive.
Nobody told me, but when I looked at the file structure and how music files are transferred onto a flash drive on a MAC, bingo, I discovered the problem.
;-) nipper1954
|
@nipper1954
Seriously? There are a few inaccuracies in your post. But I too love all my music being digital and in a lossless format. :) |
FLAC vs. WAV....
Dear boys and girls, I actually use my Mac to create CD’s for my car, and guess what?
When you burn a CD the format is always the same. Whether the source is WAV or FLAC, or APPLE Lossless. CD only uses one format...
So, I now have a CD created by Lossless, and a CD created by WAV...
Guess what...the CD created by WAV sounds better than the CD created by Lossless.
Keep in mind, the I created the WAV file directly from the Lossless file....interesting...
I hear a deeper sound, particularly during the quiet passages, there just seems to be a presence on CD created by a WAV file compared to a CD created by a Lossless file.
Keep in mind, I can’t imagine there is a big difference between Apple Lossless and a Flac file...both compressed are supposed to insure data has not been loss.
So effectively, I have taken the whole processing out of the equation. You can take the two CD's anywhere and hear the difference.
That is my experience.....I won’t even begin to discuss HD Audio, but I will say, I love all my music being digital and in a lossless format...
;-) Nipper1954
|
FLAC is an audio encoding format. It’s also a very good one for a number of reasons. FLAC is a “lossless” format, meaning none of the data from the source recording is compressed or removed (assuming you use the same bit depth [not the same thing as bit rate] and frequency range). This is inarguably a good thing. Lossless is the word of the year (or last 3) among audiophiles (and those who like to consider themselves audiophiles), but the implications of lossless have been twisted and manipulated in ways that are just not factually supported. Why is FLAC awesome (and is it awesome)? Really, it is – as much as I hate FLAC listening purists, FLAC has a real place in the digital audio world that should not be overlooked. You know of one other lossless audio format called .WAV. Yep, that same, good ‘ol format that your Windows system sounds are encoded in (though that’s 8-bit and usually mono). WAV preserves 100% of audio information in 16-bit 44.1KHz stereo format when ripping audio from a CD. FLAC is better than WAV for two reasons. First, it does everything WAV does (lossless audio), but in a much smaller package (WAV is extremely inefficient in its use of space). Second, it allows the use of more tags (including “illegal” tags in Windows) for marking files. That’s it. Otherwise, same juice, different label. WAV does have the advantage of being more editing / DJ-friendly (also less work for the CPU since it’s hardware decoded), but that’s not really relevant to what we’re talking about here.This gets us to why FLAC is awesome. It’s all about preservation and archiving! FLAC uses less space than WAV, and allows more precise tagging, making it ideal as a long-term digital storage medium for audio. No matter how many times you copy it (well, in the relative sense), generation after generation, the source audio remains virtually unaltered. But WAV can be compressed for uploading http://www.videoconverterfactory.com/tips/compress-wav-file.html that is FLAC can not do well as WAV |
Thank you so much dtc for the confirmation as to the byte size question. You've convinced me and saved me some time in wanting to do the file binary compare. No need if you too have noticed a small difference.
|
I went through this exercise a few years ago and did notice byte differences. But when I did binary compares there was no difference. That is why I think you are just seeing padding differences. At one point I looked at the files with a binary editor and that also convinced me that the files were the same, other than padding.
There were some "interesting" articles in Absolute Sound a while ago where 2 guys went back and forth between wav and flac multiple times and convinced themselves that the sound degraded the more times they did the conversions. It was a very controversial set of articles and, in the end, most people dismissed their "research", but there are still people who seem to believe that even though the conversions are bit perfect they can change the sound. I've given up worrying about it
|
thanks dtc. your response makes sense. perhaps at some point I may attempt to inspect the binary but I'm good for now. curious though as you indicate it can be a result of the way the program writes the data (padding zeros, etc.), do you observe any byte difference? |
There is no difference between flac and wav. If there is, then you need a better DAC. |
You can do a binary compare of your two files using, for example, the Windows fc command at the command prompt.
fc/b file1 file2
There are other compare options, but this is a place to start if you want to go into the differences in your files in more detail.
|
The difference of 2 bytes is probably just a matter of how each program pads the end of a file with zeros. It depends on the way the program writes the data. It has nothing to do with the audio data. It is just a programming difference.
|
acurus, thank you, however, what I have discovered transcends whether or not you, I or anyone else can "hear" a difference. Question is, "is there a difference". Apparently there is.
By the way, I’ve read great things about JRiver from numerous audiophiles so do not doubt it is very good. Best is subjective. In my case I use Windows Media 12 (on Windows 10) and find it more than adequate.
|
This will be debated as long as digital is in existence. I have limitless storage capability (10TB) and at the time, all I had was time (was in-between jobs). I spent endless hours testing CD rips to see which was better before I ripped my entire library. I ripped dozens of CDs in WAV and FLAC, and also AIFF. I used dBPoweramp to rip. As much as I wanted to hear it, I could hear ZERO difference between them all. Zero, none, nada, zilch, nothing! If someone can hear the difference, bless you. My system is incredibly resolving so that's not it. Just my experience. What I did hear a huge difference in was the playback software. JRiver was best, Mediamonkey (?) was horrible, iTunes and a whole bunch of others were tested. |
Something interesting (to me anyway) I have discovered. As reported by Windows Properties size (not size on disk), a WAV encoded to Flac (compression level 6 but realistically any) and then back to WAV from that FLAC is not identical. For example, if the WAV is 399,718,326 bytes and converted to FLAC it is 188,443,075 bytes. If I then decode the FLAC back to WAV the size is 399,718,324 bytes. Can that 2 byte difference be explained? |
I use XLD for ripping. Playback is via an Ayon S-5 pulling files from a NAS drive. Playback control is via JRiver. Before ripping my complete CD library I tested the AIFF and WAV formats of some of my usual demo CD's. AIFF gave superior performance - significantly more separation of voices and instruments in the soundstage and faster transients, especially in the attack on acoustic strings. From my experiment I concluded which format sounded better on my system but the only recommendation I would ultimately make would be to test the various formats of interest on one's on system for as the saying goes, "Your mileage may vary." |
Steve N., you have previously stated that to you WAV sounds better than AIFF. Do you still feel that way and/or have any idea why? |
I believe, Reference Recordings primarily produces HDCD discs. I would not be surprised if he used wav in his processing. He would have little reason to compress data while doing the engineering. Can you point to a reference about Johnson preferring wav? It would be interesting reading.
|
Dr Keith Johnson apparently uses wav.. |
And given that there is division between FLAC and WAV among certain of those who have responded to this topic, I’d now like to ask if it is the opinion of those in the FLAC or WAV camp as to whether or not there is a quality difference in playing and/or decompressing FLAC depending on the original compression level.
The reason I'm asking is not simply to fuel yet another debate. In my case, I obtain the flac files from bt.etree.org. I (seemingly) have no visibility into the compression level. In fact I have never read a notation from any of the posters on that site who distribute in flac (both 16 and 24 bit) having anything to do with the compression.
What I have found is that when I download a show in totality it is (hypothetically) 600 meg and when I convert/decompress to WAV it is closer to a 1.5 gig.
Thanks to everyone.
|
jwm - look at my data above. Flac 0 is less compressed, but not by much - 39% for level 0, 42% for level 6 for my file. And, according to the flac gurus decompressing for 0 or from 5 or 6 takes essentially the same amount of processor time.
|
Why not use flac 0 as this is less compressed than 5 or 6?
|
ddruveman - I think I started the idea that flac 0 is uncompressed here. But now we know that flac 0 is not uncompressed. I have have had it wrong for a while. You need to go to dBpoweramp to actually get uncompressed. Personally I still used flac 5 or 6, since I cannot hear any difference.
|
DTC,
You are correct about FLAC compression level 0 and uncompressed FLAC. FLAC 0 is not uncompressed. I stand corrected. And dBPoweramp offers uncompressed FLAC. |
PS DirectStream is the one DAC that doesn’t handle input jitter at all, you will hear differences all the time with that DAC. Even $200 consumer receiver handles jitter better than the PS Audio DAC.
I’m so glad I was able to get rid of it at a big loss to me.
btw: jplay reduces jitter of PC audio output, you’ll hear a difference with that DAC. On the other hand with a properly designed DAC like the Emotiva DC-1 which has a built in reclocking circuitry, there will be no differences what so ever between formats/players. |
As a relative newbie in digital world, I recently elected to rip my cd collection to have access to everything without going through hundreds of cd's. Using dB I started ripping at first in the flac default 5 compression. Playing back through my Magnum Dynalab MD 807T, I must admit that it sounded pretty good (at the time I did no A/B tests) After ripping many and coming to see that I did not need the extra compression due to using a external 4 drive enclosure for storing files, I deleted everything and re-ripped in flac uncompressed.
Having access to everything is a pleasure, but accessing through the computer seemed to be occasionally problematic. Errors popped up here and there (maybe once for every four hours of streaming). It presented itself as what I would describe as dropped bits, momentary silence etc. I then elected to move everything to a NAS and take the computer out of the loop for anything but operation control through JRiver. So I access the library through desktop/laptop or tablet and these momentary errors have evaporated.
Always one to read, experiment and verify, I am going to rip some cd's that are already in flac uncompressed format and sound exactly like the original material into WAV and playback using the same method above and see if there is any difference that I can detect in my system. If not, I will consider myself lucky and continue using flac uncompressed and just get larger drives, if needed down the road.
As a side note, I have been experimenting with changing playback parameters in the PS DirectStream, since it was recently added, to find optimum setting, there also there is going to be a learning curve but that's what a hobby is all about |
I have been looking at flac compression levels some more .Let me clarify uncompressed flac, since I confused flac 0 and uncompressed above.
Flac 0 is not uncompressed. It is the lowest level of flac compression, but it is still far from uncompressed. Many packages create flac 0, but dBpoweramp is the only one I know of that does truly uncompressed flac. There may be others, but dBpoweramp is the one I know.
As an example, I have a track that is 69KB (39%) at flac 6. It is 73 KB (42%) at flac 0 and 122KB with uncompressed flac. AIFF and WAV are also 122KB. So, if you want flac with no compression you need uncompressed flac, not flac 0.
Flac and WAV both have well defined meta-data capabilities. WAV
originally did not include meta-data, but many implementations do
include meta-data today, although the implementations can vary. So, if using meta data, flac and AIFF are the preferred formats.
Conclusion - If you want an uncompressed format use uncompressed flac (not flac 0), or AIFF, with WAV an option if you understanding the tagging issues.
The higher the compression level, the more compute time needed
to do the compression. However, people who understand the flac compression algorithms say
that the time to decompress the various
levels (0 to 8) are basically the same. That may not seem intuitive but
there are good explanations from the for the people who know. Uncompressed flac, however, should take not time to decompress, since it is not compressed.
Hope that helps clear up flac 0 and flac uncompressed. They are different.
|
One more vote to WAV files, altough I found sacd and high fidelty pure audio( blu ray) better in that order, so even most of my music are on cd, i prefer sacd. |
ddriveman made the perfect post. For discussion across everyone's systems his points reach the conclusions that will usually apply. Bottom line use AIFF or WAV, if if metadata headaches bug you, like they do me, use AIFF. Cheers,
Spencer |
Without going into great details I would say I have an above average system. To me wav. is better than flac. Not a lot, but better.
|
On the grand scale of things that make a difference in sound quality, I have found digital cables and file format (.wav versus flac) to be pretty much the least significant factors. I'm sure YMMV.
|
My Wireworld Platinum Starlight USB cable is way better than the Curious cable. The Curious is too foward and bright in the mids. The Wireworld is much more relaxed and open with a much bigger soundstage.
|
audioman58 - Level 8 is the most compressed version of flac, not the highest uncompressed level.
This is a bigger issue than just cables and regenerating usb signals. You may want to do some reading on these issues.
|
I have found little or no difference between the 2 formats
Much has to do with the process I use DB power amp for trsnsfer at highest uncompressed level 8. The dac also has a say in how resolved if is . The Digital cable even more
So. Guys if you have not tried the Curious USB csble you have not heard your music.
This cable is very musical not flat like the standard even well respected cables
Analog finally has arrived for digital.
The USB regen, as well with Curious on any usb cable down stream .
Unless you have experienced this ,then you have No educated way to make a comment. I would not recommend this if not a statement product.
Better then both Wireworld platinum,or AQ Diamond and much less monies !! |
I'm listening to FLAC right now. Everyone's digital should sound so good. |
coli - this has nothing to do with jitter, besides, there are no DACs that are immune to jitter, even those that reclock. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
If you can hear difference between flac and wav you need to get a properly designed DAC, eg, one with a reclocker built into it like the Emotiva DC1. Lossless is lossless, there is no difference between decoded flac and wave output other than jitter values (flac will have more jitter because windows is not a real time operating system) |
The diferrence in sound between FLAC and WAV/AIFF is real. I hear it too.
People confuse lossless as the only contributor to sound quality for digital files. Losslees only means that the file is bit-perfect i.e. No loss of digital bits in the file. But another important factor is whether the file itself is compressed or uncompressed.
But the difference in sound quality that you hear between FLAC and WAV/AIFF is not because it is lossless or lossy. It's because FLAC is compressed while WAV and AIFF is uncompressed. On playback of FLAC files, the computer needs to uncompress the files and this extra processing can add noise and phase distortions.
With some CD ripping software like dBPower, you can set the compression level of FLAC between 0 to 10 with 5 being the standard compression level. If you rip unto FLAC with 0 compression level, it becomes uncompressed and lossless. And it sounds similar to WAV and AIFF. Try it yourself. |
No difference unless your DAC can't handle input jitter. A suprising number of snake/ I mean audiophile DAC can't
handle input jitter properly. |
WAV as NAIM implement is a PITA for metadata...
|
One should becsurevwav sounds better in their specific setup before committing. Flac played right should have no difference. Use hardware and software designed for high quality flac streaming and you should be fine I used wav for a few years then decided flac was the way to go and converted everything. Both sound similarly excellent imho in my setup. Flac supports flexible tagging which enhances user experience. Wav does not. |
Computer should decompress files before putting them into memory buffer. Up to this point it is just a data, that can be verified by the checksum. Music starts when timing is added. In case of S/Pdif it is done in computer but in case of asynchronous USB it is done on the receiving end (DAC). Computer or data format cannot affect it unless big electrical noise can flip-up the bits that are being send (not likely). |
From the dBpoweramp site
"Compression affects how much effort goes into compressing the audio, all
compression modes give the same decoded audio (it is lossless after
all), the higher
compression levels will give a small % file size saving, but will
require more time to compress and decompress. Compression Level 0 requires the least compression
time, whilst Compression Level 8 the most. Uncompressed is a special compression mode with stores 16 bit audio in an uncompressed state."
So, uncompressed sounds like the best for 16 bit data, although I have never tried it.
No experience with EZ CD Audio Converter.
|
I personally would feel more comfortable converting FLAC to WAV and then use that file to burn a CDROM. I would recommend DBpoweramp. I dont use CD's anymore myself because I can reduce the jitter more by using computer playback. If you rip to CDROM, I would recommend Mitsui Master Gold disk.
Steve N. Empirical Audio |
NAIM Uniti rips to WAV only..maybe that is WHy they made that decision ( long ago)... they do seem to place a priority when voicing on bass drive.
One thing you may want to do is precise level match check with your FLAC to WAV comparisons including ripping some tones, the Stereophile test disc and or a tone generator might be a good starting point....as a thought.
cool thread and civil discussion..appreciated..
|
Steve (audioengr), given your response, would you go further to say that by extrapolation, one should convert FLAC to WAV prior to burning to CD (as opposed to letting the same CD burning software do the conversion)? Again, in my case I would convert the FLAC to WAV using Traders Little Helper and then burn using Ashampoo V6 (Windows 10). This would be opposed to not using Traders Little Helper and allowing Ashampoo to burn the FLACS to CD (as audio CDA files) directly. |
DTC waiting for your answer. Thanks
|
IF you have a resolving system (most think they do, but they don’t), you will hear this difference, PROVIDING that you are using a playback software such as Foobar, Jriver or Amarra on a PC or Mac and outputting via USB or S/PDIF. We can argue this until the cows come home, but its simply true. I don’t know why. I can speculate, but I have no proof. So, how can this problem be eliminated? Possibly by using a network server that eliminates the use of the audio stack in the computer or server. Possibly by purchasing a well-designed server like the Antipodes from New Zealand. I did this comparison at a trade show and it is the ONLY server I have used where the FLAC and WAV files sounded alike. I am not affiliated with the guys making Antipodes servers. BTW, I have made this comparison with AIFF, ALAC, FLAC, uncompressed FLAC and they all sound compromised compared to WAV. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
EZ CD Audio Converter has 0-Fastest, 5-Default, and 8-Smallest
dB Poweramp has Lossless Uncompressed, Lossless Level 0-Fast, and 8-Highest. Which one do I use?
|
You just use a conversion program or ripper that outputs a flac file. When you output flac there should be a compression option, with 0 as one of the options. The default is usually level 6. I would use JRiver, the player I use. I am pretty sure dBpoweramp does it also. Whenever you create a flac, you should have a 0 compression option.
Apart from this discussion, it is a nice way to use wav files but maintain the meta data capabilities of flac.
|
dtc how do you set up for zero flac compression?
|
The comparison between using the ERC-3 or the PC as a transport is, of course, not a good way to make the comparison. It sounds like you also compare the FLAC and WAV both played back from the same computer and using the same equipment. That is a valid comparison. If you are doing that, then you should be able to convert the flac to flac with zero compression as a test. You might also want to try a couple of different players, to verify that it is not some issue with the player.
This issue has been discussed hundreds of times. Some people say they hear a difference, most say they do not. If you near a difference, it is more likely to be an issue with your player or the PC than with just the format. That is one reason I suggested zero compression. It might also be interesting to try different compression levels, like 1,2,3 up to whatever you are currently using.
|
