WAV versus FLAC

Alex, btw, sorry I couldn't come by that evening for a listen. I want to hear that DAC!!!

Sure, we can arrange something. We went for late night listening after dinner, sorry you couldn't make it! I am sure you'd have fallen in love. :-)

Best,
Alex Peychev

However, recently, I have heard from a person whose opinion I respect highly that sound from WAV files is "warmer" and that from FLAC files is "brighter".

I will have to agree with that person because to my ears and with my audio components I get the same result. And it does not matter what compression level is selected in the FLAC encoder.

IMO again, Monkey's Audio and Apple Lossless are superior and much closer to uncompressed WAV, but they still lack the top-end information (air) of uncompressed WAV which still sounds best to me.

Best,
Alex Peychev

In the case of flac versus .wav, I would expect if everything is working well, and the resolution of the files are the same, there should be no inherent difference in sound quality resulting from format alone....

Ok, I've done this experiment with at least 20 audiophiles and PCs ranging from Pentium 4 to Core i5 (laptops, desktops, Wi-Fi, USB, PCI, Squeeze Server, DB Power amp, Foobar, J. River Media Center, etc.), and they did not know what's playing (blind A-B test). Somehow they all preferred WAV. All had a hard time choosing between Monkey's and Apple lossless, and all disliked FLAC because, in their opinion, it sounds thin and with unnatural/mechanical top-end.

Interestingly enough, I've recently talked to someone who has a famous audiophile recording studio. He also dislikes FLAC because of the same above mentioned reasons.

If someone around here has the same experience and has a remedy, I’d be more than happy to experiment and report back. For now if lossless is a must, I am sticking with Monkey’s Audio, but that is only for not so good recorded material.

Best,
Alex Peychev

You need to rip using the right ripper (dbpoweramp).

Oh, sure! Please read my earlier post again, I did use dbpoweramp too.

By the same token I also compared heavily in AIFF, again, ZERO difference.

I am really happy for you!

Best,
Alex Peychev

Well, I did some research and turns out there are more people discussing this issue with FLAC because they also hear disadvantages against WAV.

There was a claim of more RAM and more processor power involved with FLAC decoding compared to WAV. So I ripped the same CD track to FLAC (compression level 5) and WAV and played one after the other while monitoring Windows resource monitor. In both cases (FLAC and WAV) the processor remained at 3-4% and RAM at 10-12MB, so the above claim is not true.

Anyway, the difference between FLAC and WAV is subtle but clearly audible (to my ears, in my system).
WAV has better decay (more air), better top and bottom extension; it overall sounds more natural. This is best audible with a well recorded piano material. Violins and large orchestra reveal it too.

There were suggestions of first extracting FLAC to WAV and then play it. I haven't tried that so far. Does anyone around here know a reasonable way of first converting FLAC to WAV before playback?

Best,
Alex Peychev

Please no offence to all; please take the following FWIW!

The difference between FLAC and WAV is subtle, but it is there, IMO, so it will be not easy to hear. For example, a cable can mask it to a point that is non-audible.

I am sorry if I have hurt the feelings of those who are perfectly content with FLAC (and for a good reason), but we are talking about the last bit of "naturalness" possible, in which case WAV is superior.

Best,
Alex Peychev

Vett93,

I use the PC to play/decode FLAC using JRMC. I feed my DAC-S via USB.

I think Magfan has a valid point because the quality with FLAC (and other lossless formats) greatly varies on different computer configurations. So it looks like it is indeed a computer issue.

I will do some more experiments this weekend and report back.

Best,
Alex Peychev

Hmmmmmm, I did my "fun" experiment using relatively powerful CPU - ....

Yes, you are absolutely correct, I take this back. To my ears, the brighter top-end of FLAC remains regardless of the PC.

To me, it seems like all lossless formats have problems with the top-end extension and "life", some more, some less.

I think I will be ending my "lossless" journey here; I am sticking to WAV!

Most important: Enjoy the music!

Best,
Alex Peychev

converted The smithereens version of "tommy" and Steely Dan's "Goucho" from flac 96KHZ/24bit to wav 96KHZ/24bit.

On a recent event featuring Yarlung Records, almost 50 audiophiles heard the difference between 44.1/16, 88.2/24 and 176.4/24. The latter was significantly superior. Also, experimenting with vinyl A/D conversion with different sample rates confirmed the same result; you really need to go 176.4/24 or 192/24 in order to capture the soul of vinyl, any lower sample rate is a “car copy”.

Sorry doubters, Vinyl is still King!

While this is true, there are other Kingdoms available against which the Vinyl King needs gathering a very serious army. :-)

Best,
Alex Peychev