http://www.computeraudiophile.com/faq and https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=staticpage&pagename=faq#2 read what the experts say. do your research. to me flac is where you won't to be. Wav to flac to Wav to flac and back to Wav again, No change in data. It is the dac that makes the true differance here. Oh and the balance of your system. It aint vinyl but it is aproaching it. |
Everyone hears what they hear, and it's stupid to tell people what they do and do not hear. With that being said...
I've tried a bunch of different formats - WAV, FLAC, AIFF, and Apple Lossless. Couldn't hear a conistant difference between any of them. I had no loyalty to any format at the time. When I did hear a difference, I went back and forth a few times to make sure it wasn't imaginary. After doing so, I came to the conclusion that there wasn't any difference. I did this again a week or two ago with a few tracks. Same result.
My take on it is use the most convenient (ie less buggy) ripping, formatting and playing option.
I have 34 year old ears, slightly above average hearing, and a pretty resolving system However, neither is the last word in any of that. I state this because I've been told my hearing is bad and/or my system isn't resolving enough.
Just reporting what I hear. Can't tell you what you'll hear. |
Expectation bias isn't necessarily caused by a conscious bias, it could be a subconscious bias. It's not a character flaw, and I don't believe in supermen without any biases. So you have to have some way to rule it out. With computer playback it's easy to do blind testing, so maybe you did that.
I'd like to know a lot more about how the files are being played back and through what equipment. It could be a software issue, or possibly RFI (I'm thinking of direct playback from, for example, a laptop densely packed with electronics).
Assuming you're getting a correct and clean s/pdif stream to feed your DAC and still hear a difference, my guess would be that the different formats are producing different amounts of jitter, and your DAC has poor jitter rejection.
Me, I don't hear a difference, but then I don't expect to. ;)
I know that with the Squeezebox, you can choose to have files decoded to PCM on the server end rather than the player end (the default is to send FLAC across the line and decode on the player end). Some people report better sound
with decoding done on the server end. Supposedly, the extra work of decoding in the player causes jitter in the S/PDIF output. But that's just speculation. |
To Simontju - as you can see, there are a variety of opinions on this subject. Some don't like FLAC and some find it perfectly fine. It is clear that many in each group went to lengths to compare for themselves.
So we're back to the earlier comment. Experiment for yourself and find out which format you prefer. Then go for it! |
As has been pointed out, WAV does not support metadata. This makes it a royal PITA to deal with if you need to restore from a backup, or move files, or want to share files. I refuse to use WAV for this reason alone. As far as one sounding warmer and the other brighter, I have never heard anything remotely like that myself, and find it very hard to believe that it actually occurs this way (I do not find it hard to believe that someone believes that's what they're hearing though). My own experience is that file types don't make that much difference (if we are talking about full-resolution, uncompressed formats - AIFF vs WAV vs FLAC etc.). The same files ripped with different software have certainly sounded different to me on comparison, but I don't think it would be a warm vs. bright kind of difference. That's one for the tabloids I think. |
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 |
You need to rip using the right ripper (dbpoweramp). There is absolutely no difference between WAV and FLAC. I purposely bought a large hard drive to rip everything in WAV as I am a very fussy audiophile. I spent the better part of a month ripping the albums in WAV then FLAC, then did extensive, exhaustive comparisons between the two. Result, ZERO difference, no difference, zilch, nada, any other way I can say it? Anyone claiming anything different may know something I dont. I had no intention on using FLAC, but when doing the comparo, why fuss with WAV, it wont hold tags and uses more space, for what?
By the same token I also compared heavily in AIFF, again, ZERO difference. |
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, Id be more than happy to experiment and report back. For now if lossless is a must, I am sticking with Monkeys Audio, but that is only for not so good recorded material. Best, Alex Peychev |
It is possible that different software handles different file formats differently and the results are not exactly the same.
However if this were the case it would be the programming of the software used to produce or read the file formats that is different, and not the format, and the results could be different in each specific case regarding which is better or preferred.
Format does not assure sound quality. That is evident with records, tapes, CDs, you name it. Different versions of the same material in the same format sound different because of the way the recording is produced despite being all of the same format.
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. |
I wish to thank everybody who shared his or her aural observations as well as to these who shared with me their knowledge of the basics of engineering and psychology.
I cannot experiment (yet) as I do not have yet the music server - blame go to Alex with his extraordinary optical storage based front end I am 99.9% close to decision to get Diamond from Sonic Science - in moment Neal will let me know if he can implement some engineering "toys" I asked him to implement. I just want to enjoy HiRez downlaods and they take a space. I know a little about bits (other then that these bits bite sometimes) and eager to learn relevant info. Thank you |
Well,everyone hears what they hear. |
The placebo effect is the greatest enemy to the audiophile... |
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 |
FLAC is a lossless compression format. It is possible to hear differences between FLAC and WAV files when played because your computer is decompressing on the fly. But if you take a WAV file and make an SFV of it. Then convert the WAV to FLAC and back, the SFV will match. The file will sound the same when played. It is the exact same file. Different programs can also sound different while playing the exact same file.
Now two WAV files may sound different depending on the way they were created. Just because the file is a WAV or FLAC does not mean that it is lossless. It is the same thing on an Apple. It all depends on the way the file was created in the first place as to whether it is truly lossless or not.
|
There is no difference in the data between a FLAC and WAV file. The FLAC is a lossless compression format similar to Zip files, but designed for music.
If one is hearing a difference between the two formats, there are two possible issues.
The first is that any difference is due to the extra load placed on the processor in decoding the FLAC file.
The other possibility is the difference arises from subjective perception.
The more vocal adherents of each school of thought will try to pressure you into their camp - "anyone could hear the difference" or "your system isn't good enough" or "no one can measure a difference" and so on.
The key is to not worry what others think. Experiment for yourself - it is pretty simple in this case to stream FLAC and WAV files of the same song back-to-back. Once you've decided what works best for you, run with it and ignore the naysayers. |
The real test, in my opinion, isn't WAV vs. FLAC but rather WAV vs. WAV converted from FLAC. Would WAV converted from FLAC retain brightness? Would it gain warmth? |
From what I have read and experienced, there are definite differences in file types on high resolution systems. you really ought to try for yourself. Make wav copies off of some select files and put them into a playlist.
I am sure some are going to argue about this, but in my system (mac) I could readily tell the difference from ALAC, AIFF and .wav. Do not fall for the bits is bits diatribe. They shouldn't sound different, but they do for (yet) unknown reasons in system. It is not placebo or expectation bias either. I wish it weren't so, and I have not changed over as it will be a hassle. |
