WAV versus FLAC

Thanks Mlsstl and Daverz. Good pointer to the link, Daverz. However, it is for the new SB Touch. I have a Transporter and a SB3. Do you know any sources that explain similar mods?

I really do not know what you are saying. The highest rate recording available that I can find and down load is 96hz/24bit at HDtracks.com. Second the disscussion is if there is a difference in the sound of flac and wav and if one sounds better the the other. Which I could hear none. As far as other kingdoms, I have no clue. Are you referring to real to real? which there is almost no softwear. Or some new digital format yet to come. Please enlighten me.

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

converted The smithereens version of "tommy" and Steely Dan's "Goucho" from flac 96KHZ/24bit to wav 96KHZ/24bit. These are two of the best sounding HD Tracks. Notice more then half the time flac had more bits(between 4-10). Do not know why. In any case after several back and forth switching and hard listening, I can honestly say, I heard NO difference. My system: Rockport Arrakis, VTL Siegfrieds mono amps and 7.5 11 pre amp, dcs debussy, silent music server using windows 7 and j rivers set up for pure bit. Cabling Jena labs Dreamdancer. Albums down loaded from HD Tracks. You can believe what you will. Also compared to vinyl. Sorry doubters, Vinyl is still King!

Almarg: Thank you for the warning. I am going to investigate it. Simon

One other comment on Squeezeboxserver - the version doesn't matter. For the common file types, those settings have been in that spot in previous versions for a long time.

Vett93, you'll find those settings by clicking on the "Settings" link at the bottom right of the Squeezeboxserver web page. That will open up a new page for Server Settings.

Click on the "Advanced" tab and change the dropdown box to "File Types". You can change the stream format for each type of music file that SBS plays.

My only recommendation is to make a note of the original settings before you change them in the event you wish to go back.

It's under

Advanced->File Types

in the server settings. I'm using SBS 7.5.3. See

http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com/2011/01/soundchecks-squeezebox-touch-toolbox-20.html

for this and other tweaks.

Daverz, how do you change the setting for sending WAV files? You mentioned the default was FLAC but you changed it to PCM. Where in the settings can you do that? What version of Squeezebox Server do you use?

Just finished a "shuffle play" test, 3 FLAC and 3 WAV files. To give the most difference between them, I set the Squeezebox server to send FLAC as FLAC to the player, but send WAV as PCM (default is to also send WAV as FLAC). So the player has to decompress the FLAC stream but not the stream from the WAV file.

The Squeezebox Touch feeds a Neko D-100 DAC. All cabling is Monoprice premium XLR cables. See my system for the rest of the equipment.

My test file is one I use often for auditioning equipment, the first track from Lyrita 247 (Redbook CD), Boult conducts Moeran, a track I'm very familiar with.

I couldn't identify any differences. I just guessed, and my guesses were mostly wrong. A real test would involve a variety of music and more runs, but this is already getting pretty boring.

Simontju 02-03-11: I did my "fun" experiment using relatively powerful CPU - Intel Core i7 950 3.06GHz (Quad Core), ASUS Rampage III motherboard with SATA3, 12 GBytes of RAM and a SATA3 Hard Drive etc - hardly a typical "slow" computer having audible problem in FLAC processing.....

Simon, if by any chance you have your SATA3 hard drive connected to the Marvell 6gbps SATA3 controller on your motherboard, be aware that that controller tends to be highly erratic, based on my experience and many other experiences which have been reported on the net.

I obviously can't say that that was the reason for your findings, but I certainly would not rule out the possibility. I suggest that you look at the Windows Event Viewer, and see if there are a large number of errors indicated that might be hard drive related.

A few months ago I built a computer which also uses an Asus X58 board (the Sabertooth), and the same i7-950 cpu you are using. I initially connected the SATA3 SSD I am using as the "c" drive to a Marvell 6gbps SATA3 port. After spending several days trying unsuccessfully to troubleshoot enormous numbers of errors indicated in Event Viewer, and frequent bsod's and crashes, I switched the SSD to an Intel 3gbps port, and the computer has been rock solid ever since.

If your audio file was located on your "c" drive, and if that drive was connected to a 6gbps port, keep in mind that while you were listening this issue could have affected not only the reading of the audio data from the drive, but the operation of Windows and your audio program as well.

Regards,
-- Al

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

Sorry, Ted, I think I misread:

Computers? They'll be the death of ALL of us. \\

Now, If I could just figure out how to get my AirPort Express to cooperate........

Daverz, I wasn't suggesting that people conduct their experiments for others. In light of the diversity of opinion on this subject, there is only one person who needs to be satisfied with respect to any given system.

And, Ted, for the most part these "debates" have all the endearing qualities of two high schools guys in the 1950s having a Ford vs Chevy argument.

Whether direct or implied, the old "there must be something second class about you or your system if you don't agree with me" gets a bit tedious over time. Hence my suggestion that people figure out what works for them instead of relying on a popular vote.

I'll shut up and retreat to my proper place now...

;-)

" ...the quality with FLAC (and other lossless formats) greatly varies on different computer configurations. So it looks like it is indeed a computer issue"

Hmmmmmm, I did my "fun" experiment using relatively powerful CPU - Intel Core i7 950 3.06GHz (Quad Core), ASUS Rampage III motherboard with SATA3, 12 GBytes of RAM and a SATA3 Hard Drive etc - hardly a typical "slow" computer having audible problem in FLAC processing.....

Of course, very obviously that problem lies not with bit-by-bit file but with hardware and/or software involved or may be satan involvment.

While, I "ripped" using EAC, the payback was Media Monkey
-----------------------

" some, like Simo, above hear it regularly enough to ID file types...or at least tell the difference."

Oh no dear. I don;t have music server yet. Just I read so much that FLAC and WAV sound (or should sound) identical that the statement of contrary from the highly respectable professional audio engineer "forced" me to post original question - just curiocity, nothing more -this why this forum exist.

This small experiment of mine was 10 minutes - one time shot test using my working computer NOT regular listening to music from server (as I don;t have one) and for fun only.

I, personally attribute the difference I very clearly observed to my 12 years education as the professional pianist as well as blind nature of testing with... 100% accuracy.

Speaking about nature of testing - PLEASE, do your testing BLINDLY only BLINDLY and BLINDLY only

Yes Magfan, my post was supporting you. That's ok, right? :)

Mlsstl, I agree that these debates need to stay reasonable, but will disagree that just because they are debates that they are "pleas for approval". (I don't really care what others listen to, I just know I like WAV better when it comes to my go-to hi-end rig.) i think reasonable debating is a good thing.

For those doing comparisons, the tests aren't very useful to others unless they include some info on your setup: software, transport, DAC, etc. (I haven't gotten around to my own tests, I'm just setting up Squeezebox server now so it will send WAV as PCM only.)

49 posts later we're back to the same point. Some are fine with FLAC and some aren't.

If people are concerned as to which is best for their particular situation, they should experiment and determine their own preference. Unlike many things in audio, this is a relatively simple experiment for anyone - play a song in FLAC and then play it in WAV - you'll hear what you hear. That may or may not match what someone else heard.

The other good thing is that if you choose FLAC and change your mind down the road, a batch conversion back to WAV is an option. (You can do the same going the other direction, but you'll have to tag the files.)

It is amazing at times how much people need the approval of others to like what they like. However, if one reviews this thread, the positive person will find thoughtful people in his camp no matter which he chooses. And, no matter which he chooses, a negative or nervous type will still fail to get a unanimous consensus.

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

Alex, do you use your PC to decode FLAC into PCM stream and then feed into the DAC? I need to understand how you set up your system to understand your claim better.

Isn't that what I said?
My experiment would confirm it is the processing / conversion, not the file.

All the lossless files 'decode' to the same parent file, but HOW it happens is the difference.

That's what I've heard as the objection to USB as a feed to a DAC.

Magfan
Yes, those who measure files or compare file structures are measuring the wrong thing, IMO. I don't believe there is one single debate that wav and FLAC (or AIFF, etc) are identical files. However, aren't they processed differently (i.e the FLAC or AIFF decoder or codec is different than the wav one)? It's there that the debate should be focused on. Hell, we have debate over digital cables, and clearly the ones and zeroes are identical...but the path they take, the envelope they ride along, the dielectric they encounter...are different...and to some people (wayyyyy more than hear the diffs between wav and FLAC) there is a debate. I don't have any answers, but I am theorizing, I am simply stating that if two DNA-identical twins ride along different paths, they may look different at the end of the journey.....and yet still be measured as having identical DNA. Their DNA measurements are moot and not in question; their ride experiences are what's important.

I just had an idea, so bear with me.

First, people hear differences between file types, and some, like Simo, above hear it regularly enough to ID file types...or at least tell the difference.

However, this is testing the computer as much as the file type since each file type must be 'decoded' or whatever it's called.

A test?

Record a couple songs in FLAC, ALAC, WAV, whatever else. The brain trust tells me that FLAC and ALAC can reconstruct the original bitstream so they SHOULD sound alike, right? But NO!

I'd say to take the songs recorded in all those formats and change them all back to ANY format. I'll bet the differences will disappear. I think this means the difference is how the computer turns the file back into music, not the file itself?

For what its worth, I used EAC and ripped Williams SeaSymphony - TELARC: firstly in WAV format and then in FLAC format in two separate folders

On one hand I use low fidelity computer audio...so my results may be dubious

On other hand - After I listen to these a few times, I asked my wife to go beteen file#1 and file#2 and "click" and I was listening BLINDLY

Results: from 9 trials I indentified WAV and FLAC correctly 9 times and it was rather easy as each has its own unique sonic characteristic.

I cannot say which one is "better": WAV was warmer but softer and FLAC was crisper but not bright and with better PRAT factor. If this is true "forever" then probaply WAV is better for solos such as female voice and small ansembles and FLAC is better for symphonic music...

its not definite experiment but its was fun, please do not take it seriously.

Hello,

What about wma Pro Lossless with redbook? Rounder and warmer, not as edgy as flac. Some say it sounds as good or better than wav when upsampled to 96hz.

Jean

Which cables mask the differences? Do I need silver wire?

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

Daverz said it best.

Ted,

Pardon my smart-A, "...they are, in fact, compression methods..." response.

I need to get a slew of various formats lined up and just run through them and *really* listen, even if just for the pure heck of it; I'm curious to see if I can discern, or if my system, for that matter, can discern/resolve any difference, whatsoever... In the end, though, I doubting anything will surface. We shall see.

Cheers.

It seems to be it should be easy to do blind testing in this case. Just load up some music in WAV and FLAC format and hit shuffle play. Make a note of your impressions, and only check the playlist when you're done.

I think people are just imagining these differences. That's only an insult if you take your subjective impressions of sound way too seriously.

Ballwho, sorry, brain fart. Of course MP3 is compressed. i read it wrong that you were saying all lossless is uncompressed, which it isn't. FLAC and others exist as losslees and compressed. Nuff said.

I realize you can;t explain it; I haven't heard a good explanation other than some malady with decompression, which still seems to be an innocuously small amount of processing to produce sonic differences with the same ulitmate data.. But very many of us hear the differences. There have been mounds of forum responses about it. It's not a new debate.

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

Let me add that MP3, AAC, FLAC, WMA, and Apple Lossless are all compression methods, but when *de*compressed, FLAC, WMA and Apple Lossless end up being the same bit rate as an *un*compressed WAV file... Hence "uncompressed is lossless is uncompressed"... Hence they *should* result in an identical sound (and do to my ears, at least).

Sorry folks, I suppose I'm just sick of the veritable splitting-of-hairs about something like a lossless file format. And no, Tedmbrady, MP3 and AAC are not uncompressed; they are, in fact, compression methods. And yes, both are quite lossy. When I said "uncompressed" I was alluding to WAV files. And when it all comes down to it, FLAC, WMA, and Apple Lossless get decompressed to result in the same bit rate as a WAV file...hence an identical sound. If you're hearing differences in sound between these various formats, I can't explain it.

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?

I'm on a Mac and use Max software to do those kinds of conversions. It seems you are on a PC, in which case Media Monkey should do a fine job converting FLAC to WAV (or anything else). EAC would be a good solution.

That said, I just took your suggestion, Alex, and ripped three files of a well recorded piano piece. I took the first cut from, Bach on a Steinway, and tried three different rips (none are conversions these are all direct rips from the CD). The first was a rip via iTunes to Macs uncompressed format, AIFF. The next rip was via Max to FLAC. Finally I ripped the same cut to WAV using Max. With the iTunes rip "Error Correction" was on. With the Max rips, the much more vigorous "CD Paranoia" error correction was set to "Full Paranoia". Those rips took much longer than the iTunes rip did. I listened via headphones since that would seem to really pronounce any differences pretty unmistakably. I thought the WAV and FLAC ripped with Max sounded a bit better than the AIFF via iTunes but I could not say for sure that I could identify those two every time. I did not believe I was hearing any difference between the WAV and FLAC ripped with Max. YMMV, of course. I'll try it with some other files and if the results are different I'll chime in again.

Ballywho, what? Mp3 is uncompressed! AAC is uncompressed? Both are quite lossy! Not everything uncompressed is lossless; not everything lossless is uncompressed.

I agree 100% with Alex Peychev; to me WAV has that "live" sound that AIFF or FLAC just doesn't convey. Dunno why; I suspect the decoding is more than we think (at elast for FLAC) It's a curse, really, cuz WAV sucks as a metadata manager.

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

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

Uncompressed is lossless is uncompressed.

Yes that is some what my point. If there is a difference in the formats it will be at the extreme highend of the frequency. Not sure many of us really (myself included) here it anyway.

I guess my point is the difference is very small, and our systems (and ears) have much bigger issues.

I know my system does not put out anything above 17khz. With Sennhizer 650 headphones I hear to 19 but on my speakers it is dead after 17khz.

Why is the only difference in formats evident in the high end extremes? I've never heard that before. What are you basing that statement on?

The difference between your speakers and headphones, beyond the obvious limitations of the specific transducers, is one of isolation. Your speakers abilities are profoundly affected by the room, the contents, your seating position, etc. Those factors have no effect on headphones, which have a much greater degree of isolation. That's probably why they don't use speakers to test your hearing.

BTW Sennheiser HD650's are not known for their upper-end extension. In that region between 10-20khz they drop down severely just after 10khz averaging around -15db! At 19khz they are -10db.

Jax,
Yes that is some what my point. If there is a difference in the formats it will be at the extreme highend of the frequency. Not sure many of us really (myself included) here it anyway.

I guess my point is the difference is very small, and our systems (and ears) have much bigger issues.

I know my system does not put out anything above 17khz. With Sennhizer 650 headphones I hear to 19 but on my speakers it is dead after 17khz.

I do not want an argument but I would test your ears and equipment before speaking about the last bit of air... follow the link and SORRY if it makes you sad....

I'm pretty sure you'd be the only one questioning Alex's equipment here.

On the test site you linked, I could hear 18khz but barely 19khz. I don't believe that is accurate as I don't think my hearing is quite that good as my ears have been around for five decades now. On previous tests (not from the site you linked) last year I could otherwise get to 17khz, and no further. So you are suggesting that because we loose some of our ability to hear the highest frequencies as we age that we are also no longer qualified to make judgments about how well as system/component delivers high-end information? That would probably leave the majority of the folks posting here, the majority of the staff at most of the rags (FWIW), as well as many of the most respected manufacturers of high-end gear at a tremendous loss.

Aplhifi,

You said "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. " I do not want an argument but I would test your ears and equipment before speaking about the last bit of air... follow the link and SORRY if it makes you sad....

Test tones from 8khz-22khz

Not this again, the person that said "The first is that any difference is due to the extra load placed on the processor in decoding the FLAC file." is right.

People that argue about the formats do not under stand how it works, it is just a different way of writing the information. An example is below.

Example:

WAV= 1111222233334444

FLAC= 1.4,2.4,3.4,4.4

Both say the same thing but you can already see how the FLAC file has a shorter word length and will be a smaller file. If FLAC or Apple Lossless do not sound the same as WAV on your system do not blame the file.

As an aside, AIFF DOES store metadata, which is why I considered it....basically WAV without the hassle.

Great first post Audiocin. Glad to have you aboard. How do you have your files set-up and what components are working well for you? I ask because I am about three weeks away from starting down this path myself. I have about 250GB backed up as FLAC files from EAC.

A question for Alex please. Where in your system is FLAC decoded?

Thanks.

I think audiocin's assessment is pretty accurate.

Hi...

Hope you guys don't mind if I chime in with my first post here.

The choice of file method is largely one of your software and hardware choices as well as the intended use of the files - Archival or Playback.

IMO, archival files should be stored in FLAC because of that format's ability to retain metadata embedded in the file as opposed to WAV or AIFF. Because it is open source, moreover, it is more likely to be supported far into the future than are the corporate formats (AIFF and WAV) that will be subject to larger handshake concerns of the two software concerns (Apple and MS). I would keep that arcival copy as a reference and to use to copy into the format of choice for listening.

For listening, I would choose the format that coincides with the OS that you are using. In other words, if your playback is through OS-X (Apple), I would choose AIFF (or Apple Lossless if you really prfer it over AIFF, but there are other issues with regard to Apple Lossless, IMO). If the OS of choice is Windows, I would choose WAV. If one is using Linux, I would choose FLAC. The reasons are related to handshake issues between the file and the OS, and you are more likely to get the true copy of the digital file played back through the operating system that the file format was developed for.

The sonic differences, as to the extent they exist, will be at the far margins, but apparent to those whose hobby it is to hear those differences. I will say, however, that the assertion that there is a difference remains controversial, but one hears what they hear and it is my experience that one does not hear a difference between a FLAC file converted into a WAV file played through Windows and a FLAC file converted into a AIFF file played through OS-X or a FLAC file played through Linux OS - that latter combination is what I believe the high end audio arena needs to move in order to detach themselves from dependence on Apple and MS.

On the other hand, I do believe there are sonic differences when one listens to a AIFF, FLAC and a WAV file played through one OS - meaning all three compared on an Apple or Windows machine. I think that is what many people are hearing. My hypothesis, again, is that this is related to the software handshake issues that may produce some timing and/or jitter issues.

That begs the question as to whether it is simply better to rip directly into AIFF or WAV (I would not recomend Apple Lossless as the codec of that file system has and continues to evolve) in terms of sound quality. As a bit is a bit, there is no informational difference in a file converted from FLAC to WAV or AIFF or ripped directly from a CD into WAV or AIFF. In other words, the files will be identical making sonic differences both theoretically and practically impossible - at least if one is using a script like dBpoweramp to convert files. And, again, I would use FLAC for the archival copy because of its ability to embed metadata and its theoretical support lifetime.

That is my take, anyway.

""As has been pointed out, WAV does not support metadata"

That would be a stroke in the - column for .wav then."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That the metadata is audible somehow?

"I use .wav because I believe it to be the most robust current standard overall. Robust meaning that it was the fewest issues doing what it is designed to do in teh most actual user cases."

No one has demonstrated that FLAC has any "issues".

I will not argue with anybodys observations based on what they hear.

I would ask though that when a clear difference is detected, it adds to the argument to also provide an explanation for why the observed results occurred.

"As has been pointed out, WAV does not support metadata"

That would be a stroke in the - column for .wav then.

I use .wav because I believe it to be the most robust current standard overall. Robust meaning that it was the fewest issues doing what it is designed to do in teh most actual user cases.

There is definite value in being able to retain the right metadata along with the audio content though as was pointed out. A factor worth considering, but not one that has anything to so with sound quality.