Latest Thread Images

Why not .Wav?
Sep 18, 2005 at 8:03 AM Post #46 of 59
Quote:

Originally Posted by grandenigma1
I have 2 300gig Western Digital HDs


Nice! I am running the Maxtor Maxline III 300gig 16 meg cache drive, maybe you have the same thing?

Fantastic HD, about the same speed as the Raptor but way more space and cheaper
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Sep 18, 2005 at 12:53 PM Post #48 of 59
Quote:

Originally Posted by jvs
BIG advantage of WAV: you can use any player! Now and in the future.


Why is that an advantage, when you can de-compress a lossless file to a bit-perfect copy of the original WAV?
 
Sep 18, 2005 at 2:39 PM Post #49 of 59
Quote:

Originally Posted by Loftprojection
...difference between files, cables and other fine tuning "audio artefacts". Just pretending that there are no difference between two cables can swing a hot debate but it's always been my opinion, by personnal experiences and by pure logic that there has to be a difference. If there was none, the companies would not be selling much. And please don't come back with the psychological issue. Yes, wav, flac or others might all sound the same if they are played with an ipod or a PC sound card with a few hundred $ headphone amp and a few hundred $ headphone. However, the same files played with a top end sound card over to a few thousand $ DAC, a few thousand $ amplifier and a pair of a few thousand $ speakers might well prove to sound at least a bit different!!!


This really did make laugh. I'm sorry dude. But holy crap, your faith in corporate pricing is scary.

FLAC and WAV are the same. Doesn't matter. In terms of decoding performance, still doesn't matter. Latency issues will cause gaps in the music but that's not what people are saying. They are claiming subtle differences such as better imaging or tonal balance. What? The same bit-for-bit stream sounds different. I don't think so.

As long as your source (notebook, computer, mp3 player) spews out a bit for bit perfect signal to your outboard DAC/amp/headphones, it doesn't make a different whether its a WAV file or FLAC file or any other loseless file.

Trogdor
 
Sep 18, 2005 at 3:18 PM Post #50 of 59
Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs
Why is that an advantage, when you can de-compress a lossless file to a bit-perfect copy of the original WAV?


Because you do not have to process thousands of songs from one lossless format to another if you decide for another player that does not support the lossless format of the one you used first.
 
Sep 18, 2005 at 5:45 PM Post #51 of 59
Quote:

Originally Posted by jvs
Because you do not have to process thousands of songs from one lossless format to another if you decide for another player that does not support the lossless format of the one you used first.


Sorry, but considering that the conversion can be done in a single step in Foobar, I just don't see that as a big factor in deciding between formats. I guess we can agree to disagree.
 
May 26, 2013 at 2:24 AM Post #56 of 59
I use WAV for all critical listening.  However, source quality is key.  I have CD's in which the recording is simply so poor that I can be just as happy with a classic 128kbps MP3, while I find others yield more detail in full-blown WAV format.
 
This thread is completely valid, but so many people on this board, including seasoned members, quickly forget the basics when it comes to audio.  EVERYONE HEARS DIFFERENTLY!
 
That said, anyone entering this thread to "inform" the OP that what he is hearing is all in his mind or that he can't possibly hear a difference should be ashamed of themselves.  This equates to suggesting that you have "golden ears" while the OP can't possibly hear as well as you do.
 
If you don't hear a difference between WAV and FLAC or WAV and 320kbps MP3's then simply state that, but don't tell the OP what he should or should not do, hear or otherwise.  It's all in presentation, and if you post in a belligerent manner in which you sound as if you're suggesting you know it all then obviously people are going to become defensive and even ignore you and your advice.
 
Personally, I find that storage-space is so easy to come by these days that I don't know why I would absolutely have to encode anything.  I don't keep everything in WAV because some music simply isn't recorded well enough for it to matter, and there is a lot of music which I rarely listen to because it's not my favorite so I don't find the need to keep it in WAV, etc.  If I'm putting music onto a media player then I do become concerned, but I keep the stuff I want to sound the best in WAV format while the rest gets 320kbps MP3 treatment or often 128kbps because systems outside my headphone rig aren't going to reveal anything important a lot of the time, anyway.
 
Happy listening!  :)
 
May 31, 2013 at 10:17 AM Post #57 of 59
I agree completely with you Logistics.
Very well said.
I also keep my files in that manner.
I even find that some poorly remastered old CD's(Ella Fitzgerald with Louis Armstrong i.e.)benefits from being compressed to mp3 format,probably because of the mindlessly automatically added
smile curve that so many mastering engineers use.
 
Jun 21, 2013 at 4:34 PM Post #59 of 59
Quote:
logistics said:
I use WAV for all critical listening.  However, source quality is key.  I have CD's in which the recording is simply so poor that I can be just as happy with a classic 128kbps MP3, while I find others yield more detail in full-blown WAV format.
 
This thread is completely valid, but so many people on this board, including seasoned members, quickly forget the basics when it comes to audio.  EVERYONE HEARS DIFFERENTLY!
 
That said, anyone entering this thread to "inform" the OP that what he is hearing is all in his mind or that he can't possibly hear a difference should be ashamed of themselves.  This equates to suggesting that you have "golden ears" while the OP can't possibly hear as well as you do.
 
If you don't hear a difference between WAV and FLAC or WAV and 320kbps MP3's then simply state that, but don't tell the OP what he should or should not do, hear or otherwise.  It's all in presentation, and if you post in a belligerent manner in which you sound as if you're suggesting you know it all then obviously people are going to become defensive and even ignore you and your advice.
 
Personally, I find that storage-space is so easy to come by these days that I don't know why I would absolutely have to encode anything.  I don't keep everything in WAV because some music simply isn't recorded well enough for it to matter, and there is a lot of music which I rarely listen to because it's not my favorite so I don't find the need to keep it in WAV, etc.  If I'm putting music onto a media player then I do become concerned, but I keep the stuff I want to sound the best in WAV format while the rest gets 320kbps MP3 treatment or often 128kbps because systems outside my headphone rig aren't going to reveal anything important a lot of the time, anyway.
 
Happy listening!  :)
Click to expand...

I have to say, I've been involved in audio for more years than I care to remember. I've had mid and high end CD transports, headphone amps, DACs, cables, you name it. Like Logistics, as late as yesterday I ripped a few FLAC files and listened carefully. I then ripped the same tracks in my usual WAV format and as usual I could detect a difference in the two files. Not a big difference but my ears hear detail in the WAV files that they don't hear with FLACs. As a result I have continue to keep all my files in WAV, despite not loving having most of my files in excess of 50MBs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top