Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Audible differences between WAV and FLAC?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audible differences between WAV and FLAC?

post #1 of 44
2/22/10 at 10:40pm
Thread Starter 
Since WAV is uncompressed, and FLAC is somewhat compressed, so there must be some quality difference... right?
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #2 of 44
2/22/10 at 10:56pm
No.

EDIT: Horrible poll options.
Reply
post #3 of 44
2/22/10 at 11:27pm
Look up the definition of "lossless" on your dictionary.

And yes, really terrible poll options.
Reply
post #4 of 44
2/22/10 at 11:43pm
I feel there is more audible difference between 16bit and 24bit.
Reply
post #5 of 44
2/23/10 at 12:17am
No difference(similar bitrate and bits per sample)
Reply
post #6 of 44
2/23/10 at 12:24am
I feel that FLAC sounds BETTER to me than WAV because the realization that I'm saving sweet, sweet storage space and have use of meta-tags sweetens the listening experience.

256kbps AAC sounds even better as I have the added knowledge that I'm saving battery life by reducing trips to the hard drive. This improved battery life translates to more music I might be able to play in one sitting, which is a marked improvement over the absence of sound I would otherwise experience.

I have similar opinions about 16 bit sounding better than 24 bit uncompressed audio, largely since 16 bit audio is a reminder that I didn't bite on the fraud that was the Beatles 24 bit USB Apple, released without advance notice just 2 months after the Stereo Box Set. Also, the realization that the digital noise floor of 16 bit is STILL below the noise floor of analog tape from the 1960s makes me feel warm and giddy, psycoacoustically translating to a fuller, richer soundstage.
Reply
post #7 of 44
2/23/10 at 12:30am
A long time ago when I used Foobar with the ESI Juli@ soundcard, I thought I could hear a very slight difference between WAV and FLAC but I could never confirm this. If it is true, the only thing that could be responsible for it would be a lack of processing power or memory for the application. Lossless is lossless and there should be no difference. But now that I use a Transporter (which takes the computer out of the computer), I can hear no difference at all between WAV and FLAC, as it should be.
Reply
post #8 of 44
2/23/10 at 4:53am
Where's the option for "there is no difference"?

strange options indeed
Reply
post #9 of 44
2/23/10 at 3:55pm
Yeah, I also find the poll options just not suitable.
In specific, I am missing a "No difference, as in 100% identical" option.
Reply
post #10 of 44
2/23/10 at 4:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Doug View Post
Where's the option for "there is no difference"?

strange options indeed
Agreed
Reply
post #11 of 44
2/23/10 at 4:30pm
I think 3602 intended this as a humorous thread, but I'm not sure.

I have met people who explain to me with a straight face that there is no such thing as lossless, and any reduction in data will reduce in degredation of sound. Once I brought up the question of if putting office documents into a ZIP file degraded picture or textual quality, and someone in this camp actually insisted that the ZIP algorithm systematically applies lossy compression to any and all pictures in a document, thereby reducing size. Once I couldn't categorically "prove" that this wasn't happening, the argument died off, with them declaring themselves the winner.
Reply
post #12 of 44
2/23/10 at 4:55pm
You should've asked them if there's any loss in data between saying 7 a thousand times and saying "7 a thousand times".
Reply
post #13 of 44
2/23/10 at 5:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0dhi View Post
You should've asked them if there's any loss in data between saying 7 a thousand times and saying "7 a thousand times".
The actual example I used was the following:

Source material:

This hamburger tastes really, really, really, really, fantasically good. This hamburger is so, very, very awesome.

Lossless compression:

This hamburger(HBR) tastes reallyX4, fantastically good. This HBR is so veryX2 awesome.

Lossy compression.

This hamburger tastes great.
Reply
post #14 of 44
2/23/10 at 9:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by danroche View Post
The actual example I used was the following:

Source material:

This hamburger tastes really, really, really, really, fantasically good. This hamburger is so, very, very awesome.

Lossless compression:

This hamburger(HBR) tastes reallyX4, fantastically good. This HBR is so veryX2 awesome.

Lossy compression.

This hamburger tastes great.
thats deep dude
Reply
post #15 of 44
2/24/10 at 12:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvaffles View Post
thats deep dude
It is. Indeed. The person I was speaking with was a stoner so I figured this was my best way to reach him.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Audible differences between WAV and FLAC?