which is better? flac or wav?
Nov 11, 2009 at 6:30 PM Post #18 of 33
Quote:

Originally Posted by Justice Strike /img/forum/go_quote.gif
if you have the space... wav. less processing power needed. you can store metadata in a text file if you need it so badly.


..are you actually serious or attempting to make a joke?
 
Nov 13, 2009 at 6:41 AM Post #19 of 33
Wav + NO cue files. What is little known is that the seeking feature of all audio formats is broken. Since the previous notes are unplayed when you start in a middle of an audio file, the followng seconds show an audible distortion if you have good ears. If you have golden ears, you can even notice that minute effect for 1 minute approximately. Using flac, this distortion is even more audible since it's a compressed format and it can be heard for 5 minutes.

So, not only you have to listen to wav, but listen from the beginning of the album, otherwise sound quality WILL be compromised. if you really need metadata, use the CD or a separate text file. Morover, don't forget not to exceed 8 characters filenames. and place the files at the root of C:, the shorter path will make the files easier to access for the player, leading to a greater fluidity and liquidity of the sound.

Those advice were provided by an experienced engineer in audio hardware (cable specialist) and they changed my music, since using them, the sibilance problems I had with the HD 800 totally disappeared.
 
Nov 13, 2009 at 6:58 AM Post #20 of 33
Quote:

Originally Posted by khaos974 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Wav + NO cue files. What is little known is that the seeking feature of all audio formats is broken. Since the previous notes are unplayed when you start in a middle of an audio file, the followng seconds show an audible distortion if you have good ears. If you have golden ears, you can even notice that minute effect for 1 minute approximately. Using flac, this distortion is even more audible since it's a compressed format and it can be heard for 5 minutes.


lol? Digital music is 1s and 0s. It doesnt get "distorted" from a simple seek feature, let alone for five minutes. Midi signals dont play notes that start before the position you seek to because of the way it works, but a PCM signal will play everything from that moment onward.

If you are talking about the sounds from before affecting the new sounds outside of the headphones/data stream then sure, why not. But it doesnt take 5 minutes for a 60 dB sound to become inaudible.

Flac is better because it takes less space. They sound the same.
 
Nov 13, 2009 at 7:28 AM Post #21 of 33
Quote:

Originally Posted by khaos974 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Wav + NO cue files. What is little known is that the seeking feature of all audio formats is broken. Since the previous notes are unplayed when you start in a middle of an audio file, the followng seconds show an audible distortion if you have good ears. If you have golden ears, you can even notice that minute effect for 1 minute approximately. Using flac, this distortion is even more audible since it's a compressed format and it can be heard for 5 minutes.

So, not only you have to listen to wav, but listen from the beginning of the album, otherwise sound quality WILL be compromised. if you really need metadata, use the CD or a separate text file. Morover, don't forget not to exceed 8 characters filenames. and place the files at the root of C:, the shorter path will make the files easier to access for the player, leading to a greater fluidity and liquidity of the sound.

Those advice were provided by an experienced engineer in audio hardware (cable specialist) and they changed my music, since using them, the sibilance problems I had with the HD 800 totally disappeared.


Another one using an abacus!

Bill
 
Nov 13, 2009 at 7:35 AM Post #22 of 33
I find it very frightening that people took what I said seriously when it was clearly a joke (my sig should have made it clear)
k701smile.gif
 
Nov 13, 2009 at 10:02 AM Post #23 of 33
OMG I lol'd
beyersmile.png


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif
WAV is better. It's more audiophile


 
Nov 13, 2009 at 12:37 PM Post #24 of 33
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif
WAV is better. It's more audiophile.

WAV is more bother and more difficult to manage because of fewer tagging options and larger files. The extra effort needed to manage a large library of WAV files keeps audiophiles always busy. The more work and esoterica there is the better it is for an audiophile.

The proper way to do WAV files is in a CUE file format. Only CUE files and you need to be very careful about how those CUE files are created. Some CUE file generators do it wrong and make bad CUE files. Only use media players that support CUE files. You must limit yourself to only those few players. Playing random music from playlists is out. Only full albums at a time from CUE files.


brilliant
tongue_smile.gif
 
Nov 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM Post #25 of 33
Quote:

Originally Posted by khaos974 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Wav + NO cue files. ... sibilance problems I had with the HD 800 totally disappeared.


hahaha this forums great ^_^
 
Nov 13, 2009 at 12:41 PM Post #26 of 33
Quote:

Originally Posted by khaos974 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I find it very frightening that people took waht I said seriously when it was clearly a joke (my sig should have made it clear)
k701smile.gif



well, it does make some sense for the first second. Same idea with bad compressed movie file: it gets blocky.
 
Nov 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM Post #27 of 33
Quote:

Originally Posted by khaos974 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I find it very frightening that people took what I said seriously when it was clearly a joke (my sig should have made it clear)
k701smile.gif



A smiley (
wink_face.gif
) might have helped to make the joke more visible.
wink.gif
 
Nov 13, 2009 at 4:45 PM Post #28 of 33
Any lossless format (FLAC, WM Lossless, APE, Apple Lossless) will be better for tagging, and about half the size of WAV files.

There is no advantage to WAV and there are disadvantages. WAV has a newly emerging "standard" for tagging, but DBPowerAMP and Windows Media Player handle it differently. It's a mess at this point.

The sound of WAV and lossless formats is identical. If you convert any lossless file back to WAV, it will be identical to the original WAV file.

Sorry about the unhelpful comments above.
 
Nov 13, 2009 at 11:50 PM Post #29 of 33
Quote:

Originally Posted by fenixdown110 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
OMG I lol'd
beyersmile.png



Oh dear!
eek.gif
 
Nov 14, 2009 at 4:50 AM Post #30 of 33
Some good lols in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by khaos974 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Wav + NO cue files. What is little known is that the seeking feature of all audio formats is broken. Since the previous notes are unplayed when you start in a middle of an audio file, the followng seconds show an audible distortion if you have good ears. If you have golden ears, you can even notice that minute effect for 1 minute approximately. Using flac, this distortion is even more audible since it's a compressed format and it can be heard for 5 minutes.

So, not only you have to listen to wav, but listen from the beginning of the album, otherwise sound quality WILL be compromised. if you really need metadata, use the CD or a separate text file. Morover, don't forget not to exceed 8 characters filenames. and place the files at the root of C:, the shorter path will make the files easier to access for the player, leading to a greater fluidity and liquidity of the sound.

Those advice were provided by an experienced engineer in audio hardware (cable specialist) and they changed my music, since using them, the sibilance problems I had with the HD 800 totally disappeared.


Haha I thought you were serious but woefully misinformed until the second paragraph when you mentioned 8 character filenames and C:\ then I knew it was a joke
tongue.gif


Anyhow, I am going to predict the future: that WAV will be 'sold' just like excessively high sampling frequency is 'sold' - to the deep pocket, uninformed and impressionable audiophile. Here's what I see...first off, it's easy to sell 'uncompressed' music even if it's the same as lossless, but think about it from audio company's perspective who might be selling some kind of HD-based playback device. HDs are really damn cheap but integrated in to a device the margins can be huge so they can price a device with more storage far out of proportion to the actual cost of the additional storage. WAV takes up a ton of space so people will be more ikely to get the larger devoces therefore more margins for the unscrupulous device makers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top