[gregorio]

My point was not to dispute the “bit perfectness” of FLAC nor to start an endless drill down on codecs but to rather state my observations that FLAC can be perceived differently (given certain circumstances/equipment) when played back in real time.

That is impossible because as explained, a FLAC file cannot be “played back”, it has to be converted (decoded) into the exact same PCM data as was in the WAV file. Therefore, if you are perceiving a FLAC file as different, it must be a failure of your perception because you are perceiving a difference where there is none (except in the extremely unlikely event your device is seriously broken).

I don’t think the equipment has to be “seriously broken” as much as not being designed for great sound reproduction.

It has nothing to do with sound reproduction, “great” or otherwise, the ONLY question is if your device has the computational capacity to decode the FLAC back into the PCM data. If it does, then the “sound reproduction“ must be identical to the WAV as it’s the identical data. If it doesn’t, then your device must be seriously broken because it has only a fraction of the computational capacity of a cheap consumer device from 25 years ago.

G

 

[sygnus21]

I think too many deep-dive to the point of paralysis - as the saying goes... paralysis through analysis.

WAV is no better than FLAC sound wise. FLAC is no worse than WAV sound wise. Neither overly tasks your PC.

Don't get caught up with the "golden ears" brigade because unless you're listening to exactly what they're listening with the exact setup/gear you'll be chasing ghosts.

Understand the quality of your system.... Not everyone has a 20-thousand-dollar system which might be able to eke out the most minute details less "premium" systems can't.

Deep diving will do nothing but confuse and paralyze. Keeping it simple will allow you to spend more time enjoying your music rather than obsessing over theory.

Me, I rip my CDs in, or download (buying music) in... FLAC. My PC doesn't slow. No metadata (tagging) issues (including artwork. The sound is CD quality.

Despite what many say, most will not be able to tell the difference between a WAV file and uncompressed (same size as WAV) FLAC File in a true blind test administered by an outsider where you listen to a 30-second snip of the same piece of music from 3 formats - CD, WAV, and FLAC ripped from said CD. Here you are asked to identify the WAV and FLAC file? I'm betting an 80+ percent failure rate. It's easy to hear or not hear a difference when you know what files are playing; it's another to hear or not hear a difference when the formats are unknown.

My two cents.

 

[gregorio]

Don't get caught up with the "golden ears" brigade because unless you're listening to exactly what they're listening with the exact setup/gear you'll be chasing ghosts.

Even if “you're listening to exactly what they're listening with the exact setup/gear” you’ll still be chasing ghosts, because there’s no difference to hear.

Understand the quality of your system.... Not everyone has a 20-thousand-dollar system which might be able to eke out the most minute details less "premium" systems can't.

Some of us have systems costing vastly more than $20k. I’m not sure why you think that would make a difference though, do you think a $20+ system will reproduce a difference in “the most minute details” where no difference exists?

Deep diving will do nothing but confuse and paralyze.

Professional sound/music engineers spend almost all their working days “deep diving” into “the most minute details” (using systems way in excess of $20k), are they/we therefore permanently confused and paralysed? lol

Despite what many say, most will not be able to tell the difference between a WAV file and uncompressed (same size as WAV) FLAC File in a true blind test administered by an outsider where you listen to a 30-second snip of the same piece of music from 3 formats - CD, WAV, and FLAC ripped from said CD. Here you are asked to identify the WAV and FLAC file? I'm betting an 80+ percent failure rate.

The actual percent failure rate is 50%, as is the success rate. IE. The same as just random chance/guessing, because there is no difference to hear.

G

 

[sygnus21]

Even if “you're listening to exactly what they're listening with the exact setup/gear” you’ll still be chasing ghosts, because there’s no difference to hear.

Some of us have systems costing vastly more than $20k. I’m not sure why you think that would make a difference though, do you think a $20+ system will reproduce a difference in “the most minute details” where no difference exists?

Professional sound/music engineers spend almost all their working days “deep diving” into “the most minute details” (using systems way in excess of $20k), are they/we therefore permanently confused and paralysed? lol

The actual percent failure rate is 50%, as is the success rate. IE. The same as just random chance/guessing, because there is no difference to hear.

G

I said what I said as I gave "my opinion" on a very "subjective" topic. I stand by it.

With that, and to not debate this for the next 20 pages in trying to prove who's right or wrong on a "subjective" topic, I'll move on. Again... standing by my comments.

Peace

 

[gregorio]

I said what I said as I gave "my opinion" on a very "subjective" topic. I stand by it.

It is not subjective in the slightest, let alone “very subjective”! FLAC is a mathematical algorithm and WAV is a container format for purely objective digital data, so it’s hard to imagine anything less subjective! Do you think that 1+1=2 is also “a very subjective topic”?

With that, and to not debate this for the next 20 pages in trying to prove who's right or wrong on a "subjective" topic, I'll move on.

Again, it is NOT a subjective topic! The audiophile world can be bizarre, so many just seem to make-up and post complete nonsense and then when called out, falsely claim it’s “subjective“ and they’re not going to argue about it. What’s bizarre is that there could be any discussion about “trying to prove who’s right or wrong” about proven mathematical algorithms, that 1+1=2 or that all the world’s professional sound and music engineers are almost permanently “confused and paralysed“!

G

 

[sygnus21]

I stand by what I said.... subjective topic. Period.

And it's rather apparent you didn't "read" my post. Reading words, and comprehending sentences are two different things.

Later.

 

[gregorio]

“Do you think that 1+1=2 is also “a very subjective topic”?”

I stand by what I said.... subjective topic. Period.

Got it, thanks. lol

G

 

[Ryokan]

Glad I can't hear a difference between Flac and WAV because the files are massive, around 1GB an album. And they're the same thing.

 

[tjl5709]

I didn't see it mentioned, but WAV does not have tags to identify your file. It can be managed on a pc pretty easy, but on a DAP? Not so sure. For that reason, I went FLAC for my purposes.

 

[Roseval]

I didn't see it mentioned, but WAV does not have tags to identify your file. It can be managed on a pc pretty easy, but on a DAP? Not so sure. For that reason, I went FLAC for my purposes.

Sorry but this is not true.
The WAV standard supports tagging: https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/WAV_KB.htm
The problem is that this standard is badly implemented if implemented at all by a lot of media players. Indeed so bad a lot of people think WAV is not taggable at all!
This I call the WAV paradox, the support for the audio part is almost universal, the support for its tagging is haphazard.

As storage is cheap today, reducing file size using lossless compression is not that important anymore.
If you run a streaming audio service, the savings in bandwidth will be substantial compared with WAV.

I prefer FLAC

• Lossless
• Excellent tagging including custom tags and coverart
• Checksum stored in the file. This allows you to verify if the audio is corrupted.
• Plays gapless
• Plays on the major operating systems.

 

[Svperstar]

I ripped all of my music CDs to .APE high compression 20 years ago, It was for my Desktop PC and .APE files set to high were significantly smaller then .FLAC files. .APE requires more CPU to decode then .FLACE but its on Desktop so who cares?

For years I put 128k mp3 on my iPod, then phone. Then I redid them as 256k VBR mp3 when storage space got big enough.

Finally when I got my first 512 gig phone I copied over all the .APE files. The thing is tho since .APE takes WAY more CPU to decode then FLAC, its draining your phones battery. So I converted my .APE files to .FLAC

Also editors note. There was a time in the early 2000s that Linux/Open Source advocates tried to convince everyone to go with .OGG instead of MP3. I did some listening tests back then and on my Gilmore Lite -> Sennheiser HD580 .OGG just didn't sound as good at lower bitrates. At higher bitrates it was a wash but .OGG tended to be bigger at higher bitrates. That was 20 years ago I imagine its better now.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

FLAC is lossless. It's not the only lossless format but it is the best supported lossless format.

If you take a WAV and convert it to FLAC, and then convert the FLAC back to WAV, the original WAV and the one that went through the conversion are bitperfect identical. This is not a theory, I tested this. If you have Linux it's easy to do using ffmpeg command line.

Therefore, there is no good reason in most cases to save anything as WAV. It's bigger than the FLAC for no benefit.

Anybody who says they can hear the difference between WAV and FLAC is beyond help...

 

[sygnus21]

FLAC is lossless. It's not the only lossless format but it is the best supported lossless format.

Yep.

Therefore, there is no good reason in most cases to save anything as WAV. It's bigger than the FLAC for no benefit.

I rip in uncompressed (0 compression) FLAC, and they're the same size as WAV files.

Why do I run uncompressed? I just don't like compressed music files. Does it matter, probably not; but that's what I do. Also not worried about storage as I have plenty. I have about 2,700 full CDs ripped to my 12TB NAS, and the total of those files is 1.5 TB, so not worried about storage.

Anybody who says they can hear the difference between WAV and FLAC is beyond help...

I won't say that, but I do agree no difference.

 

[Jo-JS]

I think too many deep-dive to the point of paralysis - as the saying goes... paralysis through analysis.

WAV is no better than FLAC sound wise. FLAC is no worse than WAV sound wise. Neither overly tasks your PC.

Don't get caught up with the "golden ears" brigade because unless you're listening to exactly what they're listening with the exact setup/gear you'll be chasing ghosts.

Understand the quality of your system.... Not everyone has a 20-thousand-dollar system which might be able to eke out the most minute details less "premium" systems can't.

Deep diving will do nothing but confuse and paralyze. Keeping it simple will allow you to spend more time enjoying your music rather than obsessing over theory.

Me, I rip my CDs in, or download (buying music) in... FLAC. My PC doesn't slow. No metadata (tagging) issues (including artwork. The sound is CD quality.

Despite what many say, most will not be able to tell the difference between a WAV file and uncompressed (same size as WAV) FLAC File in a true blind test administered by an outsider where you listen to a 30-second snip of the same piece of music from 3 formats - CD, WAV, and FLAC ripped from said CD. Here you are asked to identify the WAV and FLAC file? I'm betting an 80+ percent failure rate. It's easy to hear or not hear a difference when you know what files are playing; it's another to hear or not hear a difference when the formats are unknown.

My two cents.

i agree and double dare someone to find difference between lv5 compression flac to uncompressed wav or flac