[krmathis]

..and the story goes on..

 

[chinesekiwi]

from FLAC official website:

Quote:

Why doesn't FLAC store all WAVE metadata? If flac compresses WAVE files, why isn't it technically a WAVE file compressor? (By default, flac does not store WAVE metadata, but it can with the --keep-foreign-metadata option described below.) FLAC is a general-purpose audio format, not just a compressed WAVE file format. There's a subtle difference. WAVE is a complicated standard; many kinds of data besides audio data can be put in it. FLAC's purpose is not to reproduce a WAVE file, including all the non-audio data that is in it, it is to losslessly compress the audio. However, if you really need to store the non-audio parts of a WAVE or AIFF file, you can use the --keep-foreign-metadata option to flac when encoding to store it in FLAC metadata, then use the option again when decoding to restore in to the decoded WAVE/AIFF file.

In other words FLAC = Audio section (all that's needed) of a WAV file.

The only difference sound wise would what software is used in the encoding and decoding. Otherwise, it is the same.

/end thread plz!

 

[Quaddy]

/\ on paper maybe i agree, but thats not my experience with it in reality. so no need to end thread, carry on as you are, there is indeed something in it.

most people cant decipher an audible difference is flac compression formats but some claim they can

does it really matter?

 

[Trogdor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaddy /img/forum/go_quote.gif most people cant decipher an audible difference is flac compression formats but some claim they can

People claim a lot of things, doesn't mean its true. There is no difference between FLAC and WAV. None.

To go even further, let's say whatever software you are using has a bug in it (hypothetically speaking) and you miss 1 or 2 bits every 50 megabytes, do you believe you can hear a difference? (if you can I'd like you to identify the spots where you hear the difference) Put it this way, if I play 320kbps mp3's do you still think you tell the difference?

People mostly like to convince themselves they can hear differences because it either validates some purchase they made or that they have superman hearing and can detect bits that have been dropped when to its just biologically impossible. Even though DBT is sorta a curse word to audiophiles, you'll find if you do one between FLAC vs WAV you are going to get it wrong!

 

[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaddy /img/forum/go_quote.gif /\ on paper maybe i agree, but thats not my experience with it in reality. so no need to end thread, carry on as you are, there is indeed something in it. most people cant decipher an audible difference is flac compression formats but some claim they can does it really matter?

"The only difference sound wise would what software is used in the encoding and decoding. Otherwise, it is the same."
That's the difference. Nothing to do with your equipment or your hearing.

This has less substance than 320kbps mp3 vs. lossless as it's lossless vs. another lossless codec. i.e. no information is cut out like with lossless vs. lossy.

That said, equipment goes into the equation far more in mp3 vs. lossless. e.g. with my Sansa Fuze, I cannot tell the difference on it with Vorbis at -q8 (256 kbps) and FLAC while on my home setup I can (the difference is minimal however but still noticeable). I can tell difference between Vorbis and mp3 easier than I can with Vorbis and FLAC.

 

[sxr71]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are you using a squeezebox by any chance? Back when I used to use one I noticed some differences which were fixed by having the slimserver [on my computer] decode the FLAC before sending it to the squeezebox as a WAV. I asked about this in the squeezebox forums and there were others who had found the same. Seems there is something wrong with the way that the squeezebox decodes FLAC. If not, I'd say that the others are correct that there is something wrong with the software you are using to playback the FLAC files.

Good info. Just changed all my SC settings to make PCM or AIFF the only transmitted formats. All decoding/transcoding is being performed on the server.

 

[sxr71]

Quote:

Originally Posted by progo /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's not technically foobar that decodes the file, but a plugin (run by foobar, but basically an independent program). If the plugin reads a number 453053 from the file but decides to send some other number to foobar (due to bad code, problems with the OS, something, anything), it's not working right and the results differ.

It's like saying that if you zipped a file and unzipped it that after you did that using Winzip that Winzip somehow screwed up the file and you can no longer open it in the application that opens it. That's what lossless is. The resulting file is IDENTICAL. There are checks in place to ensure that it is obviously. Considering FLAC of all things can be easily scrutinized by anybody in the world and we haven't heard of a situation where the resulting output from the FLAC plug-in is different in all the years of its existence I seriously doubt there are "Computer Programming 101: Intro to computer programming" type errors in the plug-in.

 

[LightZY]

From my personal listening experience with my speaker setup, I've heard some differences between .flac and .wav too.

Specifically, i personally find that .flac sounds "brighter / harsher" (whichever seems right to you) while .wav sounds more smooth / natural and instrument separations are indeed improved etc.

I can go on and on about what differences i heard but that would be useless.

Given a choice, i will clearly rip all my CDs to .wav instead of .flac however, that's just me.


On the side note, my source of playing audio for .wav / .flac is obviously a computer, using the "Lilith sound player" and "Minimalist audio player" having the leading edge.

Both of which are clearly superior to foobar in terms of sound quality ONLY.

However i would also like to point out that I'm on the X-Meridian soundcard and waiting for the ASUS essence stx as that would seem to be a cleaner source according to what I've read so far.


In conclusion, all of the above are just purely my humble views and opinions, no offense and chill out guys!

 

[Bradan]

actually, the oxygen content in the room also influences the sound, and the moon's position, and whether I'm happy or grumpy. Seriously I says so. It's true.

 

[ChaseD13]

Honestly every time i see this thread it angers me. This isnt something up for debate folks. Flac = Wav every time. You might hear a difference, but that would mean there's something wrong with your ears, not the format.

This is worse than discussing cables etc (though digital cables shouldn't matter) which are analogue so there is atleast a difference in the signal caused by material.

10011 is 10011 every time. I don't mean to come off harsh, but there is no difference between the formats. Mp3 vs flac is valid- there is actually a difference to measure (our ears/ equipment may or may not be able to show it, but at least there is something to look at)

Like other users have said, flac functions like a .zip file (though the non audio data can change, but sound bits are exact). If .zip wasnt exactly the same nothing you have downloaded in that format would work. Programs need all of their bytes- you dont get a shrill program, it either works or it doesnt. This has long ago been perfected.

And also, no computer running windows 95 or higher should have ANY problem playing back flac (some say it may be hard to decode), and if it was having trouble, it would skip, it wouldnt sound just a little harsher. You would immediately see that your computer is lagging because of it and things would freeze.

This thread is misleading and should be LOCKED. There's a point where placebo needs to be called placebo because thousands of knowledge seeking users visit this site and say to themselves... "hmm, maybe i should keep all my music in .wav and use twice the hdd space as .flac because these knowledgeable people say it sounds better".

Conclusion- The format .flac is 100% = .wav 100% of the time. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Please stop discussing this... go debate mp3 vs aac vs flac. Or the benefits of different lossless formats (like tagging capabilities and compatibility with players and software). Stay away from this one...it's spreading fals information.

 

[LightZY]

Actually, IMHO i don't think any 2 files/formats will be 100.0% exactly the same if not why even produce .flac or .wav in the first place.

However, if anyone claims that they hear no audible differences between .flac or .wav, so be it. Nobody is here to prove you wrong.

All i can say is that i, with my setup and ears, hear a slight difference.

At the same time, i can also bring into the equation of the entire audio setup being revealing and stuff but i don't wanna open a can of worms/start a flame war. Besides, my setup isn't revealing at all but i still hear a difference, YMMV.

After going through and re-ripping some of my CDs into .flac and .wav using EAC, i still prefer .wav.

 

[scytheavatar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LightZY /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, IMHO i don't think any 2 files/formats will be 100.0% exactly the same if not why even produce .flac or .wav in the first place. However, if anyone claims that they hear no audible differences between .flac or .wav, so be it. Nobody is here to prove you wrong. All i can say is that i, with my setup and ears, hear a slight difference. At the same time, i can also bring into the equation of the entire audio setup being revealing and stuff but i don't wanna open a can of worms/start a flame war. Besides, my setup isn't revealing at all but i still hear a difference, YMMV. After going through and re-ripping some of my CDs into .flac and .wav using EAC, i still prefer .wav.

And what we are trying to tell you is that it's all in your head, you are hearing the differences because you are telling yourself that there's a difference. Logically, computer scientifically, there's no difference between flac and wav. WAV stores a lot of data that has nothing to do with what you hear. FLAC reproduces all of what you hear in WAV, 100%, without any lost. There's no YMMV because the only way you can hear the difference between flac and wav is if 1+1=3.

 

[LightZY]

Okay. I just use what i think is best for me that's all.

 

[ford2]

If Wav sounds better than Flac to an individual then so be it,let them enjoy there WAV files.
It would be a poor world if everyone has to have FLAC just because a few say its the best.
As for the file size mattering in this day of 2TB drives,well make up your own minds.
And as for tags,who needs them.
If you are happy with WAV then good on you,enjoy.
There is so much C--P splashed around about audio that it detracts from the enjoyment of the music.
I have a relic at home in the shape of some Realistic novas,with there 8ohm speakers,
attach them to a good source and they start to sound reasonable,far better than the experts say they could be.
To each there own.

 

[iriverdude]

Quote:

And as for tags,who needs them.

Erm any application which uses tags to build database? Winamp, Rockbox, Slim Center all use Tags in filenames. Even if I browse by folder, I would need .cue file for each album. I haven't figured how to do this in EAC automatically. Yet EAC rips and tags automatically. Also if using WAV for DAP even less storage since it has 38GB HD, and will also use more battery power due to HD spinning up 60% more frequently.

Quote:

As for the file size mattering in this day of 2TB drives,well make up your own minds.

Not only are WAV larger but if you have a backup copy then that's 60% bigger also. So if you want to pay the extra £140 for the same amount of music storage go right ahead.

I can't think of any reasons choosing WAV, except if you're a bit misinformed thinking because it's smaller it must have worse sound quality.