[somestranger26]

Oh geez, why did you have to resurrect this thread? Tags have absolutely nothing to do with the audio stream section of the file, they are in the file headers usually and WAV files have file headers too, just not tags... Why don't you just accept that FLAC == WAV == LOSSLESS since you don't seem to have a modicum of understanding digital file formats.

 

[deepsix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by somestranger26 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why don't you just accept that FLAC == WAV == LOSSLESS since you don't seem to have a modicum of understanding digital file formats.

There seems to be a fair few doubters of the FLAC IS GOOD hivemind in this thread so I`ll reserve judgement.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsix /img/forum/go_quote.gif There seems to be a fair few doubters of the FLAC IS GOOD hivemind in this thread so I`ll reserve judgement.

Whether it's "good" or not is a different issue to whether it is any different in term of audio data. FLAC and WAV contain exactly the same audio data. That's a fact.

Whether they sound different is another story altogether. The difference in sound (if any) could not possibly be due to WAV containing different audio data. I can't say for certain that they do sound the same in all cases, but I can say for certain that if they do, it has nothing to do with one format having different audio data than the other.

 

[avid666]

I personally prefer monkeys audio to FLAC, although each has the same sound quality.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There are boards out there where one would be promptly shouted down for stating the fact that if lossless and WAV sound different, something is simply wrong. I lift my glass to the tolerance of sanity.

P

 

[Olev]

Quote:

Originally Posted by avid666 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I personally prefer monkeys audio to FLAC, although each has the same sound quality.

Jesus christ! THEY ARE BOTH LOSSLESS AUDIO FORMATS! IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU USE THE DATA IS THE SAME IN BOTH FLAC AND MONKEYS AUDIO AFTER DECOMPRESSION. THEY DO NOT LOSE A BIT IN AUDIO DATA.

Caps lock used on purpose.

 

[avid666]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olev /img/forum/go_quote.gif Jesus christ! THEY ARE BOTH LOSSLESS AUDIO FORMATS! IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU USE THE DATA IS THE SAME IN BOTH FLAC AND MONKEYS AUDIO AFTER DECOMPRESSION. THEY DO NOT LOSE A BIT IN AUDIO DATA. Caps lock used on purpose.

Where did I say one had better audio quality than the other? Please quote that part of my post. You can still make judgments on the 'goodness' of the codec based on speed of compression/decompression and the compression ratio achieved.

 

[leeperry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by avid666 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I personally prefer monkeys audio to FLAC, although each has the same sound quality.

yes, APE just compresses way better than FLAC...just like WV compresses 5.1 better than FLAC.

FLAC is pointless on a PC, waste of space!

 

[krmathis]

...and the discussion goes on..

When one talk about lossless it goes to the audio data. Meaning that the audio data of the source file is compressed and stored 100% intact, but it does not mean that all the content of the source file (metadata, ...) is 100% intact.

 

[El_Doug]

I've heard people say that ripping a CD track by track degrades the sound, when compared to ripping the entire CD as a single track. After hearing that, the argument that wav is somehow superior to FLAC doesnt phase me as much

I figure, if it gives these audiofools peace of mind, then perhaps in their heads the sound difference truly is real. Good for them.

 

[manaox2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif yes, APE just compresses way better than FLAC...just like WV compresses 5.1 better than FLAC. FLAC is pointless on a PC, waste of space!

It would not say it is pointless. FLAC decodes noticeably faster, supports multichannel and replay gain, is compatible with many more devices (I'm not even sure that APE has streaming support at all), and has error handling. If you have a non-dedicated computer as your music server, you may hear more decoding errors with APE when the computer goes under a load. For me, its not worth saving the extra 3% of space.

 

[fallsroad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by manaox2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Its would say it is pointless. It decodes noticeably faster, supports multichannel and replay gain, is compatible with many more devices (I'm not even sure that APE has streaming support at all), and has error handling. If you have a non-dedicated computer as your music server, you may hear more decoding errors with APE when the computer goes under a load. For me, its not worth saving the extra 3% of space.

APE at the highest compression settings also introduces a short lag when switching between tracks or jumping forward/back in the same track.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/de...ml#post5486824

 

[tosehee]

I can absolutely hear the difference between APE, FLAC, and WAV.

The wav is all smooth and great. I hear the occasional sound from the 'wave' colliding each other. As for FLAC, I hear the cheap harsh sound. The APE makes the monkey sound that disturbs me the most.

 

[El_Doug]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tosehee /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can absolutely hear the difference between APE, FLAC, and WAV. The wav is all smooth and great. I hear the occasional sound from the 'wave' colliding each other. As for FLAC, I hear the cheap harsh sound. The APE makes the monkey sound that disturbs me the most.

APE sounds better if you use banana colored interconnects

 

[leeperry]

yes, the "Extra High" and "Insane" compression APE levels are laggy when you seek, but "high" isn't and still compresses better than FLAC -8 IME.

I don't care for replay gain(I'm a bit-perfect kinda guy), neither do I care for error correction(are you sure FLAC carries ECC? anyway APE is bit-perfect...never had any glitch

) and WavPack compresses 5.1 better than FLAC.

anyway, FLAC is fine...just a waste of space for PC-only playback.