[krmathis]

It's the same thing. Zilch, nada. Why are we wasting time discussing FLAC vs WAV again?

Because the TS posted this thread, asking the question?
Where he/she could "just" have performed a seacrh and read up on the numerous thread on the subject already out there

 

[eric0531]

Quote:

I say; save your brain a ton of effort and confusion and stick with WAV, keep it simple and lose all the rest.  That's my opinion and my response to the OP title.  And if someone doesn't like the comment, let me go militant and write, too bad.  

 
 

I think what a lot of us are confused about is exactly what effort and confusion you are referring to.
 
I use DB Power Amp to rip CDs, and it can save them as FLAC (or in my case ALAC) just as easily as WAVE, which is to say I don't have to do anything "extra" to make that happen.  With the tagging advantages of those formats over WAVE I can have my music fully tagged including cover art and saved in it's own directory structure automatically based on Artist & Album name.  With those files backed up to a network drive I can access that fully tagged music from any networked PC.  And should my computer ever die I can simply restore those files to my new computer, retaining all of that tag information, as opposed to having to re-rip everything (talk about a ton of effort!).  And as a side benefit I get all of the sound quality of WAVE files while using roughly half the disc space.
 
We get it, you like using WAVE.  No biggie, but you really aren't saving yourself any effort or confusion.

 

[Albedo]

Personally I prefer portability and WAV is a no go as it only stores about 1500 CD's on a 0.6 inches 1 TB HDD, that doesn't cut it and as some said no tags. With FLAC on the other hand I get tags and the whole collection with me when I travel.
 

 

[khaos974]

Where did you get that 1 TB 0.6 inches HDD, I want it, laptop HDD are 2.5" and have a max capacity of 750 GB currently I believe...

 

[beeman458]

Eric0531 wrote:
 
I think what a lot of us are confused about is exactly what effort and confusion you are referring to.
 
With all due respect, the answer is in your follow-up comment.  I got's no idea what you're writing of.  You're part of what's happening.  You probably grew up with what's happening.  Me, I'm a turn the computer on kinda guy and if it works, I'm good.  I have no reason to learn about this stuff, so therefore, I haven't a clue.  You, you've taken the time to learn this stuff cause you have need or desire to.  Makes a difference as to one's awareness.
 
We get it, you like using WAVE.  No biggie, but you really aren't saving yourself any effort or confusion.
 
Oh yeah.  Even though you don't realize it, I'm saving myself a boatload of effort and confusion.
 

 

[swmtnbiker]

Wow, what a pointless thread.

 

[Albedo]

Quote:

Where did you get that 1 TB 0.6 inches HDD, I want it, laptop HDD are 2.5" and have a max capacity of 750 GB currently I believe...

Right at the second I tried to convert the archaic measuring system of the Anglo-Saxons to common sense (rest of the world) measuring units, I see now that it was in reference to it's thickness. 2.5" are available in 1 TB, but few laptops can accommodate 12.5 mm thick HDD.
 
.. the meaning of life in general is...
 

Spoiler

 

 

[jschristian44]

i'd just burn with .wav instead of FLAC.  by the time one song in FLAC is halfway through, the .wav cd would have finished.  i tried both methods because i thought FLAC was better, but it took up way more space and the sound quality is the same.  unless you have $15,000 plus in equipment, you won't tell a difference.

 

[khaos974]

It's quite strange that you get this kind of result, he flac decoding speed on my laptop is around 200x playback speed, it's more limited by the speed of the USB liaison between my external HDD  and my computer than by processing power. Unless your CD burner can go beyond 200x, I don't see how there would be a speed difference between flac and wav. And I don't think you could hear a difference between falc and wav even with 100,000$+ equipment.
 
Quote:

i'd just burn with .wav instead of FLAC.  by the time one song in FLAC is halfway through, the .wav cd would have finished.  i tried both methods because i thought FLAC was better, but it took up way more space and the sound quality is the same.  unless you have $15,000 plus in equipment, you won't tell a difference.

 

[genclaymore]

Reason I use FLAC because it smaller then using them as Wavs, Sure HDs are cheap. But I have a magical Credit card with unlimited funds,Tho I would love if those existed.I can tell a diff between MP3s and Flacs, But not Wave and Flac.

 

[Audiophiliac]

I find that wav files sound more relaxing, and less noisy. I could turn the volume up more if I wanted. Furthermore, I tried playing them from a low powered usb stick instead of a mechanical drive, and have found the ultimate. You can get 1tb usb sticks now, which I will. They seemed to still have a problem with storage space back when this thread started.

 

[ZCrow]

Holy thread resurrection! Still the only difference is placebo. Even more so with modern computers.

That said, said if you feel you hear a difference then does it really matter? Whatever get's your toe tapping and heart thumping is what is real.

 

[Audiophiliac]

Holy thread resurrection! Still the only difference is placebo. Even more so with modern computers.

That said, said if you feel you hear a difference then does it really matter? Whatever get's your toe tapping and heart thumping is what is real.

It's not placebo, I can hear the difference, and recommendations for what sounds better is what this site is about. My toes tap more with uncompressed files, those aren't irritating.

 

[WiredGhost]

With the development of NAS and external HDDs, has the significance of choosing WAV over Flac diminished in this day and age when we have been freed from the curse of capacity?

No, it is not.

The increase in storage space and the number of music files that can be stored on it have increased Flac's presence.

The decisive difference is the convenience of tag management.

As was written more than a decade ago, Flac is lossless and both files, when properly expanded, subtract to zero. To claim that there is an audible difference between the two formats is unscientific and nonsensical.
If you really don't like Flac, it is possible to do dBpoweramp and not compress even Flac.

With the proliferation of streamers, Flac's tag-based song management has reached a point where it no longer makes sense to use WAV.

 

[m-i-c-k-e-y]

Well have an open mind test it for yourselves:

A Fool For You by Carmen Gomes Inc in FLAC 24/352
A Fool For You by Carmen Gomes Inc in WAV 24/352

From the publisher:
The song is called 'A Fool For You' and is performed by Carmen Gomes Inc.
It’s taken from the album 'Carmen Sings The Blues'.

http://soundliaison.com/studio-showcase-series/276-carmen-gomes-sings-the-blues

All the different formats have the same source file, DXD 352kHz (Studio Master).
We used the XiSRC app for the conversion to DSD and Steinberg Wavelab for the conversion to the other PCM formats and FLAC.

Multi-format Album is free: https://www.soundliaison.com/index.php/6-compare-formats