[xxmastaxx]

This is a senseless question that confuses me. How does a FLAC audio compare to a WAV 24bit 96khz? Which is closer to CD Quality? My prediction are that there's no difference.

 

[KnightK]

Spot on. FLAC just compresses the data, but it's still all there. So, as long as the decoding is proper, they'll sound the same.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

FLAC is able to do 24-bit 96kHz audio just like WAV.  In fact, FLAC can do any bit depth from 4-bits to 32-bits and any sampling rate from 1 Hz to 655,350 Hz in 1 Hz increments.
 
As far as the computer code and audio data is concerned there is no difference between WAV and FLAC.  What gets spit out by the computer code to decode either format is exactly the same.

 

[pacobsd]

I wonder if there are extra clock cycles involved in processing the flac that would effect the rendered sound

 

[beeman458]

My opinion, HDD are big and cheap.
 
Less is more.  Just rip em WAV and enjoy.
 

 
 
 

 

[johangrb]

Nah -Flac is more usable with metadata options than WAV. 

 

[beeman458]

johangrb wrote:
 
Nah -Flac is more usable with metadata options than WAV.
 
I just listen to music.  Forgive my simplicity as I simply bring Windows Media Player up with all the metadata and options, right there for me to choose from.
 
???
 
I'm not knocking FLAC in the above comment.  It just seems that every time I turn around, folks are trying to make things more complicated then they need to be.
 
???
 
Must be one of those old man thingies as our generational mantre was; "Keep it simple stupid."  And today, all I see are people making simple, complicated.
 

 
???

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

I wonder if there are extra clock cycles involved in processing the flac that would effect the rendered sound

There are some who believe so.
I look at this through the eyes of a software developer.  Someone who knows what programming code does, what operating systems do, and the basics of what the hardware side of computers does.  To me there is no difference between FLAC and WAV.  What gets spit out by the audio processing code to decode either format is exactly the same.  If what is spit out is the same it will sound the same.
 
Could the extra load to decode FLAC cause difficulty on a limited device like a PMP that is underspeced and has a barely adequate CPU, barely adequate cache, and barely adequate DSP, yes.  If the device can't process the data fast enough there is going to be problems.  But for a modern PC, even something like a netbook, no.
 
If someone is concerned about a potential audible difference between FLAC and WAV they should first focus their attention on the rest of the computer and operating system.  The operating system and the drivers and other processes running are doing a lot more (a lot lot lot more) that can affect audio processing than processing difference between FLAC and WAV.  The operating system is doing a lot in the background.  The drivers (like the networking driver, video driver, audio driver, USB driver, and all of the other driver processes) are doing a lot in the background.  The operating system is doing a lot of CPU scheduling, thread scheduling, handling interrupts that stop everything in their tracks till the interrupt code finishes.  The CPU is doing funny optimizations and rearranging of code on the fly.  There is a lot of extra processing that is going on that completely dwarfs whatever processing difference there is between decoding FLAC and WAV.  The processing difference between FLAC and WAV becomes insignificant compared to what is going on as a whole with the OS.  There are also significant differences in CPUs now.  We've got single core, multi core, hyper-threading, different DSP processing built in, controllers that dynamically change the clock rate and power, controllers that dynamically turn off cores that aren't needed, etc. etc.  If you're concerned about WAV vs. FLAC you should be concerned about the CPU first cause that is going to have more of an affect.

 

[krmathis]

Neither.
As 24bit 96khz is far from CD quality in the first place

 

[beeman458]

If you're concerned about WAV vs. FLAC you should be concerned about the CPU first cause that is going to have more of an affect.
 
Yes, agreed, the whole computer thingy, my opinion, comes under the heading of a modern day miracle.  And in my case, FWIW, these issues were already addressed in the system at the time of it's assembly.  Win7, x64, AMD quad core, 8 gig memory, all on an ASUS MoBo with an ASUS STX sound card attached using an upgraded modular power supply unit supported by four HDD's for system software, media storage and back-up purposes via Norton "Ghost."  By ripping WAV, there's no compression to deal with such as is the case with FLAC and my opinion, with the HDD's being both so big and so cheap, there's no need to compress music files; keeping it simple.
 
There's nothing the end users can do about the above other than to purchase matched parts from notable companies.  In the case of music and music files, my opinion, it then comes down to keeping it as simple as one can.  By needlessly adding more music related software, you're needlessly adding more processing of the music file.  Not being a software developer, my understanding is to go with proprietary software as the insiders know their products and optimize their products to their products and the other products their products support as opposed to outside vendor, third party software adding another software layer.
 
Microsoft, ASUS and AMD (or Intel) are all in bed with each other as complimentary manufactures.  Once you step outside this trinity, you're asking for software problems.  Memory, same thing, name brand and matched sticks.  Go with name brand product line as they have the resources to test to the many different possibilities for conflict issues.  Again, doing it this way keeps product manufactures and software close to the vest regarding compatibility and conflict issues and keeps possible unknown conflicts to a minimum.
 
Same thing for the Blu-ray burner.  The Blu-ray burner is a Pioneer unit, a company with many decades worth of experience and the money for product development.  The point if you will, yes, the CPU issues were taken into consideration, long before the first music file was loaded onto the HDD.
 
In the end, there's only so much end users can do.  After which, once the system is assembled, my mantre, keep it as simple as possible so as to keep those software conflicts to a minimum as software conflicts are cumulative.  What's my idea of keeping it simple?  No extra software and it's okay to use an EQ.
 

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If you really want to keep it simple, do what this old man does; pre-set iTunes to rip to lossless any audio disk put in my computer, then automatically reject it when finished. It doesn't get any simpler.
 
P

 

[beeman458]

Being old school, I like to put the disk in and take it out again.  Makes me feel like I'm part of the process even though the process doesn't need me.
 

 

[zest]

With Linux, you can use distributions specialized in audio, or use a real time kernel and set high priorities for audio processes with your favorite distro.

 

[khaos974]

Metadata is one of the main reason for flac, it uses a Vorbis comments as a metadata system, which means it is both standardized and flexible.
 
For those like comprehensive metadata, one can set composer, orchestra, soloists, conductor, catalog number, work... in different fields instead of lumping everything in the totle + artist combination.
No to mention how metadata is convenient with a proper library manager, it's way faster than searching with windows or opening the specific folders.\
 
Well, space too is the reason for flac, especially if you want to bring your whole library with you on the HDD of a laptop. Mine isn't so big but I know people with more than 500 GB in FLAC, and since 1 TB, 2.5" HDD don't exist yet...

 

[beeman458]

Mine isn't so big but I know people with more than 500 GB in FLAC, and since 1 TB, 2.5" HDD don't exist yet...
 
If it helps, Seagate and Western both have a 750GB drive out and each can be had for around a hundred US dollars.
 
Seagate:
 
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6324326&CatId=2676
 
Western:
 
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6078131&CatId=2676