[castleofargh]

  I'm with the OP, and feel WAV sounds more natural compared to FLAC. I dis-covered this on my own before I had even spent a second looking it up on the internet to find that they should sound the same. But it just didn't seem so to me. I've got no reason to want to prefer WAV, in fact I have plenty of reason not to, i.e. extra storage space. But I've since reripped all my vinyl into WAV which is also a task in itself so I must be delusional to spend all that time when it doesn't matter. Discussing the topic with the local hifi shop, the fellow I spoke with agreed and suggested that at least in Windows operating system, he found WAV sounded better. I originally came upon the belief when using a sansa player. I had many FLACs and some WAVs and over time I felt the WAV's always sounded different. So who knows, some suggest there is some processing going on with FLAC even though it should be all done prior to the bits coming into the auditory realm, but there might be something going on that results in meaningful difference. I can understand those who feel passionately that it's the same info for FLAC and WAV and it's all in our heads and am envious of all the extra storage space they have because of it. Oh well

it's not impossible to get a difference. but there shouldn't be one. ^_^
on something like a sansa, we could make hypothesis, and imagine that maybe the added processing of the "CPU" for the extraction of the flac, could lead to more noise? or maybe use more power when you were already running the DAP to difficult levels with your headphone? or just that sometimes, the processing being really weak, it has trouble keeping up with the music? or it could just be that flac starts playing 0.3s slower than wave, or that one makes a little noise when starting that the other doesn't make? all those stuff could maybe trigger a reaction from you that let you identify the format. all those stuff really could happen. again they shouldn't but they could.
 
but of course first it would be good to check that you could tell there is a difference in a blind test. there would be no point trying to cover a vast list of possibilities before making sure there is an audible difference.
but about sansa stuff, I would suspect that some of the cool rockbox fellows have already run all kinds of tests for years and would know what it's all about if there indeed are some differences.

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

Just came to add my input. WAV shouldn't sound better than FLAC. If the files have been converted properly, then when the FLAC is decoded it is the exact same as the WAV... bit for bit. They're both bitperfect formats and should in proper playback scenerios output exactly the same data, not one 0 or 1 different. I'm not doubting you could hear a difference, but it isn't caused by the formats... perhaps how your computer/DAP/other device is decoding is causing it.

The 24-bit argument is different, again if the recording hasn't been converted identically (preferrably with dequantization) there will be a difference. Many 24-bit recordings purposely have different mastering to sell "high resolution" formats. Where it becomes different is that certain DACs are designed with processing 24-bit data in mind and may sound better than 16-bit material because of design choices.

 

[bigshot]

High bitrate lossy shouldn't sound any different either.

 

[CanadianMaestro]

I use FLAC always, as it takes up less space than Wav. I can't hear any diff between the two, playback on  BDP-1/BDA-1 combo, on headphones (BHA-1 amp) and on floor speakers.
 
btw, I tried the expt suggested earlier, and I can't tell the diff between 16- and 24-bit lossy on my floor system or headphones.

 

[Music Alchemist]

btw, I tried the expt suggested earlier, and I can't tell the diff between 16- and 24-bit lossy on my floor system or headphones.

 
Told yaaa!

 

[thelostMIDrange]

a short term abx is not the be all end all proof of anything. The real test is long term over hours weeks months of real world listening. You'd be surprised what sort of minute factors make themselves known over time in a somewhat or pure unconscious manner. Just because my consciousness can't pick up a WAV/flac abx in a 5 minute testing session does not mean one's full body intelligence listening apparatus will not do so over time. and it is with our full being that most of us listen to music. or we should if the music is inspiring and the gear decent enough to allow accurate honest faithful reproduction. Not all gear allows for this however and not all 'files' are the same. All my WAV files are carefully ripped vinyl and I believe there's alot more there to extract than pure digital recordings and so perhaps that is why, in addition to my first suggestion, I was able to sense the difference. Regardless, I've got no interest in trying to convince anyone and in the end it's not a major difference for most, especially if one is listening to cd digital recordings so i wouldn't stress over it either way. If you're into vinyl however and can hear the difference there, well then I would suggest it may be worth ripping stuff into WAV regardless of the storage extras. And when I said one needs decent gear to hear this I don't mean expensive. The sansa and a $30 set of soudnmagic e 30's was enough for me to hear it....
 
 
I should add that castle's ideas and blame for the sansa processing may in fact be the culprit, but I did feel the same/similar difference in windows so....but again, if this is so, it is what it is. I'm not going to go out and pay $500 for a 'better' player just to negate this processing error when I can just rip to wav and eliminate it that way. The extra cost for SD cards is minimal compared to costly 'better' faster processing players or operations systems. It's a simple solution, WAV
 
 

 

[maverickronin]

  a short term abx is not the be all end all proof of anything.

 
Actually it pretty much is.  It's been demonstrated to make discerning differences much easier.

 

[thelostMIDrange]

we will have to agree to disagree on this then. And I don't think you've appreciated my point but no biggie. Life is entirely too short to stress over this type of stuff considering the quality of our air food and water. FLAC is king! I agree. no difference, plus you gain all the extra storage. It's a beautiful system with no drawbacks.

 

[StanD]

  a short term abx is not the be all end all proof of anything. The real test is long term over hours weeks months of real world listening. You'd be surprised what sort of minute factors make themselves known over time in a somewhat or pure unconscious manner. Just because my consciousness can't pick up a WAV/flac abx in a 5 minute testing session does not mean one's full body intelligence listening apparatus will not do so over time. and it is with our full being that most of us listen to music.
:
:

You might want to look into what is called "Echoic Memory." We only have few seconds, this has been studied very carefully.

 

[cjl]

As StanD said, fast-switch short term testing is the most sensitive to small differences. However, ABX does not require short term testing. ABX can be performed over whatever period you want - you could take months if you wanted. That having been said, it's pretty easy to trivially prove that the bitstream sent to the DAC is identical from FLAC and WAV (assuming a non-defective decoder), which eliminates any possible mechanism of difference (and this is sound science, so that pretty much settles it).

 

[nick_charles]

  we will have to agree to disagree on this then. 

 
This is not really a matter of opinion, it has been tested (though not as often as one would like) and short-term testing (according to the published tests so far) is just much more sensitive , here is one example Blind testing vs long term

 

[god-bluff]

I prefer to listen to full songs or albums rather than just snippets as well.

 

[bigshot]

I do too when I am listening to enjoy music. But if I am listening to sound quality, it's most useful to set the two sounds side by side and switch between them to instantly compare.

 

[thelostMIDrange]

@nick I've got my own experiment going as well with opposite results. I will be publishing the results soon in Eargasm magazine. Look out for it on newstands near you soon.
 
 
I should add, that like many of you i am a sceptic and objectivist etc and am super suspicious of hifi mumbo jumbo mareketing snake oil etc and the sound science subsection is about the only decent area on this forum with exception of some modding DIY sections and am very sympathetic to those who believe that flac=WAV and I'm not 100% convinced but I cannot deny personal experience, especially when I enter into listening with a skeptic attitude and am not looking for WAV to different. In the end, it may just be the fault of the processor not keeping up as others have mentioned and in ideal conditions FLAC would = WAV, but I sense this debate will be one of those that rage on for decades. Turns out there are quite a few people who hear a difference and are likewise delusional.

 

[StanD]

  @nick I've got my own experiment going as well with opposite results. I will be publishing the results soon in Eargasm magazine. Look out for it on newstands near you soon.

This wave file sounds good to me.
http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2015-05-24_3842437052126496/movies/three_stooges/wise_guya.wav