WAV Vs. Other Lossless Formats!!!

[Starsky5000]

Hi...I was just reading an interesting article. Currently I have all my music encoded in FLAc on my portable player...would recoding them in WAV make a difference?

To quote an excerpt from the article:
CD Quality and Bit Rate
Quote:

Let’s start from the top down in terms of quality. “CD quality” is 16 bits of pure high-energy audio at a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz. We will use “CD quality” as the benchmark. CD files are called WAV files (.wav) These don’t use any compression or conversion from the original source - which is why they are so large and have such great sound. Remember though, that any MP3 converter is “lossy”, meaning it is eliminating some information that can’t be recovered. You will never have actual CD quality music on your MP3 player, but your ear probably won’t know the difference.

I am using a Cowon U3 2 Gigabyte Player...say each song averages 3 minutes...how many songs encoded in WAV can I fit on this 2 gigabyte player?

Thank You.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starsky5000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi...I was just reading an interesting article. Currently I have all my music encoded in FLAc on my portable player...would recoding them in WAV make a difference?

Yes, your songs would song exactly the same, but take up twice as much space.

The article you quoted talks about lossy compression. FLAC is not lossy compression. The audio data in a FLAC file is exactly the same as the audio data in the .wav file from which it was created.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starsky5000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif how many songs encoded in WAV can I fit on this 2 gigabyte player?

.wav files take up about 8.78 MB per minute. There are approximate 2,000 MB on a 2 GB player, so a 2 GB player will store approximately 227 minutes of .wav audio.

 

[smeggy]

Lossless is lossless, they are bit-identical. End of story

 

[K2Grey]

FLAC is not a lossy format. FLAC uses a type of compression analogous to that used in zip files. When you play a FLAC file, it is very swiftly uncompressed back into what is essentially WAV (or PCM, or whatever), and this information is the same as the original WAV.

 

[goldenratiophi]

WAV sounds way better than FLAC.

Just to cover myself: if you don't already know, FLAC is losslessly compressed and they will sound EXACTLY the same as WAV or the original CD. Think .zip except specialized for audio.

 

[D_4_Dog]

SQ would be identical but wav would drain your battery even faster

 

[EnOYiN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by D_4_Dog /img/forum/go_quote.gif SQ would be identical but wav would drain your battery even faster

I seriously doubt this. I would say that decompressing the FLAC would drain a battery a lot faster. I haven't got a clue though, so you might be right.

 

[GotNoRice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnOYiN /img/forum/go_quote.gif I seriously doubt this. I would say that decompressing the FLAC would drain a battery a lot faster. I haven't got a clue though, so you might be right.

It would probably depend on whether your disc access or processor activity eats your batteries more. As hard drives contain moving parts I’d put my money there. If you have a flash player, maybe not.