# FLAC vs. WAV Format - Surprising Quality Differences



## Abubizarre

I have noticed quite a difference in quality between FLAC and Wav files with regard to playback quality.

 The story begins where I downloaded an album by Thomas Feiner and Anywhen in FLAC format (Samadhisound.com)

 Also I recently upgraded my system a bit - PC > Yulong DAH1 Mark > Senn HD650 & STAX SRS-3050

 However this stunning album seemed quite harsh especially Thomas' vocals, and the sound stage appeared fairly flat - two dimensional. Separation between instruments also sounded a little smeared. 

 I tried this recording with the STAX and the Senns, same problems.

 However, I decided to convert the FLAC files to WAV (using DBPOWERAMP)
 and discovered something unexpected - but a pleasant surprise indeed.

 All of the problems I had experienced are now gone. It appears that the FLAC file despite being lossless, has some effects on playback.

 I tend to upsample (SRC in Foobar) to 88.2khz / 24bit and this is where the effects were most marked.

 Anyway just a point to discuss - am I the only one who has this experience?


----------



## MONVMENTVM

There must be something wrong with the software you are using...

 This shouldn't be.


----------



## 1UP

Is it just level differences if replaygain was applied to the flac?

 Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense!


----------



## 1UP

Oh, and use the ABX plugin and foobar then post your accuracy


----------



## krmathis

Does not make sense to me either.
 But that said, you're not the only one claiming to hear a difference between uncompressed PCM (WAV) and lossless compressed PCM (FLAC).


----------



## robojack

If I recall correctly, FLAC doesn't always mean it will sound identical to the original source, since it still has compression. The higher FLAC compression level used for FLAC will determine its SQ. Lossless really means that the FLAC file contains all the data necessary to decompress into a WAV file that's identical to the original source, not the actual SQ. Correct me if I'm wrong, by the way.


----------



## Currawong

robojack: The flac should be compressed on the fly by the software playing it back to output the same sound as the WAV file. Same SQ = lossless. What must be going on is that the software doing the playback has issues.


----------



## QQQ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does not make sense to me either.
 But that said, you're not the only one claiming to hear a difference between uncompressed PCM (WAV) and lossless compressed PCM (FLAC).




_

 

That's because something isn't working properly in the chain. Either some plugins, or codecs, idk... something isn't adequate.


----------



## Goratrix

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Abubizarre* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_am I the only one who has this experience?_

 

yes, and your post makes no sense either. if you created the WAV from the FLAC, then both of those waveforms are bit-identical. you can see it by loading both the flac and wav file into an audio editor and overlay them. they will be exactly the same.

 the only possible reason for the files sounding different is some serious error in the decoders you are using to play them back.


----------



## Goratrix

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *robojack* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If I recall correctly, FLAC doesn't always mean it will sound identical to the original source, since it still has compression. The higher FLAC compression level used for FLAC will determine its SQ. Lossless really means that the FLAC file contains all the data necessary to decompress into a WAV file that's identical to the original source, not the actual SQ. Correct me if I'm wrong, by the way._

 

yes, you are completely wrong. the only difference between the various "compression levels" is resulting filesize and encoding speed, i.e. higher levels mean smaller files but the encoding takes more time. the sound itself is ALWAYS bit-identical to the source.


----------



## Zanth

Perhaps back 10 years ago, decompressing a FLAC file may have resulted in sound differences because the system couldn't cache the entire track in RAM. These days one can cue up an album and the entire thing can be decompressed and stored in RAM as WAV files ready to go. 1 CPU does the decompression, 1 CPU does the playback. Seriously, with the computers today, there should be no sonic differences at all.


----------



## progo

I wouldn't wonder if there are differences in decoding modules, ie. those programs that convert the file to audio stream. Years ago, there was much discussion how winamp's default MP3 decoder was bad in SQ and the MADlib decoder was the best alternative.


----------



## Zanth

Well, dbpoweramp uses the same flac library as EAC and I believe most use the same library (perhaps different versions...but from same organization) so I don't think this would be so. md5 checksum is the way to go here


----------



## wavoman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zanth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Perhaps back 10 years ago, decompressing a FLAC file may have resulted in sound differences because the system couldn't cache the entire track in RAM. These days one can cue up an album and the entire thing can be decompressed and stored in RAM as WAV files ready to go. 1 CPU does the decompression, 1 CPU does the playback. Seriously, with the computers today, there should be no sonic differences at all._

 

Well of course it's all about bad software, lack of buffers, and underperforming computers, since (as everyone else has said) the decompressed FLAC is bit-for-bit identical to the uncompressed WAV.

 But we have hard real-time processing requirements when playing music, and I don't think these problems have vanished as much as people here believe.

 Running upsampling in foobar on an underpowered PC with 20 other programs and virus checking / email polling in the background and who knows if the FLAC gets decompressed correctly. You will get a well-formed bitstream from foobar no matter what, so unless you have rigged something special you will never know if there are decompression errors.


----------



## TheMarchingMule

You did not just make this topic.


----------



## philodox

Are you using a squeezebox by any chance?

 Back when I used to use one I noticed some differences which were fixed by having the slimserver [on my computer] decode the FLAC before sending it to the squeezebox as a WAV. I asked about this in the squeezebox forums and there were others who had found the same. Seems there is something wrong with the way that the squeezebox decodes FLAC.

 If not, I'd say that the others are correct that there is something wrong with the software you are using to playback the FLAC files.


----------



## Zanth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheMarchingMule* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You did not just make this topic. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

You did not just post like a child.


----------



## TheMarchingMule

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zanth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You did not just post like a child. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Heh, there have been too many of these threads where somebody says there's a difference between FLAC and WAV or some other lossless format, and people go for a tailspin on the issue, and then every now and then somebody pokes their head in and says how they too can hear a difference in lossless formats, and it carries the thread onto another page of replies, when the answer of either a broken/gimped decoder, placebo, or unstable computer is the ultimate cause for this hearing difference.


----------



## Zanth

I agree. But the post was inflammatory. The search functionality is one's friend and I wish others would use it more...no doubt, but its use or disuse is never an excuse to be rude.


----------



## TheMarchingMule

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zanth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I agree. But the post was inflammatory. The search functionality is one's friend and I wish others would use it more...no doubt, but its use or disuse is never an excuse to be rude._

 

Alright, my bad. Next time I'll use the smiley that's rolling his eyes instead.


----------



## krmathis

I agree with most of the others above.
 * You don't compare using identical premises (replaygain, playback software, upsample, ..
 * Broken decoder.
 * A combination of the above.
 * ...


----------



## Abubizarre

So many replies in such a short time - this is a hot topic it seems.

 However, I can still hear the difference. Wavpack is more similar to the wave format though. Monkey audio, I am trying now.

 It is theoretically possible that the Windows Vista response to the wave format is more finely tuned; there seems to be an issue with timing from the observations made from listening to flac files.

 It is also possible that as FLAC uses an additional layer of compression that the decompression uses additional system resources and suffers from slight performance issues. Effectively Foobar and the codecs must decompress the file first - if I'm not mistaken.

 Please note that the differences are slight and that I am using a fairly transparent system - STAX 3050 and HD650 with Yulong DAH1. 

 However some of the respondants seem to be idealogically blinded to the possiblity of any differences in sound quality between the formats. 

 My advice, listen - on a fairly high end system - and then come back with a more informed opinion - not wishing to offend anyone 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 btw - I wanted to add that as I am a scientist, I did conduct a test with proper scientific validation - even blinding - it's in my nature - I even make a cup of tea following scientific protocols LOL


----------



## robojack

Glad I was wrong. Thanks for correcting me, while at the same time educating me.


----------



## cerbie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Abubizarre* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_However some of the respondants seem to be idealogically blinded to the possiblity of any differences in sound quality between the formats._

 

...because it is not possible, if the WAV was created from the FLAC. Attributing it to the format cannot be right, if the WAV made from it sounds fine.

  Quote:


 It is theoretically possible that the Windows Vista response to the wave format is more finely tuned 
 

No, it's not. Foobar2000 opens a file. Not music--just a file, with random data, as far as the OS is concerned. Windows has no response at all to the source file's format. Every file made for streaming will be identical to it (practically every audio and video format known to mankind).

 If the difference is really there, something else is the cause--a bug in the playback chain. FI, maybe something there is causing you to not get bit-perfect output to the DAC when FB2K plays the FLAC (I assume, with 88.2, that you are using coax SPDIF).


----------



## Goratrix

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Abubizarre* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_However some of the respondants seem to be idealogically blinded to the possiblity of any differences in sound quality between the formats. 

 My advice, listen - on a fairly high end system - and then come back with a more informed opinion - not wishing to offend anyone 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 btw - I wanted to add that as I am a scientist, I did conduct a test with proper scientific validation - even blinding - it's in my nature - I even make a cup of tea following scientific protocols LOL_

 

if you would write the above on hydrogenaudio.org, you would get warned/banned. you may not wish to offend anyone, but these statements are offending to anyone familiar with how computer audio works.

 please, if it's "your nature" to conduct proper tests, then download foobar2000 and perform an ABX test using the included utility. then come back with the results backing up your statements. otherwise everybody will assume you're just trolling.


----------



## vegaman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cerbie* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, it's not. Foobar2000 opens a file. Not music--just a file, with random data, as far as the OS is concerned. Windows has no response at all to the source file's format._

 

Expanding on this a bit, Foobar2000 will open your Flac (or any other lossless format) file, decode it, apply any DSP you've configured, then finally hand it off to the audio output of your choice, and only then Windows can see an audio stream. At this point the data will be identical whether the original file was FLAC or WAV or any other lossless format.
 What goes to the audio output is exactly the same as what you'd save to the disk if you convert to WAV (minus DSP depending if you apply DSP to the output or not).

 The only possibility I can think of is that you're applying the DSP when you convert the files and again when you play them back, and that you prefer this sound.


----------



## krmathis

Yeah, an ABX test would be nice. To back your statement that is...
 ...since it don't make sense that there are audible difference between identical audio data.


----------



## freckling

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Goratrix* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_if you would write the above on hydrogenaudio.org, you would get warned/banned. you may not wish to offend anyone, but these statements are offending to anyone familiar with how computer audio works.

 please, if it's "your nature" to conduct proper tests, then download foobar2000 and perform an ABX test using the included utility. then come back with the results backing up your statements. otherwise everybody will assume you're just trolling._

 

2x


----------



## progo

It's not technically foobar that decodes the file, but a plugin (run by foobar, but basically an independent program). If the plugin reads a number 453053 from the file but decides to send some other number to foobar (due to bad code, problems with the OS, something, anything), it's not working right and the results differ.


----------



## vegaman

Well I was simplifying it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to give a basic idea of what happens with the data.
 I'm sure that far more likely than any decoder errors though, is that the DSP is being applied twice (once on conversion, once on playback), which explains why the wavpack file also sounds better too.
 Can you check this OP?


----------



## gloco

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Abubizarre* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 However some of the respondants seem to be idealogically blinded to the possiblity of any differences in sound quality between the formats. 

 My advice, listen - on a fairly high end system - and then come back with a more informed opinion - not wishing to offend anyone 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




_

 


 I don't think anyone is blinded here, I think the rest of us are fully aware that flac is lossless and there is no loss in sound quality. I've been listening to flacs for years and have all my concerts converted to flacs, I hear no difference from the master tapes in comparison to the flac conversions (yes, I often save the original raw master). How do you explain that? I used to own a fairly high end system, a Baby Orpheus, I couldn't hear a difference at all. By the way, I also own a pair of Sony 7506's, probably the ultimate headphone for tracking out recordings due to its analytical sound signature and both the .wav master and flac conversion sounded identical every single time. It's pretty obvious to me that you're having a problem with your "transparent" set up though. 

 Try telling these gear heads that there's something wrong with flacs: Taperssection.com - Index

 Watch how fast you'll get served. Next time don't try to answer in such a defensive tone. I think we're all here to help you see the light.


----------



## cerbie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Goratrix* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_if you would write the above on hydrogenaudio.org, you would get warned/banned. you may not wish to offend anyone, but these statements are offending to anyone familiar with how computer audio works._

 

You can be warned at HA for stating factual information, too, as long as it can be argued as not, depending on what exact definition of a word you meant. IMO, it's a good forum for research, but poor for discussion.
  Quote:


 please, if it's "your nature" to conduct proper tests, then download foobar2000 and perform an ABX test using the included utility. then come back with the results backing up your statements. otherwise everybody will assume you're just trolling. 
 

+1. Does FB2K blow up the files before ABXing, by any chance? I don't recall. If so, that really wouldn't work. If not, though, it should.


----------



## Abubizarre

_No, it's not. Foobar2000 opens a file. Not music--just a file, with random data, as far as the OS is concerned. Windows has no response at all to the source file's format. Every file made for streaming will be identical to it (practically every audio and video format known to mankind)._

 Thanks for that. So effectively both wav and flac are just converted to binary and processed into sound waves. It that correct?


----------



## myinitialsaredac

Wav is uncrompressed 1s and 0s, FLAC is compressed 1's and 0's then when uncompressed is bit-exact with the original 1's and 0's .

 As far as having two identical streams of 1's and 0's they should sound the same. If they don't, It may be possible the decoder for the FLAC fubared (teehee witty pun!) but it may be the placebo effect also...

 Dave


----------



## cerbie

Maybe?

 It's all already binary. They both contain PCM data. FLAC is like a zip file, but for audio. The same data is there, but due to redundancy of the data, it can be made smaller.

 They are decoded (WAV takes practically no CPU resources to do so), and then you have the same audio data from both files going to your DSPs. That processed PCM data then is sent to the software output device, which then goes and sends it to the driver, which sends it to the hardware, which converts it to a waveform when it hits the DAC.

 If the output data is different, there is a bug somewhere in that chain. If the output timing is off enough, it may be regularly misreading and/or dropping bits (not bit-perfect SPDIF). Seems like that would be less subtle, though. If the output data is the same, but the difference you claim to hear is real, then there is a connection or CPU-related interference issue (such as switching regulators adding RFI that gets into the audio stream as the CPU raises and lowers in current consumption), or something else like that. All of it's unlikely, and I agree with others that you're most likely hearing things--but, I'm not there to listen for myself or otherwise test it, am I?


----------



## sgrossklass

One can, btw, convert the FLAC back into WAV and do a _fc /b_ (binary comparison) with the original file... the worst that could happen would be a small difference in the header, but the audio data should always be 100% identical.


----------



## b0dhi

ABX or it didn't happen.

 Also, does Foobar have a disk writer plugin? If it does, if you play both files to the disk writer plugin (which will produce either binary files or .WAV files), you can do a binary bit-for-bit comparison of them. Make sure that you're playing the FLACs in exactly the same conditions in which you did when you reported they sound different. If the files are identical, then you can be sure that the decompression or dsps are not the culprit.


----------



## wavoman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ABX or it didn't happen..._

 

Could we say "Blind testing or it didn't happen"? The OP says he did it blind, but he needs to tell us how.

 My point is a tangent, but allow me: A/B/X is not the only valid blind protocol. In fact I think it is a pretty bad one, as I have argued elsewhere.

 Insist on blind testing, absolutely. Insist on A/B/X, nah.

 The food industry, which has millions of dollars riding on blind testing, does not use A/B/X. One of their protocols (there are like 8 of them in the textbooks on sensory discrimination) is almost a backwards A/B/X. You present the subject with the "improved" or "better" product. In this case, the WAV file (in the hi res debate, it would be the 24/96 file). He partakes. Then you give him two samples without telling him which is which, just called A and B. He samples A and B as much as he likes (sometimes this is limited to 3 pairs), and then tells you which of A or B is the improved product. 

 I actually like simpler protocols: just randomized A vs B tests, where repeated measures and randomization and trickery (sometimes using both A's or both B's but telling the subject they are A and B) allows you to remove the response bias that the A/B/X'ers think they need to use A/B/X to accomplish. There are subtle differences in the observed reponse bias when you ask "Prefer?" vs when you ask "Same?" vs when or you ask "Different?" I have been arguing this at length in another thread ... I think the correct question is "which do you prefer", not "are these two samples different". But I'll spare all you that.

 The audio engineers in their published papers have latched on to A/B/X and won't let go. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that they have not taken the time to educate themselves on the large body of statistical literature re sensory testing used with both expert and consumer panels. 

 When we set up our rigs, or buy our equipment, we care only about one question: do we prefer A to B? This tells us what to buy, what format to use, etc. A direct, frontal attack on this question via blind testing seems, obviously, to be the best bet. A/B/X asks a more difficult question: can I identify X as either A or B? And it forces a choice, as opposed to allowing the subject to say "I can't tell on this sample". If my preference of A over B is very slight, I might easily fail to statistically pass A/B/X, but still the preference is real. If you give me 10 pairs of A/B, and 9 times I say "no preference", but one time I say "I prefer A", and you repeat this 10-pair test 20 times and I always prefer A to B once, and never B to A, then guess what? I prefer A to B, and the effect is real. Slight, but real. If A costs only $50 more than B (or $0 in the case of two file formats), I would buy it for the one time out of 10 it lets me enjoy the music more.


----------



## Abubizarre

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Goratrix* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_if you would write the above on hydrogenaudio.org, you would get warned/banned. you may not wish to offend anyone, but these statements are offending to anyone familiar with how computer audio works.

 please, if it's "your nature" to conduct proper tests, then download foobar2000 and perform an ABX test using the included utility. then come back with the results backing up your statements. otherwise everybody will assume you're just trolling._

 

Sorry what's "trolling" is it something to do with hiding under a bridge and jumping out at poor unsuspecting passersby only to take bites out of their ankles?

 It seems that system resources or lack of them may be at fault for my observations.

 I tried the ABX with low system resources - everything switched off really - no additional programs etc. It seems like there is no difference 50% probability.

 Then I tried again with system hogs galore - there is some difference - 34% 

 I'm not sure how to switch on upsampling in ABX, but it's my feeling that perhaps upsampling combined with reduced system resources might have an effect - if someone knows how to do this let me know pls. 

 I'm following this reply with another straight away.


----------



## powertoold

Maybe some Valhalla cables will correct the problem!


----------



## krmathis

Its most probably just in his mind...


----------



## Abubizarre

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gloco* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think anyone is blinded here, I think the rest of us are fully aware that flac is lossless and there is no loss in sound quality. I've been listening to flacs for years and have all my concerts converted to flacs, I hear no difference from the master tapes in comparison to the flac conversions (yes, I often save the original raw master). How do you explain that? I used to own a fairly high end system, a Baby Orpheus, I couldn't hear a difference at all. By the way, I also own a pair of Sony 7506's, probably the ultimate headphone for tracking out recordings due to its analytical sound signature and both the .wav master and flac conversion sounded identical every single time. It's pretty obvious to me that you're having a problem with your "transparent" set up though. 

 Try telling these gear heads that there's something wrong with flacs: Taperssection.com - Index

 Watch how fast you'll get served. Next time don't try to answer in such a defensive tone. I think we're all here to help you see the light._

 

Okay, let's do a more scientific study - if a group of us, with different systems etc and different ears 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 each try this ABX comparison, especially using upsampling - which might be an issue on my system at least - then we can publish our results. In my scientific experiments (in the field of neuroscience) we repeat the protocol many times with different subjects - that's science! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This chappie though - a bit aggressive me thinks - "watch how fast you'll get served" - mine's a cup of tea, milk no sugar and a couple of custard cream biscuits. Also a bit sarcastic too - "transparent" system etc - baby orpheus wow - why did he sell it?

 And there's me thinking that New Yorkers are polite, unassuming, and docile.


----------



## jenneth

Maybe there's something wrong with the foobar ASIO plug-in? Can you try playing your flac files with another application like Winamp?


----------



## TheMarchingMule

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Abubizarre* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry what's "trolling" is it something to do with hiding under a bridge and jumping out at poor unsuspecting passersby only to take bites out of their ankles?

 It seems that system resources or lack of them may be at fault for my observations.

 I tried the ABX with low system resources - everything switched off really - no additional programs etc. It seems like there is no difference 50% probability.

 Then I tried again with system hogs galore - there is some difference - 34% 

 I'm not sure how to switch on upsampling in ABX, but it's my feeling that perhaps upsampling combined with reduced system resources might have an effect - if someone knows how to do this let me know pls. 

 I'm following this reply with another straight away._

 

I agree with *powertoold*'s recent comment; at this rate, you may be a prime candidate for some Nordost cables!

 The point is that you're worried about frivolous stuff. System resources don't mean a darn thing here, and do keep in mind that some codecs need more processing power than others.

 Also, why would you upsample in ABX if the point of an ABX is to test the files as bare as possible? You're gonna screw up something sonic-wise that way. Just get the same song in different formats, and check that they're the same volume level.


----------



## Abubizarre

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheMarchingMule* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Also, why would you upsample in ABX if the point of an ABX is to test the files as bare as possible? You're gonna screw up something sonic-wise that way. Just get the same song in different formats, and check that they're the same volume level._

 

The differences I can hear are possibly due to upsampling (on the fly) that's why I wanted to test it.


----------



## Abubizarre

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wavoman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Could we say "Blind testing or it didn't happen"? The OP says he did it blind, but he needs to tell us how._

 

Okay - this is how:

 Load both files into foobar - hide the panels which describe the format etc.
 then random the order by clicking on sort bars at the top several times. At that point it is practically impossible for me tell remember which file is which.

 Then listen without altering the order, but by selecting a different file to start each time - listening ten times - starting five times the top file and five the bottom file.

 The results i took were 9/10 selecting the wave file correctly.

 However, it now seems that the upsampling plugin SRC might be having an effect at 88.2Khz - as when using ABX without upsampling the data follows no trend.

 Am I getting banned for that?


----------



## Pushifer

You have a plugin in foobar that handles the ABX tests


----------



## gloco

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Abubizarre* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay, let's do a more scientific study - if a group of us, with different systems etc and different ears 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 each try this ABX comparison, especially using upsampling - which might be an issue on my system at least - then we can publish our results. In my scientific experiments (in the field of neuroscience) we repeat the protocol many times with different subjects - that's science! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This chappie though - a bit aggressive me thinks - "watch how fast you'll get served" - mine's a cup of tea, milk no sugar and a couple of custard cream biscuits. Also a bit sarcastic too - "transparent" system etc - baby orpheus wow - why did he sell it?

 And there's me thinking that New Yorkers are polite, unassuming, and docile._

 

I sold my baby O's since I was happy with my shure se530's and I'm looking to upgrade my speaker rig to some floor standers.

 As for tests, nope, don't need em. I have what you guys don't, master recordings I've done in .wav format and also flac'd. The reason for my snippy post was that I think your trolling and this thread should be locked. It's a waste of resources/bandwidth.


----------



## Fizzycapola

The questions isn't whether it's in his mind. But a decision, do you believe a computer or a human being.

 Computers are highly inaccurate with much of their time spent in error correction and can only process one dimensional stimulus.

 If a computer tells me two files are the same. Why should I believe it. It's a computer - it's like believing an idiot.


----------



## philodox

I really don't understand the attitude in this thread. Come on, the guy is just asking a question! We all know that FLAC and WAV are bit for bit identical, but there are many reasons that they can sound different depending on your setup.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wavoman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Could we say "Blind testing or it didn't happen"? The OP says he did it blind, but he needs to tell us how.

 My point is a tangent, but allow me: A/B/X is not the only valid blind protocol. In fact I think it is a pretty bad one, as I have argued elsewhere.
 (snip)_

 

I agree with this in principle, but the reason I asked for an ABX is because there are ABX programs out there that generate encrypted results, which are pretty good evidence when it comes to intarwebs forams. Just asking for a blind test won't tell me anything because the OP can say whatever they want since I'm not there to confirm whether they're running the test properly or not. Also, I don't think it's necessary to delve too deep into the fringes of testing methodology here, because from what I understand of the OP's post, the differences are not that small, and so should be easy to differentiate.


----------



## Goratrix

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I really don't understand the attitude in this thread. Come on, the guy is just asking a question! We all know that FLAC and WAV are bit for bit identical, but there are many reasons that they can sound different depending on your setup._

 

sure, but there have been hundreds of threads like this one all over the internet, and everytime, the OP was either trolling, or it was only in his imagination, or he was unwilling to provide ABX. or he provided ABX which proved he was wrong. this is a dead horse beaten thousands times over.

 Abubizzare, just use the included ABX plugin in foobar and post the results, until then this discussion is pointless.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Goratrix* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_this is a dead horse beaten thousands times over._

 

Yeah, I hear you, but the OP in this thread doesn't necissarily know this. He's also not a dead horse. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 BTW. Nice name. I always used to play Tremere in V:TM.


----------



## gloco

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Fizzycapola* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The questions isn't whether it's in his mind. But a decision, do you believe a computer or a human being.

 Computers are highly inaccurate with much of their time spent in error correction and can only process one dimensional stimulus.

 If a computer tells me two files are the same. Why should I believe it. It's a computer - it's like believing an idiot._

 

Well, I totally disagree with you. Computers don't make mistakes, the people using them do.


----------



## japc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Abubizarre* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have noticed quite a difference in quality between FLAC and Wav files with regard to playback quality._

 

You player is borked. Or there's something "wrong" with those FLACs.

 Test:

 get a txt file
 copy it to txt2
 zip txt2
 unzip txt2
 compare txt to txt2

 same rationale applies.


----------



## Zanth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gloco* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I totally disagree with you. Computers don't make mistakes, the people using them do._

 

Actually, computers make mistakes all the time, it is called hardware failure. When a computer has faulty ram for instance, calculations get botched something horrible. No human error in R&D or manufacturing, merely the life span of some pieces. Once something starts to go a computer can inject hash that basically reduces calculations to meaningless jibberish. 

 Yes, sometimes computers suck as much as humans do. In the case of this FLAC stuff though, unless the FLAC files are not exactly what the WAV files are, there should be no sonic difference. If there is, then the FLAC files are not true lossless files. At which point, we aren't debating apples and apples


----------



## joshd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zanth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, computers make mistakes all the time, it is called hardware failure. When a computer has faulty ram for instance, calculations get botched something horrible. No human error in R&D or manufacturing, merely the life span of some pieces. Once something starts to go a computer can inject hash that basically reduces calculations to meaningless jibberish._

 

And it crashes. You'd not be able to play your wav OR your flac. Hardware failiure is a non-issue here...


----------



## Zanth

Not true at all. Until the hardware goes completely it can inject errors all the time. RAM can live on shaky as all hell for months.


----------



## wavoman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *japc* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...Test:

 get a txt file
 copy it to txt2
 zip txt2
 unzip txt2
 compare txt to txt2

 same rationale applies._

 

No, not quite. Your test does not have a hard real-time requirement, while de-compressing a FLAC file during playback does. unzip.exe can take its time and recover from disk read errors that lead to blocks which do not de-compress correctly. Your FLAC player can't. The WAV player can make mistakes too -- it can't stop and re-read a bad block either (although the hardware usually does that). FLAC playing takes more compute resources (and fewer disk resources since it has fewer bytes to read!).

 With fast computers, nothing much running in the background, and buffered players there is no possible issue. With a heavy processor load and screwing around, I would believe you could mess up FLAC playback a little worse than you messed up WAV playback. The OP probably did this.

 But is of no practical concern or consequence to most of us. FLAC is lossless, as we all know, and our systems can handle the de-compress. BTW full disclosure: I use WAVs and not FLACs, but not for this reason.


----------



## japc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wavoman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, not quite. Your test does not have a hard real-time requirement, while de-compressing a FLAC file during playback does._

 

You are also right.


----------



## wavoman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I agree with this in principle, but the reason I asked for an ABX is because there are ABX programs out there that generate encrypted results ... Just asking for a blind test won't tell me anything because the OP can say whatever they want since I'm not there to confirm whether they're running the test properly or not..._

 

Good point. On reflection, I agree. I was thinking of the situation where I am there to verify the blindness of the test. If this situation does not obtain, then trust is not a good alternative in this forum.

 If easy-to-get A/B/X software solves this trust/verify issue, and similar software does not exist for other protocols, then your concern trumps mine.

 Better a verified-blind A/B/X test than an unverified "other protocol" test, even if I like the other protocol better.

 Well-reasoned, *b0dhi*.


----------



## moonsurf

It's very natural to notice difference, and there must be a difference. It's really basic, so please read my explanation. Even playing same WAV file, there is a difference in SQ depends on which music player you use, like Window Media Player or I-tune. For me WMP sounds much better than I-tune; more airy and better sound separations. Same file, exact same music data, then why there is difference in SQ?? If you extend this logic, it's easy to see that a music player will create a difference SQ depends on how well it handles certain codecs. Some will handle WAV better (in most cases since WAV really is easy to handle data), but rarely there are some that actually doesn't handle WAV better. Just like your some movie player that handles DVD or say DivX better than others, the Quality does not equal to the amount of data. So, SQ does not equal to the amount of music data being played, but how well it is played in total package. It's lossless, so there is same music information as WAV. But, the process that decodes each codec is different. Why would the SQ be same??


----------



## japc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *moonsurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's very natural to notice difference, and there must be a difference._

 

No, it is not natural to notice the difference. That's the whole point of this thread.

  Quote:


 It's lossless, so there is same music information as WAV. But, the process that decodes each codec is different. Why would the SQ be same?? 
 

That's not the point, the point is it shouldn't be *noticeable*. If the OP is noticing a diference then:

 1. His computer is borked
 2. His computer is loaded and real time flac uncompressing is suffering
 3. His player is trash
 4. Placebo
 5. Some other reasons already discussed


----------



## moonsurf

No, the whole point of this thread is that OP is experiencing the DIFFERENCE, which I don't view as a placebo.

 And, the whole point of my message is that different players/systems can have up and downs with certain codecs. 

 Do I have to say this again... Some players handles FLAC just good as WAV and some don't. I even have noticed that in very limited set up (longtime ago when specs of PC were completely different from now), one of music player (forgot which one it was) actually suffered playing WAV because large WAV data was taking too much resources.


----------



## japc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *moonsurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, the whole point of this thread is that OP is experiencing the DIFFERENCE, which I don't view as a placebo._

 

Beg to differ. ABX to the resque.

  Quote:


 And, the whole point of my message is that different players/systems can have up and downs with certain codecs. 

 Do I have to say this again... 
 

No need. Of course that different systems, players, codecs, hell, headphones give a diferent experience. That's a flagrant tautology.


----------



## b0dhi

It's hard to imagine a FLAC codec being in between a state of complete failure and complete functionality. I think there's probably a DSP in effect somewhere that works during FLAC playback and doesn't work during WAV playback (or vice-versa). I had an issue a while back in foobar where using an upsampler, I could get every format to work with the sampler except FLACs. It's possible a DSP is silently failing and passing FLAC or WAV data unprocessed in one case. I also very seriously doubt the "amount of wav data" has anything to do with it unless you're running a 286 from 20 years ago, or have a faulty device on the PCI bus. Both WAV and FLAC uncompress to the same exact binary stream which is sent to the soundcard, so this is very unlikely.

 Simply using a disk-writer plugin would at least eliminate decoder error as a possibility. Although, as wavoman pointed out, it wouldn't eliminate real-time errors.


----------



## BigTony

FLAC = WAV.

 If there are any problems that can effect FLAC they can do exactly the same to WAV - in which case fix the problem.


----------



## badmonkey

Abubizarre, you are getting this attitude because you are so far refusing to cooperate with the only systematic approach that can isolate and determine where your problem lies.

 Despite all the normal rubbish, nobody has yet directed you to the Foobar binary comparator. This takes two files (your FLAC and WAV), and compares the resulting output that is actually sent from Foobar to the Windows sound architecture. It will tell you yes or no whether the output is the same.

 Here it is:*
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/foo_bitcompare.zip
 Now install it and DO IT before you post anything further on this thread.*

 If the output is the same then that is the answer, and there is no further possible difference, other than possibly problems with the real-time FLAC decoding. However this is a very theoretical thing, as FLAC uses trivial clock cycles to decode, and probably the greater bandwidth being read from the HDD in the case of WAV is more likely to cause problems. Moreover, if there are any issues, they will just sound like static or stuttering, not some mystical and subtle changes to the tone of the sound.

 FLAC is just a specialized compression container for WAV, much like ZIP or RAR.

 Now that you've done the binary comparator (you have haven't you?), you might like to also do the ABX comparator, just for your own interest. Select the two files, right click, Utils > ABX Two Files. You need to get a result well above 50% for it to be valid, and do at least 10 trials. To refer to it, you must then copy *the contents of the text file generated by Foobar and post it here!* (We shall trust you not to just make it up).


----------



## Abubizarre

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Abubizarre, you are getting this attitude because you are so far refusing to cooperate with the only systematic approach that can isolate and determine where your problem lies.

 Despite all the normal rubbish, nobody has yet directed you to the Foobar binary comparator. This takes two files (your FLAC and WAV), and compares the resulting output that is actually sent from Foobar to the Windows sound architecture. It will tell you yes or no whether the output is the same.
 ._

 

I did the binary comparator - the results were the same for both formats. I planned to do the ABX today with upsampling (which I suspect is the problem here) - but I have developed a stinking cold - can't hear a thing really.

 Previously I did the ABX without upsampling (to 88.2khz) and there was no perceivable difference. Yet I can still hear a difference (not ABX) with upsampling. 

 I did do a rough blinded test though at the beginning - blinding wasn't perfect - i.e. the possiblity of following a trend was still there - so validity was slightly compromised. 

 I definitely feel that the upsampling is the problem - an example is where WAV can upsample on my system to 192khz without distortion whereas FLAC cannot play reliably at above 96Khz. What could be the problem? - I have tried this with fresh installations and with very little background program usage - same result. 

 Sorry about the "ïdeological blah blah" part of an earlier post - I deal with so many "flat earthers" in my research field in neuroscience that I am probably over sensitive to people who seem to be rubbishing new ideas. My sincere apologies.


----------



## badmonkey

If the bit comparator says there is no difference then the files and the decoding can be eliminated from the possible areas of concern.

 Upsampling, filtering, whatever you want to do thereafter, will not make ANY difference to the comparison, because *you now know that you are feeding the same audio stream into said filter(s)*. That is why the bit comparator does not offer you the same options as the ABX interface, i.e. "Use DSP (current playback settings)" - there is no point.

 As I said above, any possible real time problems with the decoding should be obvious in the form of static or stuttering, for which an ABX would be trite.

 However, we can test even this by doing a manual comparison. For each file, convert it to a WAV using your DSP settings (including upsampling etc). Right click - Convert > Convert to > WAV, & check "DSP processing". Once you've done both, run the bit comparator again on the output files.

 Both the same?

 I don't believe you have distortion, and I shall wait to see your ABX results.


----------



## wavoman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...If the output is the same then that is the answer, and there is no further possible difference, other than possibly problems with the real-time FLAC decoding. However this is a very theoretical thing, as FLAC uses trivial clock cycles to decode, and probably the greater bandwidth being read from the HDD in the case of WAV is more likely to cause problems..)_

 

This is a fine summary. To repeat:

 (1) There can be an error in the real-time FLAC decoding, and/or there can be an error in the disk read (which would more likely mess up WAV than FLAC since WAV has to read more bytes, unless there is an interaction effect, i.e., the extra processing of FLAC leads to HDD errors stemming from resource contention).

 (2) Most likely this is theoretical only, since modern computers are fast, and use buffering. (Still, you can load down a modern PC with lots of background processes and hobble it).

 I make these points -- OK, I agree, too many times -- only becasue I hate it when people say "FLAC bits = WAV bits" and therefore they must sound identical. That is simply false. They probably do sound identical, but it takes more than the bitsteams being the same. 

 If I assemble the exact same ingredients and follow the exact same recipe as a famous chef, will the results be the same? No, of course not. I do not process the inputs and follow the algorithm correctly, and the chef does. Maybe because I have the wrong (underpowered) kitchen equipment.

 Yea, not my best analogy, but you get the point. Every time I post re these issues, someone comes back with bits=bits. Time to move on.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_... if there are any issues, they will just sound like static or stuttering, not some mystical and subtle changes to the tone of the sound._

 

On this point I am not sure. It makes assumptions about the FLAC decoder. I guess we could read the source code, but I haven't. If, when missing a bit in a time slice the algorithm filled the void with the prior bit value (as opposed to sending nothing) then wouldn't we hear "off" music, subtle distortion, rather than stuttering?

 The creator of the FLAC decoder would know. Should we consider this question still open, or is it obvious that badmonkey is correct and I am just missing something?


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the bit comparator says there is no difference then the files and the decoding can be eliminated from the possible areas of concern.

 Upsampling, filtering, whatever you want to do thereafter, will not make ANY difference to the comparison, because *you now know that you are feeding the same audio stream into said filter(s)*. That is why the bit comparator does not offer you the same options as the ABX interface, i.e. "Use DSP (current playback settings)" - there is no point._

 

That rests on a number of assumptions about the internal implementation of foobar. I don't know for a fact that decoder streams are gated through foobar itself before arriving at the DSP stage, but as I said before, I've had experiences where the file format has affected DSP functionality. Whereas in my case, upsampling in combination with FLAC was crashing foobar and upsampling with WAV was not, a DSP in the OP's chain might be silently failing in one case but not the other. All the bit comparator proves is that the FLAC decoder itself is not at fault, not that the rest of the chain is producing identical output too.


----------



## badmonkey

It will if he does the manual comparison as above. This would have crashed your Foobar too. Anyway, a conflict or bug with different decoders and filters that causes a crash is very different to the magical SQ difference reports that plague this place. It will either work, or not. If it works, then the output is known to be constant (or at the very least can be tested). As above.

 Wait for his response.


----------



## joshd

OP, do you have "use dither" checked anywhere? I don't know that much about foobar, but in winamp it only affects .ogg and .flac files.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It will if he does the manual comparison as above. This would have crashed your Foobar too. Anyway, a conflict or bug with different decoders and filters that causes a crash is very different to the magical SQ difference reports that plague this place. It will either work, or not._

 

Yes, it would've crashed my foobar, but his filters aren't crashing, are they? So how would we know if there are internal issues? I already cited a hypothetical scenario in which a filter can silently fail and could pass on data unprocessed. You're oversimplifying and making assumptions about the internals of Foobar which you do not know. Until he does an ABX, the bit comparator only proves that FLACs are being decoded correctly, and nothing more.


----------



## jojoarmani

i had this debate with a friend a few years back. i swore i could hear a difference in my favorite album in FLAC and WAV. I finally lost the argument, not because i admitted the results i heard were wrong, but because for lack of hard drive room and FLACed all my files.


----------



## AudioPhewl

Not going to get involved in all this other than this post.

 I have a Stax SRS-4040II rig, and FLAC/WAV/Monkeys/etc are all identical on it.

 ~Phewl.


----------



## Abubizarre

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It will if he does the manual comparison as above. This would have crashed your Foobar too. Anyway, a conflict or bug with different decoders and filters that causes a crash is very different to the magical SQ difference reports that plague this place. It will either work, or not. If it works, then the output is known to be constant (or at the very least can be tested). As above.

 Wait for his response._

 

I still have a stinking cold - my Eustacian tubes all blocked and my ears are far from "golden". When I can hear again - I will do the ABX with upsampling hopefully - pls be patient a bit.


----------



## Zorlac

Not sure if this was mentioned, but Creative Labs X-Fi cards bit perfect output in audio creation mode only works with wav files. Guess that is another reason to rip to wav if you are striving for bit perfect. *shrug*

  Quote:


 Bit-Matched playback is only applicable to WAV files with the following specifications: 
 - stereo format 
 - PCM audio data 
 - 16-bits and above (maximum 32-bits with 24-bits resolution) 
 - 44.1, 48 or 96 kHz 
 

Creative Worldwide Support


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zorlac* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not sure if this was mentioned, but Creative Labs X-Fi cards bit perfect output in audio creation mode only works with wav files. Guess that is another reason to rip to wav if you are striving for bit perfect. *shrug*_

 

AFAIK a music application such as FooBar reading a FLAC file converts it to wav before passing it to the sound card.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zorlac* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not sure if this was mentioned, but Creative Labs X-Fi cards bit perfect output in audio creation mode only works with wav files. Guess that is another reason to rip to wav if you are striving for bit perfect. *shrug*



Creative Worldwide Support_

 

By "WAV files", I think they mean an uncompressed audio stream. The reason I presume they say that is because you can't play an MP3 and then compare the bitstream to the MP3 because the decompressed stream is different, thus, not "bit matched". A soundcard has no idea what file format the audio data is coming from (except on some older cards with onboard MP3 decoders).


----------



## kimura

I cant hear any different between these two form.


----------



## TheMarchingMule

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kimura* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I cant hear any different between these two form._

 

Good, because you shouldn't.


----------



## jojoarmani

Although quality wise hearing, FLAC and WAV are the same, because FLAC is a good compressor. However, shouldn't there be a difference in texture (layering or richness) of a song if it's playing at 1000kbps in FLAC and 1400 in WAV? it seems 1400 would sound fuller, or is it beyond the human ear to hear difference?


----------



## TheMarchingMule

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jojoarmani* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Although quality wise hearing, FLAC and WAV are the same, because FLAC is a good compressor. However, shouldn't there be a difference in texture (layering or richness) of a song if it's playing at 1000kbps in FLAC and 1400 in WAV? it seems 1400 would sound fuller, or is it beyond the human ear to hear difference?_

 

I had that same misconception early on, but again, it's how the encoder compresses it, that's all.


----------



## japc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jojoarmani* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Although quality wise hearing, FLAC and WAV are the same, because FLAC is a good compressor._

 

Being a good compressor means you compress the data more or take less time for the same compression. It doesn't mean you loose data so yes, they should be the same.

 Use the analogy with an important spreadsheet and using rar or zip or gzip. Would any of them discard data? Would you use them if they did?


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kimura* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I cant hear any different between these two form._

 

Like most of us...
 Which is to be expected, since they contain the exact same audio data.


----------



## Quaddy

*@OP*

 never have the misconception that you can freely air your own beliefs on this board, as the placebo mob will feel your collar.

 all you need to know is you can hear a difference. then there is a difference.

 hell, i remember getting flac_*k*_ for hearing differences betwixt and between flac compression levels.

 blasphemy was shouted, banish 'it' from the village...

 in my padded cell near the edge of the forest clearing, past the village boundary, i once hypothesized that flac, to my dillusional ears was warmer sounding but yet held a narrower field of sound, whereas wav was more clinical sounding but fuller in its staging. a dicotomy!!

 draw what you will from those disgraceful suppositions.

 i am off to bob a witch or three...


----------



## gyrodec

Quaddy - If only it were that simple. If you believe you hear a difference then yes indeed you believe you here a difference. This does NOT mean you actually heard one or that there is one. The psychology of perception is far more complex and shifting than that. Nothing I can see/hear/taste/feel can I claim is real or even as I perceive it. Our senses are too easy to fool. On top of that our brains can supply the impression of differences that are completely indistinguishable from the real thing. I frequently hear the phone ring when I'm in the shower because the way my mind processes the noise of the shower combined with my paranoia about missing a call make me hear the phone. It sounds exactly the same as my real phone - but it never happened.

 Lets face it, even I think therefore I am is a dodgy starting point, and everything from there is a mere rumor handed to you by your brain. It is just wrong to claim I hear a difference so there is one. I hear something so it might be real is all we can say.

 Thinking you can trust your ears is the falacy at the root of all audiophile paranoia - including mine.


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Quaddy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_





*@OP*

 never have the misconception that you can freely air your own beliefs on this board, as the placebo mob will feel your collar.

 all you need to know is you can hear a difference. then there is a difference.

 hell, i remember getting flac*k* for hearing differences betwixt and between flac compression levels.

 blasphemy was shouted, banish 'it' from the village...

 in my padded cell near the edge of the forest clearing, past the village boundary, i once hypothesized that flac, to my dillusional ears was warmer sounding but yet held a narrower field of sound, whereas wav was more clinical sounding but fuller in its staging. a dicotomy!!

 draw what you will from those disgraceful suppositions.

 i am off to bob a witch or three..._

 

I guess that explains why you're using Valhalla cables...
 If I could hear a difference between Flac and Wave I would also be buying those.


----------



## Quaddy

:deadhorse
 GOTO END

 gYrOdEc, its simple all right, if i hear a difference then there is. because i am judging for myself, not others, i am not interested in proving to the disbelievers - if i had to prove to you, then it would only be fair of me to ask you to prove that there *isnt* a difference.

 if there really really really real 2 reel isnt a real world difference, then i couldnt care less because i cant hear that there isnt a difference. all that matters is my perceived music and my ears and my perished asaparagus straps!

 in fact i couldnt live without placebo, it makes my music sound better than most actual upgrades!

 the patient who is suffering real world conditions is fed a pill that is claimed will help their ailment, that patient over a few weeks feels better and eventually is free of the cursed condition that marred their life formerley

 in actuality, unbenkownst to that patient, the pill was an ineffectual dried milk powder pill. 

 the question is does it matter that it wasnt actually medinical affectations that helped the patient, *NO*. all that matters is that they were now better, the final destination is more important than how you arrived there.

 for instance, near a tree by a river theres a hole in the ground where an old man of aran goes around and around and his mind is a beacon in the veil of the night for a strange kind of fashion theres a wrong and a right but he'll never, _never fight over you_

 :END
 GOTO deadhorse


----------



## gyrodec

Quaddy

 Don't get many Nick Kershaw referrences these days. Too bad they let him produce himself and hence start making boring sounding records - the kid had a future before that.

 Couldn't agree more with your last post. If you put something more like that in the post before I would never have needed to put my 2cents in.

 You said "all you need to know is you can hear a difference. then there is a difference", but now you agree with my opening sentence - if you think the is a difference, then you think there is a difference - and perhaps there actually is or isn't but who cares because you like the effect of hearing one anyway.

 Semantics, those pedantic little b**tards.


----------



## Zanth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gyrodec* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You said "all you need to know is you can hear a difference. then there is a difference", but now you agree with my opening sentence - if you think the is a difference, then you think there is a difference - and perhaps there actually is or isn't but who cares because you like the effect of hearing one anyway.

 Semantics, those pedantic little b**tards. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Semantics here don't really apply, and people do care because false information running rampant on a forum that induces and/or at minimum supports folks to spend money really ought to have as much valid real world truth vs. subjective hocus pocus statements.

 In this instance what could be the result of posting FLAC is inferior to WAV? 

 1) Person rerips their collection or convert their existing FLAC files to WAV (if they feel confident enough that all went well the first time). This means time and my time at least is worth money. I hate wasting it.

 2) This may require a monetary cost. If one needs to purchase more storage capacity, then one may want to be certain there is a difference, particularly for those that are strapped for cash. 

 3) One now may additionally need to rework their backup system to address the usually 2x-3x in size of the collection.

 4) Person decides that it is important to spread this information to "help" people get the most out of their collection. More people start doing 1-4. 



 Just because someone believes there is a difference does not mean there is a difference. That statement is a fact. What isn't a fact as yet known is whether there is a difference or not. In the vast majority of cases with modern computing, there should be no difference because the extra step of decompressing the FLAC file will be transparent to the playback software because the entire track will be cached in RAM if not the entire album. Modern *Nix/BSD systems have incredible memory handling and even with 15 programs running that are rather intensive, the system ought to handle everything just smurfy! If not, playback would be affected outright, that is, Wav, MP3, Midi etc. 

 Therefore, it is important to fully address whether there is a difference or not and if so, figure out why because the files are bit for bit EXACTLY the same with only 1 additional step involved in getting at those bits. This extra step again is so insignificant with modern computers that there should be no difference. If there is, hardware needs to be upgraded or software rewritten. The first is a trivial endeavor though could be pricey. The second is certainly not trivial and could be far more costly.


----------



## japc

Zanth, what you so explendidly described in your post is called FUD. And yes, there's no good coming of it.


----------



## krmathis

krmathis lean back in the chair and watch this endless discussion.


----------



## Quaddy

some simply find wav easier to use, and less time consuming than constantly transcoding them to different formats, archaic IMHO

 storing everything in flac, for me was the most time consuming format i have ever dealt with.

 so if time is money, then wav should be your answer from the get-go.

 wav is much more universally accepted by players, small or large than flac, but at the end of the day whatever suits your own setup, one shouldnt dicate to others, but one should be able to comment on what works for him or her also.

 after all this site is a great resource of information and differing opinions, and hope that everyone is well rounded enough to take bits and peices from varying words of wisdom to suit their own setup and to not be misguided so easily, maybe this forum should have a disclaimer when joining then that warns newcomers that not everything they read on the internet is gospel!


----------



## Zanth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Quaddy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_some simply find wav easier to use, and less time consuming than constantly transcoding them to different formats, archaic IMHO_

 

I don't know why you used the word archaic here, particularly since, if one is going to rip to a lossless uncompressed format, WAV is about the most archaic and worst still, it can't handle meta data. AIFF would be a far more suitable lossless uncompressed format. One step, same as WAV and one queries a variety of online music db's to retrieve info automatically. If such info is useless to somone (as in, will never want to know the title of a track without going to the CD case) then so be it! For the vast majority of people out there, they like to know what they are listening to without having to memorize each and every track title. 

  Quote:


 storing everything in flac, for me was the most time consuming format i have ever dealt with. 
 

I will agree with this from my personal experience as well. Not because FLAC is inferior but because the players I chose to buy don't support FLAC outta the box. So...even though ripping and encoding to FLAC is a single step for me (given the software I use) it was a minute or so more to rip an album. My problem is music management. I have all these wonderful FLAC files now what do I do with them? Do I transcode to AAC or MP3 so they can be easily played from pretty well any hardware? Streamed throughout my house without hacking away at software? Or...do I transcode to ALAC and just buy more Apple hardware, being locked into a single company's idea of how life should be? These are large enough issues for me at present but are certainly personal and if I wasn't such a OC guy about having tons of music on me at any one time, I'd just go out and buy a Cowon which can play FLAC files and just be done with this neuroticism. 

  Quote:


 so if time is money, then wav should be your answer from the get-go. 
 

Well, AIFF actually for most. 

  Quote:


 wav is much more universally accepted by players, small or large than flac, but at the end of the day whatever suits your own setup, one shouldnt dicate to others, but one should be able to comment on what works for him or her also. 
 

I don't recall anyone dictating whether one format was better to use than another. I believe what is on the table is a discussion regarding the SONIC DIFFERENCES between one lossless format vs. another. This is a VERY different topic. 

 If I could, right now, get a 2 TB DAP, I'd have simply ripped all my discs as AIFF. But at present, the best we have is a 160 GB discontinued DAP and a few 120 GB options. Far too low to suit me. So I compress losslessly to get more music on the hardware available. Sonically, FLAC, ALAC, AIFF, Wav...they are all the same.

  Quote:


 after all this site is a great resource of information and differing opinions, and hope that everyone is well rounded enough to take bits and peices from varying words of wisdom to suit their own setup and to not be misguided so easily, maybe this forum should have a disclaimer when joining then that warns newcomers that not everything they read on the internet is gospel! 
 

Perhaps this should be so! However, why make someone doubt every single word read when this is completely inane? There are plenty of factual statements meant to be read and spread to ease the burden of learning, purchasing and having fun. No need to second guess every last word because "people can't be trusted." I don't believe that fundamentally people can't be trusted. However, I do believe that people who make subjective claims and call them objective truths do a severe disservice to the membership here. 

 So then, IF there is a DIFFERENCE (I'm not yet disputing this though I've never heard one) then WHY is there a DIFFERENCE. The WHY is very important. Is it a hardware bottleneck? Is it a software coding error? This is not the difference between analogue and digital, this is between bits and bits on the same system!! So long as the hardware is not strapped, there can't be a difference. If there can't be a difference from a theoretical standpoint, then why is there one?


----------



## cerbie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_krmathis lean back in the chair and watch this endless discussion. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

A Laz-e-boy, no doubt, with a transport, DAC and amp being fed FLAC over the LAN, I hope


----------



## Agnostic

First
 Let me suggest we make a reasonable assumption: 

 Until proven otherwise I will asume that those people claiming to hear differences between FLAC and WAVE are imagining things. So far I have not heard one even remotely likely reason to assume otherwise. 

 Second 
 There can not be any discussion about a difference between properly decoded lossless file and a WAVE of the same file. I'm sorry but if you think there can be you are simply stupid.

 Third 
 FLAC requires very few computing resources to decode, that's what it's been specifically designed for so decoding problems due to insufficient resources are highly unlikely.

 Fourth 
 The proper way to troubleshoot this problem is:
 1. Do an ABX test to check you're not imagining things.
 2. Decode the lossless file to a Wav and run a bit comparison.
 3. If you do not find a difference in the bit comparison check if there are any DSPs running. 

 I suspect doing step one will be sufficient to resolve the problem in almost all cases.


----------



## Hellenback

In Foobar you don't even need to decode the Flac file to get a bit comparison. Load both files, (highlight them both holding control or shift) and right click utility ->bit compare. (Assuming you have installed the "foo_bitcompare" component).
 Having said this, I have an electrical engineer acquaintance (who designs speakers and other audio equipment) who swears he hears "soundstage" differences between the two formats on playback. Go figure.


----------



## krmathis




----------



## jacc1234

How is that ABX coming?


----------



## uraflit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jacc1234* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How is that ABX coming?_

 

you just HAD to bump this didnt you?


----------



## Scrith

I have noticed quite a difference in quality between FLAC and WAV files with regard to playback quality.

 The story begins where I downloaded an album by Thomas Feiner and Anywhen in WAV format (Samadhisound.com)

 Also I recently upgraded my system a bit - PC > Yulong DAH1 Mark > Senn HD650 & STAX SRS-3050

 However this stunning album seemed quite harsh especially Thomas' vocals, and the sound stage appeared fairly flat - two dimensional. Separation between instruments also sounded a little smeared.

 I tried this recording with the STAX and the Senns, same problems.

 However, I decided to convert the WAV files to FLAC (using DBPOWERAMP)
 and discovered something unexpected - but a pleasant surprise indeed.

 All of the problems I had experienced are now gone. It appears that the WAV file despite being lossless, has some effects on playback.

 I tend to upsample (SRC in Foobar) to 88.2khz / 24bit and this is where the effects were most marked.

 Anyway just a point to discuss - am I the only one who has this experience?


----------



## Currawong

Sounds like whatever software was decoding the WAV files has weird settings or a fault.


----------



## krmathis

..and the story goes on..


----------



## chinesekiwi

from FLAC official website:

  Quote:


 *Why doesn't FLAC store all WAVE metadata?
 If flac compresses WAVE files, why isn't it technically a WAVE file compressor?*

 (By default, flac does not store WAVE metadata, but it can with the --keep-foreign-metadata option described below.)

 FLAC is a general-purpose audio format, not just a compressed WAVE file format. There's a subtle difference. WAVE is a complicated standard; many kinds of data besides audio data can be put in it. FLAC's purpose is not to reproduce a WAVE file, including all the non-audio data that is in it, it is to losslessly compress the audio.

 However, if you really need to store the non-audio parts of a WAVE or AIFF file, you can use the --keep-foreign-metadata option to flac when encoding to store it in FLAC metadata, then use the option again when decoding to restore in to the decoded WAVE/AIFF file. 
 

In other words FLAC = Audio section (all that's needed) of a WAV file.

 The *only* difference sound wise would what software is used in the encoding and decoding. Otherwise, it is the same.

 /end thread plz!


----------



## Quaddy

/\ on paper maybe i agree, but thats not my experience with it in reality. so no need to end thread, carry on as you are, there is indeed something in it.

 most people cant decipher an audible difference is flac compression formats but some claim they can

 does it really matter?


----------



## Trogdor

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Quaddy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 most people cant decipher an audible difference is flac compression formats but some claim they can
_

 

People claim a lot of things, doesn't mean its true. There is no difference between FLAC and WAV. None.

 To go even further, let's say whatever software you are using has a bug in it (hypothetically speaking) and you miss 1 or 2 bits every 50 megabytes, do you believe you can hear a difference? (if you can I'd like you to identify the spots where you hear the difference) Put it this way, if I play 320kbps mp3's do you still think you tell the difference?

 People mostly like to convince themselves they can hear differences because it either validates some purchase they made or that they have superman hearing and can detect bits that have been dropped when to its just biologically impossible. Even though DBT is sorta a curse word to audiophiles, you'll find if you do one between FLAC vs WAV you are going to get it wrong!


----------



## chinesekiwi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Quaddy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_/\ on paper maybe i agree, but thats not my experience with it in reality. so no need to end thread, carry on as you are, there is indeed something in it.

 most people cant decipher an audible difference is flac compression formats but some claim they can

 does it really matter?_

 

"The only difference sound wise would what software is used in the encoding and decoding. Otherwise, it is the same."
 That's the difference. Nothing to do with your equipment or your hearing.

 This has less substance than 320kbps mp3 vs. lossless as it's lossless vs. another lossless codec. i.e. no information is cut out like with lossless vs. lossy.

 That said, equipment goes into the equation far more in mp3 vs. lossless. e.g. with my Sansa Fuze, I cannot tell the difference on it with Vorbis at -q8 (256 kbps) and FLAC while on my home setup I can (the difference is minimal however but still noticeable). I can tell difference between Vorbis and mp3 easier than I can with Vorbis and FLAC.


----------



## sxr71

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you using a squeezebox by any chance?

 Back when I used to use one I noticed some differences which were fixed by having the slimserver [on my computer] decode the FLAC before sending it to the squeezebox as a WAV. I asked about this in the squeezebox forums and there were others who had found the same. Seems there is something wrong with the way that the squeezebox decodes FLAC.

 If not, I'd say that the others are correct that there is something wrong with the software you are using to playback the FLAC files._

 


 Good info. Just changed all my SC settings to make PCM or AIFF the only transmitted formats. All decoding/transcoding is being performed on the server.


----------



## sxr71

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *progo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's not technically foobar that decodes the file, but a plugin (run by foobar, but basically an independent program). If the plugin reads a number 453053 from the file but decides to send some other number to foobar (due to bad code, problems with the OS, something, anything), it's not working right and the results differ._

 


 It's like saying that if you zipped a file and unzipped it that after you did that using Winzip that Winzip somehow screwed up the file and you can no longer open it in the application that opens it. That's what lossless is. The resulting file is IDENTICAL. There are checks in place to ensure that it is obviously. Considering FLAC of all things can be easily scrutinized by anybody in the world and we haven't heard of a situation where the resulting output from the FLAC plug-in is different in all the years of its existence I seriously doubt there are "Computer Programming 101: Intro to computer programming" type errors in the plug-in.


----------



## LightZY

From my personal listening experience with my speaker setup, I've heard some differences between .flac and .wav too.

 Specifically, i personally find that .flac sounds "brighter / harsher" (whichever seems right to you) while .wav sounds more smooth / natural and instrument separations are indeed improved etc.

 I can go on and on about what differences i heard but that would be useless. 

 Given a choice, i will clearly rip all my CDs to .wav instead of .flac however, that's just me.


 On the side note, my source of playing audio for .wav / .flac is obviously a computer, using the "Lilith sound player" and "Minimalist audio player" having the leading edge.

 Both of which are clearly superior to foobar in terms of sound quality ONLY.

 However i would also like to point out that I'm on the X-Meridian soundcard and waiting for the ASUS essence stx as that would seem to be a cleaner source according to what I've read so far.


 In conclusion, all of the above are just purely my humble views and opinions, no offense and chill out guys!


----------



## Bradan

actually, the oxygen content in the room also influences the sound, and the moon's position, and whether I'm happy or grumpy. Seriously I says so. It's true.


----------



## ChaseD13

Honestly every time i see this thread it angers me. This isnt something up for debate folks. Flac = Wav every time. You might hear a difference, but that would mean there's something wrong with your ears, not the format. 

 This is worse than discussing cables etc (though digital cables shouldn't matter) which are analogue so there is atleast a difference in the signal caused by material. 

 10011 is 10011 every time. I don't mean to come off harsh, but there is no difference between the formats. Mp3 vs flac is valid- there is actually a difference to measure (our ears/ equipment may or may not be able to show it, but at least there is something to look at)

 Like other users have said, flac functions like a .zip file (though the non audio data can change, but sound bits are exact). If .zip wasnt exactly the same nothing you have downloaded in that format would work. Programs need all of their bytes- you dont get a shrill program, it either works or it doesnt. This has long ago been perfected.

 And also, no computer running windows 95 or higher should have ANY problem playing back flac (some say it may be hard to decode), and if it was having trouble, it would skip, it wouldnt sound just a little harsher. You would immediately see that your computer is lagging because of it and things would freeze. 

 This thread is misleading and should be LOCKED. There's a point where placebo needs to be called placebo because thousands of knowledge seeking users visit this site and say to themselves... "hmm, maybe i should keep all my music in .wav and use twice the hdd space as .flac because these knowledgeable people say it sounds better". 

 Conclusion- The format .flac is 100% = .wav 100% of the time. No ifs, ands, or buts. 

 Please stop discussing this... go debate mp3 vs aac vs flac. Or the benefits of different lossless formats (like tagging capabilities and compatibility with players and software). Stay away from this one...it's spreading fals information.


----------



## LightZY

Actually, IMHO i don't think any 2 files/formats will be 100.0% exactly the same if not why even produce .flac or .wav in the first place.

 However, if anyone claims that they hear no audible differences between .flac or .wav, so be it. Nobody is here to prove you wrong.

 All i can say is that i, with my setup and ears, hear a slight difference.

 At the same time, i can also bring into the equation of the entire audio setup being revealing and stuff but i don't wanna open a can of worms/start a flame war. Besides, my setup isn't revealing at all but i still hear a difference, YMMV.

 After going through and re-ripping some of my CDs into .flac and .wav using EAC, i still prefer .wav.


----------



## scytheavatar

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LightZY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, IMHO i don't think any 2 files/formats will be 100.0% exactly the same if not why even produce .flac or .wav in the first place.

 However, if anyone claims that they hear no audible differences between .flac or .wav, so be it. Nobody is here to prove you wrong.

 All i can say is that i, with my setup and ears, hear a slight difference.

 At the same time, i can also bring into the equation of the entire audio setup being revealing and stuff but i don't wanna open a can of worms/start a flame war. Besides, my setup isn't revealing at all but i still hear a difference, YMMV.

 After going through and re-ripping some of my CDs into .flac and .wav using EAC, i still prefer .wav._

 

And what we are trying to tell you is that it's all in your head, you are hearing the differences because you are telling yourself that there's a difference. Logically, computer scientifically, there's no difference between flac and wav. WAV stores a lot of data that has nothing to do with what you hear. FLAC reproduces all of what you hear in WAV, 100%, without any lost. There's no YMMV because the only way you can hear the difference between flac and wav is if 1+1=3.


----------



## LightZY

Okay. I just use what i think is best for me that's all.


----------



## ford2

If Wav sounds better than Flac to an individual then so be it,let them enjoy there WAV files.
 It would be a poor world if everyone has to have FLAC just because a few say its the best.
 As for the file size mattering in this day of 2TB drives,well make up your own minds.
 And as for tags,who needs them.
 If you are happy with WAV then good on you,enjoy.
 There is so much C--P splashed around about audio that it detracts from the enjoyment of the music.
 I have a relic at home in the shape of some Realistic novas,with there 8ohm speakers,
 attach them to a good source and they start to sound reasonable,far better than the experts say they could be.
 To each there own.


----------



## iriverdude

Quote:


 And as for tags,who needs them. 
 

Erm any application which uses tags to build database? Winamp, Rockbox, Slim Center all use Tags in filenames. Even if I browse by folder, I would need .cue file for each album. I haven't figured how to do this in EAC automatically. Yet EAC rips and tags automatically. Also if using WAV for DAP even less storage since it has 38GB HD, and will also use more battery power due to HD spinning up 60% more frequently.

  Quote:


 As for the file size mattering in this day of 2TB drives,well make up your own minds. 
 

Not only are WAV larger but if you have a backup copy then that's 60% bigger also. So if you want to pay the extra £140 for the same amount of music storage go right ahead.

 I can't think of any reasons choosing WAV, except if you're a bit misinformed thinking because it's smaller it must have worse sound quality.


----------



## mark_h

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sxr71* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's like saying that if you zipped a file and unzipped it that after you did that using Winzip that Winzip somehow screwed up the file and you can no longer open it in the application that opens it. That's what lossless is. The resulting file is IDENTICAL._

 

More like using compression in .tif and .jpeg image files.

 I am currently re-ripping all my files from cd in AIFF to replace the ALAC I have, and thus far can hear no difference at all! I am doing it because I am obsessive to some degree.


----------



## krmathis

If you hear a difference, good for you.
 The rest of us can just stick to lossless compressed audio. Like I do...


----------



## japc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LightZY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, IMHO i don't think any 2 files/formats will be 100.0% exactly the same if not why even produce .flac or .wav in the first place._

 

Well, because you spare a lot, and I mean a lot, of space with flac (vs. wav).


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LightZY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, IMHO i don't think any 2 files/formats will be 100.0% exactly the same if not why even produce .flac or .wav in the first place._

 

Depends what you mean by 100.0%. Meaning 100% identical on all aspect, of course not. But 100% identical in audio data, for sure they are.


----------



## Filburt

There is zero quantitative difference between the output from lossless codecs and wav; that is why they are called lossless. There is no psychoacoustic model employed; it isn't lossy. There is no margin of error employed in place of parity. You can compare the output of a decoded FLAC to the source WAV, as well as check the output spectrally; there is no difference whatsoever. The sum and substance of both formats is purely quantitative, so if they are identical, there is nothing to distinguish them outside of an external source of error. So, if you are hearing an actual difference, the problem lies elsewhere (e.g. something is wrong with your system and it is creating the error). On top of being not correlated with the format itself, such an error is of exceedingly low probability relative to it simply being what I guess is now often termed "placebo."

 I guess if you guys really just need to figure this out and can't possibly trust what is already essentially a dispostive answer, run a proper experiment. I don't mean ABX; I mean the type where you have A and B and you have to choose which one "sounds better" (e.g. there is no X).


----------



## a19als

*finally, which is the best? *


----------



## ford2

It appears that the flac boys are the one's pounding the drums.
 Just maybe a bit of concern that there COULD be a difference.


----------



## fallsroad

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mark_h* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_More like using compression in .tif and .jpeg image files._

 

Not quite.

 Jpg is a lossy format. There is data loss during the compression. That loss is variable based on the compression rate, but it is lost nonetheless.


----------



## craiglester

Ugh, these threads are so pointless. They contain the *exact* same audio data, and unless your system is misconfigured, will sound the same. Like Identical, no difference, audible or otherwise. 
 Honestly. Wav as an audio container is horrible. 
 No Tags? No thanks.


----------



## milkweg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *robojack* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If I recall correctly, FLAC doesn't always mean it will sound identical to the original source, since it still has compression._

 

It's a different kind of compression to something like .ogg or .mp3 though. Think of .flac like a .zip file. When it is decompressed during playback it is an exact duplicate of the uncompressed file. There is no way they would sound different unless it is a software player issue.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *a19als* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*finally, which is the best? *_

 

Of those (FLAC vs. WAV) its a clear lead to FLAC.
 Identical audio data in ~60% of the storage space, and with lots of additional features (meta data, album art,...)


----------



## japc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ford2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It appears that the flac boys are the one's pounding the drums.
 Just maybe a bit of concern that there COULD be a difference._

 

There's no such thing as FLAC boys. It's just too logic that I can't understand that people should think otherwise. Please do an experiment:

 open a txt file
 write 100 times the word "test"
 copy the file to file2
 zip the copy
 unzip the copy
 compare the copy with the original

 is there any diference? Should there be any? Why?


----------



## gadgetman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *japc* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's no such thing as FLAC boys. It's just too logic that I can't understand that people should think otherwise. Please do an experiment:

 open a txt file
 write 100 times the word "test"
 copy the file to file2
 zip the copy
 unzip the copy
 compare the copy with the original

 is there any diference? Should there be any? Why?_

 

In the several tests that I've ran, the resulting (COPIED) test files seem to have a blurrier text presentation than the original. On one occasion, I even seem to recall the original text to have much darker coloring and that the background to be much much brighter than the copy.

 ....


----------



## El_Doug

I am AMAZED that people would even claim there is a difference. Flabbergasted, is the better term

 Those who claim these files sound different, are the same type of "audiophiles" who think that an upgraded ethernet cable will improve the SQ of a network-attached storage system. 

 After decoding, the file is BIT BY BIT IDENTICAL. IDENTICAL!!! THE SAME DAMNED THING!!!!!!!!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gadgetman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In the several tests that I've ran, the resulting (COPIED) test files seem to have a blurrier text presentation than the original. On one occasion, I even seem to recall the original text to have much darker coloring and that the background to be much much brighter than the copy.

 .... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

rofl u just made my day 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ty for pointing out the absurdities of their arguments


----------



## japc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gadgetman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In the several tests that I've ran, the resulting (COPIED) test files seem to have a blurrier text presentation than the original. On one occasion, I even seem to recall the original text to have much darker coloring and that the background to be much much brighter than the copy.

 .... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Lol, that was fun. Ziproxed ?


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gadgetman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In the several tests that I've ran, the resulting (COPIED) test files seem to have a blurrier text presentation than the original. On one occasion, I even seem to recall the original text to have much darker coloring and that the background to be much much brighter than the copy.

 .... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Best laugh today! Thanks!


----------



## LightZY

Keep the drums pounding! Interested to see more opinions in this delightful thread from the sidelines.

 Anyone wanna add in more "facts" and "theory" from the scientific/(fill-in-the-blank) view please do so!

 Oh and here's one more comment from me, i find that vocals wise, .flac sounds more focused(brighter). Hmm didn't i mention this already? Ops...


----------



## japc

Ok, this is turning into one of those sily threads then ?


----------



## SpudHarris

I use an ipod classic and everything is in lossless. Is Flac or WAV better than Apple lossless?

 I'm asking because I see a lot of pics etc with Sansa players (clip/Fuse etc). I'm probably setting myself up for a fall here but If I bought a Fuse for instance with Flac encoded tracks would I have to throw my ipod?

 Oh my pc has WAV (lossless) but how would I get Flac is there a software download? Although I have a fair bit of audio gear my cherry was popped by Apple so I'm none the wiser to what else is out there.

 any advice would be really appreciated.

 Thanks...


----------



## LightZY

I think the best advice to you is that, trust your ears and only your ears regardless of what format there is, be it .wav/flac/mp3/(whatever format there is available in this world)

 You can rip CDs to .flac or .wav using a software like uhh... EAC (Exact Audio Copy) as for a guide to that, try this -> A Perfectionist's Guide to Audio CD Extraction and Lossless Compression .

 But if you are looking for something to convert .wav to .flac (vice versa) sorry i can't help you here mate as i personally don't know the method myself.

 This thread is silly in the first place since uhh, .wav and .flac audio data are exactly the same... from what i learnt.

 Cheers.


----------



## iriverdude

Quote:


 Is Flac or WAV better than Apple lossless? 
 

All lossless however WAV and flac are open source or part of CD red book standards. ALAC is Apple's own. So if you choose ALAC you're stuck with Ipods, unless you convert it back to WAV or flac. Wav are uncompressed so 100% size, flac will be roughly 60% of WAV plus have tag information in the file. ALAC I presume is smaller than WAV and also store tag info.

  Quote:


 Oh my pc has WAV (lossless) but how would I get Flac 
 

Flac encoder, 1.2.1 Google search. You can integrated the encoder into foobar, mediamonkey or dbpoweramps.


----------



## gadgetman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gadgetman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In the several tests that I've ran, the resulting (COPIED) test files seem to have a blurrier text presentation than the original. On one occasion, I even seem to recall the original text to have much darker coloring and that the background to be much much brighter than the copy.

 .... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 






 In my mind, the claims from wav != flac side is very similar of the situation I depicted above. I hope the illustration is acceptable and taken as a light jab in this silly discussion, it's not meant to diss anyone 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think the only way the claim may be valid is only if the media player keeps 2 different output pipeline (whatever comes after the decompressor?) for WAV and for FLAC. Is there any reason they'd be doing this?


----------



## LightZY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gadgetman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_





 In my mind, the claims from wav != flac side is very similar of the situation I depicted above. I hope the illustration is acceptable and taken as a light jab in this silly discussion, it's not meant to diss anyone 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think the only way the claim may be valid is only if the media player keeps 2 different output pipeline (whatever comes after the decompressor?) for WAV and for FLAC. Is there any reason they'd be doing this?_

 

What you said may actually be possible, try this player Minimalist Audio Player, although practically, i doubt anyone will spot any SIGNIFICANT differences between .wav and .flac.


----------



## gadgetman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LightZY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What you said may actually be possible, try this player Minimalist Audio Player, although practically, i doubt anyone will spot any SIGNIFICANT differences between .wav and .flac._

 

Judging by the name, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet they would not maintain additional (& unnecessary?) output pathways.

 The mind is a powerful thing. It has the power to shape our world. Introducing a subtle difference among 2 different 'object' would be a very easy thing to do, if it has a reason to do so... (maybe because it has a preconceived notion that A might be better than B, even before experiencing both).


----------



## Quaddy

the truth is out there, and everyones truth is different!


----------



## scytheavatar

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LightZY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What you said may actually be possible, try this player Minimalist Audio Player, although practically, i doubt anyone will spot any SIGNIFICANT differences between .wav and .flac._

 

And no one can spot a significant difference, because there's no difference.


----------



## LightZY

So be it, then there is no difference.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SpudHarris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I use an ipod classic and everything is in lossless. Is Flac or WAV better than Apple lossless?_

 

Obviously Apple Lossless, since it has native support on your iPod Classic. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 While FLAC is not supported...


----------



## neouser

I think this comparison started wrong from the beginning. Dunno if it was already said, but he declared "Im using upsampling 88.2/24".

 I am shooting casually but, if some dsp is applied (in this case upsampling), there could be some difference if applied to two different formats.

 I suggest to output your 44.1/16 flac and wav files through foobar, with some bit-perfect method (kernel streaming/wasapi/asio), at 44.1/16 with all the digital volumes set to -0,00DB (or Maximum).

 Then make a comparison between the two formats.

 I bet theyll be the same.


 Marco


----------



## Filburt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *El_Doug* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am AMAZED that people would even claim there is a difference. Flabbergasted, is the better term

 Those who claim these files sound different, are the same type of "audiophiles" who think that an upgraded ethernet cable will improve the SQ of a network-attached storage system. 

 After decoding, the file is BIT BY BIT IDENTICAL. IDENTICAL!!! THE SAME DAMNED THING!!!!!!!!



 rofl u just made my day 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ty for pointing out the absurdities of their arguments 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I think this is ultimately due to a confusion over which cases subjective anecdotes are probative, at all, of an issue. In this hobby, it is common to refer to such 'evidence', in part I think because there are genuine issues of aesthetic taste, and in part because it renders an argument seemingly (to the claimant) unfalsifiable, so it insulates the statement from challenge. 

 What the DAC in your hardware sees between WAV and FLAC is identical. All of the differences in the audio data's encapsulation has zero bearing whatsoever on what the DAC sees. That's why it's called metadata. So, unless one is positing that there is some special, unquantifiable, invisible (in terms of tracking the data), and unmeasurable force over and above the audio data that is determining the output, and is additionally supervenient upon format (such that one format exhibits this special property and the other does not), then subjective impression is not probative of this matter in any capacity whatsoever (e.g. what you hear is completely irrelevant). Combined with the generally unreliable nature of subjective anecdotes, there is very little reason for someone seeking serious advice on the matter to take these suggestions seriously.

 I agree with Zanth. The worst aspect of discussions such as this is people may be misled into actually committing themselves to a costly (either time or money) venture based on erroneous or irrelevant evidence offered in support of claims such as that FLAC and WAV are phenomenologically distinguishable.


----------



## gadgetman

..and after they've invested time and\or money on something (reconverting their whole collection, etc), a few things will happen..

 1). They will have a higher perceived value of the re-encoded collection due to their investments (time and effort) in (re)making them. This will build up their personal expectations and they will likely respond more favorably to the new format when doing listening comparison. 

 2). They will want to justify their action by re-spreading this 'information' to others, not based on the merit of the info (which there isn't any).

 Thus a myth is born...


----------



## ford2

The kids outside are playing TAG, and ducking to avoid the FLAC, and then a WAV to say goodby.


----------



## Chri5peed

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zanth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Perhaps back 10 years ago, decompressing a FLAC file may have resulted in sound differences because the system couldn't cache the entire track in RAM. These days one can cue up an album and the entire thing can be decompressed and stored in RAM as WAV files ready to go. 1 CPU does the decompression, 1 CPU does the playback. Seriously, with the computers today, there should be no sonic differences at all._

 

Its from page.1, but worthy.

 Some people need to know how lossless compression works. Key word is decompression, lossy files cannot do this as they've thrown data away.


----------



## deepsix

I think the interesting thing that has come out in this thread is FLAC defenders going from the line that `FLAC is EXACTLY the same as WAV once decompressed!` to `FLAC only disposes of the NON AUDIBLE data in WAV files, everything you can hear is still there in FLAC!`

 That is the key I think. Ipod-using-Man-on-the-street-MP3-defenders will tell you that in MP3s ONLY inaudible data is thrown away so MP3 and CDs are EXACTLY the SAME! 

 The problem with these arguments is that the highly complex human mind CAN detect technically inaudible data when it is missing. Its the heart and soul of the music, and provides a background for the audible sounds, it brings out the audible sounds, like the background in a painting makes the subjects more real. Thats why lossy formats often sound hollow and it may be why FLAC sounds inferior to WAV to many listeners I believe. 

 I do have very sensitive hearing though and I have successfully picked MD from CD 10 blind tests out of 10 at a demonstration conducted by Sony at a major Australian university designed to prove MD was sonically indistinguishable from CD so I may be more sensitive than some FLAC listeners here but personally I`ll stick to .wav and plain ol` CDs just to make sure I`m not missing ANYTHING.


----------



## fallsroad

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *deepsix* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think the interesting thing that has come out in this thread is FLAC defenders going from the line that `FLAC is EXACTLY the same as WAV once decompressed!` to `FLAC only disposes of the NON AUDIBLE data in WAV files, everything you can hear is still there in FLAC!`

 That is the key I think. Ipod-using-Man-on-the-street-MP3-defenders will tell you that in MP3s ONLY inaudible data is thrown away so MP3 and CDs are EXACTLY the SAME! 

 The problem with these arguments is that the highly complex human mind CAN detect technically inaudible data when it is missing. Its the heart and soul of the music, and provides a background for the audible sounds, it brings out the audible sounds, like the background in a painting makes the subjects more real. Thats why lossy formats often sound hollow and it may be why FLAC sounds inferior to WAV to many listeners I believe. 

 I do have very sensitive hearing though and I have successfully picked MD from CD 10 blind tests out of 10 at a demonstration conducted by Sony at a major Australian university designed to prove MD was sonically indistinguishable from CD so I may be more sensitive than some FLAC listeners here but personally I`ll stick to .wav and plain ol` CDs just to make sure I`m not missing ANYTHING._

 

You do realize that the "non-audible" data compressed by FLAC literally is non-audible in the sense that it is not audio data at all?

 That is the primary difference between what FLAC and other lossless compressors do and what MP3s do. In the latter, actual audio data is altered in order to make file sizes smaller, according to an algorithm that allegedly is inaudible, but to those with excellent, trained ears and high resolution systems certainly is audible (and at higher compression rates should be audible to anyone).

 In the case of FLAC, no audio data is altered or removed.

 None.

 If you are hearing differences between WAV and FLAC, then there are errors in the FLAC encoding or decoding process. There are no psycho-acoustic tricks involved in lossless audio, unlike minidisc or mp3.


----------



## badmonkey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *deepsix* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think the interesting thing that has come out in this thread is FLAC defenders going from the line that `FLAC is EXACTLY the same as WAV once decompressed!` to `FLAC only disposes of the NON AUDIBLE data in WAV files, everything you can hear is still there in FLAC!`_

 

Are you dumb? LEARN something before wasting your time posting gibberish.


----------



## deepsix

Okay, I may be mistaken but can you please define what exactly this `non audio data` that is apparantly present in .wav files IS, if it is not audio data?


----------



## Olev

One example of non-audio data in WAV files are tags - just like MP3 some programs allow to enter artist, song etc info to a tag in WAV. This has NOTHING to do with audio data.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *deepsix* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay, I may be mistaken but can you please define what exactly this `non audio data` that is apparantly present in .wav files IS, if it is not audio data?_

 

A FLAC does not throw away *any* data. None. Every single bit that is in a WAV is also represented by the FLAC.


----------



## fallsroad

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *deepsix* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay, I may be mistaken but can you please define what exactly this `non audio data` that is apparantly present in .wav files IS, if it is not audio data?_

 

Free Lossless Audio Codec - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 There are links from that article about how lossless compression in general is achieved.

 It's about compression of data in a lossless format that can be completely reconstructed, bit for bit. 

 Lossy compression, like MP3, involves altering the audio data itself by removing information that, according to the algorithm, will not affect the playback of the music in psychoacoustic terms, though in comparisons it can be audible. The lower the bit rate, the more audible it becomes, becuase less of the original audio information is retained.

 It is an altogether different concept than using compression techniques to make a file smaller. MP3s discard audio data, then also apply file compression, which is why the files, dependent upon the encoding bit rate, can be so very small compared to the original.


----------



## deepsix

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A FLAC does not throw away *any* data. None. Every single bit that is in a WAV is also represented by the FLAC._

 

I guess you missed this when it was posted earlier in the thread, from the FLAC website:

  Quote:


 Why doesn't FLAC store all WAVE metadata? 


 (By default, flac does not store WAVE metadata, but it can with the --keep-foreign-metadata option described below.)

 FLAC is a general-purpose audio format, not just a compressed WAVE file format. There's a subtle difference. WAVE is a complicated standard; many kinds of data besides audio data can be put in it. *FLAC's purpose is not to reproduce a WAVE file, including all the non-audio data that is in it*, it is to losslessly compress the audio.


----------



## deepsix

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Olev* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One example of non-audio data in WAV files are tags - just like MP3 some programs allow to enter artist, song etc info to a tag in WAV. This has NOTHING to do with audio data._

 

I believe it was also posted earlier in the thread that WAV files do not allow tags and that is something that FLAC can *add* to a music file.

 So anyone else got ANY examples of this so called data that WAV files comprise of that doesnt effect SQ?


----------



## avid666

Unless you think track listings and album art affect the quality of the sound in a WAVE file, the FLAC file has the same audio quality as the WAVE file. What is stored in the meta-data of your WAVE file are general information about the song which doesn't affect the quality of the audio.


----------



## avid666

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *deepsix* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I believe it was also posted earlier in the thread that WAV files do not allow tags and that is something that FLAC can *add* to a music file.

 So anyone else got ANY examples of this so called data that WAV files comprise of that doesnt effect SQ?_

 

Correction, there is no standard format. Some tools can add meta-data to a WAVE file. Obviously FLAC can't do anything with that data, because then it would have to understand the many different ways tools have bodged it in.


----------



## deepsix

oh


----------



## 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.


----------



## fallsroad

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_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._

 

A 64.2MB WAV encoded at High in APE leads to a file of 40.4MB.

 FLAC at level 8, which does not suffer the anomalies of APE at the highest settings, leads to a file of 41.2MB

 Hardly a waste of space in an era of 2TB hard drives.

 Personally, I stopped using APE specifically because of the issues with Extra High and Insane encoding. That lag is a bug, not a feature. To each their own, of course.


----------



## krmathis

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!_

 

If saving space is the only think that matters, then why are you stuck at Monkey's Audio (APE)? When there are more efficient lossless encoders, like LA and OptimFrog... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Lossless Audio Homepage
OptimFROG Lossless Audio Compression

Lossless comparison - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase


----------



## Chri5peed

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_anyway, FLAC is fine...just a waste of space for PC-only playback._

 

Umm, 500GB HDDs are not expensive.

 Surely WAV is the waste of space.


----------



## leeperry

yes, some other codecs are slightly better than APE...but APE is widely supported on PC at this point, plus it's open source so support will not stop anytime soon.

 that's the thing, I don't trust HDD's...a major french website just published the RMA figures of a big online webshop....some 1TB drives from Samsung/Seagate carry a 16% RMA failure, 1 drive out of 6 dies prematurely 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 lemme burn my Verb's, run them through CDCheck, catalog them, run PI/PO error checks when I'm bored...so far, zero data loss...and APE allows me to pack a tad more files per DVD too 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'd hate to lose 2TB of music


----------



## fallsroad

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yes, some other codecs are slightly better than APE...but APE is widely supported on PC at this point, plus it's open source so support will not stop anytime soon.
_

 

Monkey's Audio is open source?

 I knew FLAC was, but not Monkey's (which went for a very long time without any updates until just recently).

 And unless I am ignorant, I fail to see how APE files are any more or less supported on PCs than FLAC. 

 Honestly, absent a sonic difference, there is little difference between the two with the small exception of the odd behavior at higher compression rates for APE. I've used both with great results, and only stopped using Monkey's for encoding recently.

 As for HDDs, those who care about their music collections do this thing called backing up. Very handy. I highly recommend it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## leeperry

hehe, yeah sure..backing up a few teras is piece of cake 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I only said that APE is well supported, unlike TAK and all these closed source codecs.

Monkey's Audio Source Code License Agreement
  Quote:


 Monkey's Audio source can be included in GPL and open-source software 
 

yeah, FLAC is fine...but I personally encode 5.1 in WavPack and stereo in "high" APE, no big deal


----------



## fallsroad

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_hehe, yeah sure..backing up a few teras is piece of cake 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I only said that APE is well supported, unlike TAK and all these closed source codecs.

Monkey's Audio Source Code License Agreement


 yeah, FLAC is fine...but I personally encode 5.1 in WavPack and stereo in "high" APE, no big deal 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Preference is a beautiful thing.

 I have my tunes on CD, and back up the HDDs. I went through a total drive crash many years ago without any back up, and learned my lesson the hard way.


----------



## buelligan

I haven't seen any mention of the possibility that in some systems, either due to elderly processors (like mine), CODEC problems, or excessive background processes, there may be latency which could result in higher word clock jitter. This may explain both why there could be a difference and why some hear it and some don't.

 Just sayin'

 Happy listening everyone


----------



## khaos974

.ape at upper compression levels (especially on insane) has seeking problems, it can take a few seconds to reach a specific a part of a track.

 It's very annoying if you have .cue files with CD images, it's basically the reason I abandoned Ape for Flac. Finally I chose to have separate tracks anyway 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 so I could have stayed with .ape. But .ape still demands higher processing power.

 PS: 2.5 in external drives are supposed to be more reliable than 3.5 in ones, they were originally built for notebooks while 3.5 in are built for home computers. That's why they are supposed to be more resilient to acceleration since notebooks are often moved while functionning.


----------



## somestranger26

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *khaos974* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_PS: 2.5 in external drives are supposed to be more reliable than 3.5 in ones, they were originally built for notebooks while 3.5 in are built for home computers. That's why they are supposed to be more resilient to acceleration since notebooks are often moved while functionning._

 

This is not the type of thing you can make a blanket statement about. While 2.5" drives are used in laptops and many have features like g-force sensors to spin down the drive when they fall that doesn't mean the same drives are being used by external drive manufacturers (they usually use cheaper drives, hence why external drives cost about the same as an equivalent internal drive). OTOH, you have 3.5" drives ranging from cheap 5400-5900rpm 'consumer' drives on up to beefy, resilient, and pricy enterprise level 7200-15k rpm drives that vary in lifetime. 

 Whatever size of external drive you use, be it 1.8, 2.5, or 3.5", is going to crash and burn if you drop it too far to the ground, mishandle it, or otherwise damage it in some way. Platter size is really just up to your individual needs: 1.8 or 2.5" if you don't need a ton of storage and you want something fairly portable. 3.5" if you want something not-so-portable that can lug around a ton of data, such as an entire computer backup, while being much faster.


----------



## stang

Just get a SSD or two if you want your songs to be safe as possible. Personally I just use a 128GB SSD with Windows 7 on it and when I can be bothered I will put my 250GB HDD back in my rig. HDD's are very ancient but SSDs are extremely expensive right now. I use .wav and do not care about having no space left on my SSD. 1TB hard drives are under $100 now, where as a 32GB SSD will be around the same. I have no need for more space right now because I can't afford CDs. At $30 for a CD, I would spend hundreds of dollars on them. Australia is a rip off.


----------



## donunus

what if your flacs have some sort of replaygain gain type tag and the tag is gone when converted to wav? Dont you end up with the wavs sounding louder than the flacs? This could explain the whole perceived difference in sound quality?


----------



## sonci

Foobar flac decoder, is much better than monkeys one, 
 dont ask me how do I know..
 If someone enable the Foobar feature _write statistics to file tags_, you will see that theres a lag of some millisec during writing of ape files, in playback
 prove that Foo has some work to do with ape files, which in audiophille speaking will deteriorite playback..


----------



## japc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *buelligan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I haven't seen any mention of the possibility that in some systems, either due to elderly processors (like mine), CODEC problems, or excessive background processes, there may be latency which could result in higher word clock jitter._

 

I think I've read that (perfectly reasonable) suggestion somewhere on the thread.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stang* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_At $30 for a CD, I would spend hundreds of dollars on them. Australia is a rip off._

 

Holy cows, that is expensive.


----------



## Typhoon859

Anybody know if the Cowon J3 player plays back FLAC properly?  Would it be okay to use it instead of WAV? 
   
  On a different note, I've also been wondering, if I decode a FLAC file to WAV, compress it back to FLAC, then decode it again, and so on so forth, the quality should stay the same forever unless errors occur in the process right?


----------



## japc

Right.


----------



## krmathis

Quote: 





typhoon859 said:


> Anybody know if the Cowon J3 player plays back FLAC properly?  Would it be okay to use it instead of WAV?


 
   
  According to the vendors website it does.
 http://product.cowon.com/product/COWONJ3/product_page_5.php
   
  Fully okay to use FLAC over WAV, or even preferable.
  
  Quote: 





typhoon859 said:


> On a different note, I've also been wondering, if I decode a FLAC file to WAV, compress it back to FLAC, then decode it again, and so on so forth, the quality should stay the same forever unless errors occur in the process right?


 

 Correct!


----------



## Typhoon859

Quote: 





krmathis said:


> According to the vendors website it does.
> http://product.cowon.com/product/COWONJ3/product_page_5.php
> 
> Fully okay to use FLAC over WAV, or even preferable.
> ...


 
   
  Thanks!  In regards to the Cowon though, I know it supports FLAC which it says there in the specs, but it doesn't always mean it plays it back how it's supposed to.  I'm always afraid to use FLAC because so many things can go wrong which they often do and the only way to tell is by ear.  If you don't notice straight away, you would have been hindering your experience and would have wasted your time.


----------



## Kawai_man

I think it was Gordon from wavelength audio  or Steve Nuggent from Emperical audio or maybe both I forget that also say that WAV is superior to flac,  these guys know audio


----------



## krmathis

Quote: 





typhoon859 said:


> Thanks!  In regards to the Cowon though, I know it supports FLAC which it says there in the specs, but it doesn't always mean it plays it back how it's supposed to.  I'm always afraid to use FLAC because so many things can go wrong which they often do and the only way to tell is by ear.  If you don't notice straight away, you would have been hindering your experience and would have wasted your time.


 

 I thought "supported" mean that it also plays back the codec perfectly, but I guess that may not be for all vendors - like Cowon. Do not own one, so can not give you a definitive answer. Sorry!


----------



## ZoNtO

Lossless is lossless is lossless. But you can always "hear" a difference if you want to.


----------



## leeperry

typhoon859 said:


> I'm always afraid to use FLAC because so many things can go wrong which they often do and the only way to tell is by ear.


 
   
  A properly configured EAC will check for CRC consistency at least 3 times, and FLAC files include checksums that you can easy check using "FLACTester"(from the official package). Monkey's Audio also double-checks while encoding that both source/encode are bit-perfect. I dunno for AIFF, but WAV doesn't have checksums AFAIK.


----------



## Typhoon859

Throughout these 14 pages, people keep coming and saying there is a difference and there is no difference...  What's the right answer?  It would only make sense that there isn't any but if reputable audiophiles ACTUALLY did say they hear a difference with a proper setup, then that may be...  Can someone give a definite answer that knows for sure - not "has heard ___" or "it is claimed ___"...  Knows for sure!


----------



## Typhoon859

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> A properly configured EAC will check for CRC consistency at least 3 times, and FLAC files include checksums that you can easy check using "FLACTester"(from the official package). Monkey's Audio also double-checks while encoding that both source/encode are bit-perfect. I dunno for AIFF, but WAV doesn't have checksums AFAIK.


 

 Yeah, but I'm not going to check every FLAC file I have, that's ridiculous.  Also, this requires a very specific way of playing them back.  If I want to do so on my PMP, there's no way I'd know.  It might be safe to say that it's okay but FLAC has always felt unpleasant to me - can't really tell you why exactly... :/


----------



## falis

Are you familiar with zip, gz or bzip formats for compressing software?  FLAC works on the same principle: it analyzes the bits in the file and provides a more compact encoding for places where the actual 0's and 1's can be.  Upon uncompressing, the image is exactly the same, unless there's been some kind of transmission error, but such errors are really rare, and result in an inability to uncompress the encoded file.  So that's part 1: if the process works, the decompressed result is identical to the original.
   
  The second part is that the format needs to be interpreted while being played, and this has some latency to it.  In general, you're not going to hear it any more than the latency of playing a wav or other uncompressed format.  Both involve analogous chains of devices and software.
   
  As far as differences being heard, I think that falls into the metaphysical relationship of the subjective and objective among sentient beings, and is probably not a conundrum that is solvable in any universal way, even when we become enlightened beings.  Pretty Zen, eh?
   
  - Ed
  
  Quote: 





typhoon859 said:


> Throughout these 14 pages, people keep coming and saying there is a difference and there is no difference...  What's the right answer?  It would only make sense that there isn't any but if reputable audiophiles ACTUALLY did say they hear a difference with a proper setup, then that may be...  Can someone give a definite answer that knows for sure - not "has heard ___" or "it is claimed ___"...  Knows for sure!


----------



## Typhoon859

Quote: 





falis said:


> Are you familiar with zip, gz or bzip formats for compressing software?  FLAC works on the same principle: it analyzes the bits in the file and provides a more compact encoding for places where the actual 0's and 1's can be.  Upon uncompressing, the image is exactly the same, unless there's been some kind of transmission error, but such errors are really rare, and result in an inability to uncompress the encoded file.  So that's part 1: if the process works, the decompressed result is identical to the original.
> 
> The second part is that the format needs to be interpreted while being played, and this has some latency to it.  In general, you're not going to hear it any more than the latency of playing a wav or other uncompressed format.  Both involve analogous chains of devices and software.
> 
> ...


 

 Ah well..  I guess I'll just use them.  I myself was going to make that analogy with the ZIP files.


----------



## Ham Sandwich

Quote: 





typhoon859 said:


> Throughout these 14 pages, people keep coming and saying there is a difference and there is no difference...  What's the right answer?  It would only make sense that there isn't any but if reputable audiophiles ACTUALLY did say they hear a difference with a proper setup, then that may be...  Can someone give a definite answer that knows for sure - not "has heard ___" or "it is claimed ___"...  Knows for sure!


 

 Stop asking audiophiles for their opinion and start asking engineers for the facts.  Audiophiles are full of wrongheaded opinions that have no basis in reality beyond their own personal delusions.  Ask engineers who design audio gear (make sure they're engineers who can be honest about the engineering and not engineers who are also the marketing department for the gear they make) and developers with a reputable computer science degree and you'll get a 100% consistent answer.
   
  There is no difference between FLAC that is properly decoded and properly played and WAV that is properly decoded and properly played.  To have a difference would turn computer science on its head.  It just cannot be.
   
  FLAC and APE files are actually more reliable than WAV.  FLAC can be tested to verify that the audio data hasn't been altered (say a bit mysteriously flipping or the file somehow getting corrupted).  WAV files don't have that type of checksum built in as part of the standard.  Use FLACTester, drag and drop your entire library folder tree in FLACTester and it will tell you if any of them are bad.  You can't do that with standard WAV.  A bit could flip in the middle of a WAV file and you'd never know.


----------



## Trogdor

[Audiophile]
   
  I'm positive its probably your interconnects and your power cable.  WAV works better when you have cryo-treated copper while FLAC is more lenient of lower quality cables (that's why people use it because it sounds better with most types of cables).  If you check the Nordost website, I think they offer an upgraded FLAC cable.  This cable was especially designed for FLAC playback in mind unlike a standard interconnect which can't transfer frequencies at 100000 kHz.  I would definitely pick up one of these and a hospital grade power cord.  Then WAV and FLAC playback should sound the same (and sublime!).
  [Engineer/Reality]
   
  They are both loseless.  Provided you don't have software playback issues, the bit stream produced to your DAC will be the SAME.  You need to stop reading HeadFi for a while and your reality distortion field will subside.
   
  Cheers!


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





falis said:


> As far as differences being heard, I think that falls into the metaphysical relationship of the subjective and objective among sentient beings, and is probably not a conundrum that is solvable in any universal way, even when we become enlightened beings.  Pretty Zen, eh?


 

 That's it! Now with my realization that differences between the two are of nothingness, I can finally discard my last layer of human materialism. I no longer have need for such empty bits.
   
  You're a regular ol' bodhisattva, guy. I'll put in a good word for ya with the Big Man. Karma +1000 dude.


----------



## Dalamar

If you think that a flac, which decodes to be bit-identical to the source wav, can be anything other than the same, you're one of the people that needs banned from the audio community. A DBT is not even needed to tell you why.
   
  For the sake of your wallet and dignity, and for the sake of not misleading others with the endless snake oil mind effects that everyone here seems to have.
   
  Can we get some mods to close this? And perhaps ban some people who are clearly trolling.


----------

