True, there is very little if any audible difference between FLAC and WAV. Where the differences lie are in the size of the file (FLAC is lossless compression) and the metadata. When a CD is ripped to FLAC most rippers automatically add the associated metadata for the selection. WAV files have no option for this and any metadata is in a "sidecar" file.
IME/O ripping to FLAC makes more sense than ripping to WAV. I don't do MP3 files or any lossy compression.
CD's are just WAV in PCM form
WAV files have no option for this and any metadata is in a "sidecar" file.
I still use an Apple 5G Ipod and it does not support FLAC
What, specifically, is not to like? You get an exact bit-for-bit recreation of the original file when it's played back, all in a smaller file. Please explain one rational objection.Some folks don't like how FLAC works - compress and decompress.
You left out the part about looking to see how bad the cracks are in the case and then trying to pry the cd out of the case without breaking it.Nothing replaces the ritual of opening up a the new jewel box of a CD with a sharp knife, nearly cutting your hand, and gouging the case. Then placing that beautiful disc inside the CD player and listening for that clunk as the drawer slams shut. Then go looking for your reading glasses to read the small print in the booklet, or watching the time counter's tiny display, and a magnifying glass to see the pictures.
Seriously though, I still use CD's, and FM radio. Will soon try one of those music apps on my new network AVR.
IMO the days of physical media, and even storing music files, except those from a music app are numbered, at least for me. It's just not worth the effort.
This is just a guess, but more changes of state means more chances for errors, and being less native means some inherent lag. These seem like things that might be measured, but never discernible.
This is a timely thread. I'm in the process of ripping my CD's using exact audio copy and was going to FLAC files but it worried me a bit that to do that it first rips them as WAV files then converts those to FLAC files. Is that what other programs do or is that unique to this one? It seams like it opens up room for errors with the second step.
Except these are not valid concerns at all. So I'm still wondering what the "cons" would be for anyone to reject or be apprehensive about FLAC. I still haven't heard any...This is just a guess, but more changes of state means more chances for errors, and being less native means some inherent lag. These seem like things that might be measured, but never discernible.