Flac or .Wav

[eljr]

With the Long Overdo Death of the CD upon us and not wanting to simply stream, is it best to buy .Wav or Flac?

If I understand correctly these formats are identical in the information they hold but do it in a slightly different manner. As a result Flac is a slightly smaller file but not significant enough to matter.

Can someone confirm?

What I do not understand is why .Wav is less expensive than is Flac. Can anyone offer some insight?

Thanks

 

[N8Nagel]

Nope.

The file size difference is substantial, but if it's cheaper to buy .wav you can just resample to .flac with Foobar2000 or similar. no big deal.

They should be identical once the .flac is unpacked during playback.

 

[Sandstrom]

I find that my FLAC files converted from WAVs in XLD end up being very nearly half the size so IMHO it is well worth it to go the FLAC route.

 

[mfrench]

Wavs can be tagged. In fact, it is by far faster to tag wavs prior to FLAC. Tagging FLACs takes longer to process, by a minute or more. Wavs, a whole folder will be tagged in a mere second.

 

[FileFixer]

Flac use less space then WAV file with same result in audio quality.

 

[KrisM]

I'm a FLAC guy, for all the usual reasons.
File size not being 'significant'? I guess it depends on what we're talking about here. DLing and storing one album? Sure, it's not a big deal. Storing 1000+ albums? Heck yeah it's significant.

If it's just about buying an album, I really couldn't care less. Any lossless purchases are converted to FLAC if they aren't in that format. Most likely the tags get an edit, too. Pretty rare for someone else's tagging scheme to match up with mine.

 

[robert_kc]

OP: Am I correct that you’re asking about acquiring new recordings, vs. ripping existing CDs?

What is the bit depth and sampling rate of recordings that you are considering buying?

If you want to acquire downloaded recordings that have better than CD quality, then buy high-quality hi-res (24bit/96kHz or 24bit/192kHz) FLAC downloads, and hi-res DSD downloads. For his-res discs, buy SACDs, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Blu-ray, and Ultra HD Blu-ray.

Unfortunately, sellers often charge a higher price for high-res recordings. What is your priority - high quality, or cheap price?

You need to be concerned with the provenance of recordings (i.e., the quality of the original recording), plus the format of the consumer deliverable. (Garbage-in / garbage-out.) My understanding is that there was an effort in the industry to address the issue of provenance of audio recordings, but I’ve not seen these classifications on recordings. (Nonetheless, the issue of provenance is important.)

Master Quality Recording: A coding system devised by electronics and music industry trade groups to describe the provenance of digital music files for consumers, retailers and recording industry professionals. The four Master Quality categories include:

MQ-A: From an analog master source
MQ-C: From a CD master source (44.1-kHz/16-bit content)
MQ-D: From a DSD/DSF master source (typically 2.8- or 5.6-MHz/ 1-bit content). (DSF is a type of DSD master file.)
MQ-P: From a PCM master source 48-kHz/20 bit or higher (typically 96/24 or 192/24 content)​

There’s a wealth of high-quality modern recordings available in hi-res download and disc formats.

Moreover, there are new ways to enjoy music, including multi-channel hi-res audio, and hi-res audio/video (e.g., concert videos).

A useful reference for hi-res recordings is HRAudio.net – however this site does not list all hi-res recordings. HDTracks is a popular download site, but not all of its downloads are hi-res.

Most modern recordings are made, and mastered, in hi-res (24bit/192kHz) digital PCM format, or hi-res DSD (single-bit) format. The issue is whether you buy the recording in this hi-res format, or if you buy a deliverable that has been “down sampled” into the 30+ year-old CD format (or some highly compressed format that is optimized for portability vs. audio quality). In a “lossy” format, the music has been compressed in such a way that part of the music content cannot be recovered – in other words the audio quality is irrevocably compromised.

Some vintage recordings have been re-mastered and delivered in a “hi-res” format, in some cases using the original analog master tapes. In some cases, the results are very good. In other cases the poor quality of the original recording is apparent. (Again, garbage-in / garbage-out - putting a poor-quality recording in a FLAC wrapper doesn’t improve its sound quality.)

Have you read these threads?

http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/flac-sources.807116/#post-11310005"]FLAC sources?

http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/where-do-i-start.805298/

 

[eljr]

WAV files cannot be tagged either and FLAC's can. That makes it easier to use as all the ID info is in the header of the FLAC file.

That makes FLAC's more useful.

What exactly do you mean by tagging?

I tag my .Wav files in JRiver with no issues.

 

[eljr]

thanks for the responses so far

I am still wondering why this is?

What I do not understand is why .Wav is less expensive than is Flac. Can anyone offer some insight?

 

[mfrench]

FLAC takes time, and, time is money to a biz.

 

[eljr]

I'm a FLAC guy, for all the usual reasons.
File size not being 'significant'? I guess it depends on what we're talking about here. DLing and storing one album? Sure, it's not a big deal. Storing 1000+ albums? Heck yeah it's significant.

If it's just about buying an album, I really couldn't care less. Any lossless purchases are converted to FLAC if they aren't in that format. Most likely the tags get an edit, too. Pretty rare for someone else's tagging scheme to match up with mine.

Do I understand you correctly, I can buy the less expensive .WAV file and convert it to Flac, then place it in my library?

I am not sure in this day and age of cheap storage that file size is that important???? Thoughts?

 

[eljr]

FLAC takes time, and, time is money to a biz.

what do you mean Flac takes time?

 

[KrisM]

What exactly do you mean by tagging?

I tag my .Wav files in JRiver with no issues.

I won't speak for him, but I have to say that what he wrote wasn't quite right.
WAV can be tagged. It's just that FLAC does it better. And WAV tagging isn't standardized.
Do some reading on WAV vs FLAC tagging and you'll find that WAV tagging can introduce problems when moving files around. Not so with FLAC.

 

[KrisM]

Do I understand you correctly, I can buy the less expensive .WAV file and convert it to Flac, then place it in my library?

I am not sure in this day and age of cheap storage that file size is that important???? Thoughts?

It is cheap, but it still runs out.
My main music HD right now is a 2TB one. At the moment I only have about 35 gigs left free on it. I knew I'd need to replace it at some point, but I'd rather leave that day as far into the future as I can. Most of my files are FLAC, with some MP3, and WAV files of FM recordings(that's a different topic, lol). If I stored everything as WAV I'd be well past that 2B drive and looking at a 4TB drive that was getting close to full. Roughly.

 

[KrisM]

Do I understand you correctly, I can buy the less expensive .WAV file and convert it to Flac, then place it in my library?

I am not sure in this day and age of cheap storage that file size is that important???? Thoughts?

Oh, and yes, you can buy the cheaper one and convert.
dbpoweramp does a great job at this. There are also free programs out there that do it. I think Flacfrontend(?) will do it. It's been a long time since I've used it, though.

 

[mfrench]

what do you mean Flac takes time?

Converting a wav file to FLAC is a time consuming process, unless you're running a super computer. My 6 year old Mac bogs down every time; I literally step away, because doing anything else during the processing, I get the spinning color wheel, and everything grinds to a barely moving process. Even if someone has a fast processor, you can easily bog it down by overloading it.
A folder full of 24.96 wav's can take 15 minutes+ to process to FLAC
A wav is a wav is a wav in its native format. No processing needed. But its also roughly 1/3 larger, and taking up that much more HDD space.

 

[KrisM]

Converting a wav file to FLAC is a time consuming process, unless you're running a super computer. My 6 year old Mac bogs down every time; I literally step away, because doing anything else during the processing, I get the spinning color wheel, and everything grinds to a barely moving process. Even if someone has a fast processor, you can easily bog it down by overloading it.
A folder full of 24.96 wav's can take 15 minutes+ to process to FLAC
A wav is a wav is a wav in its native format. No processing needed. But its also roughly 1/3 larger, and taking up that much more HDD space.

I'm not sure if I've ever converted a 24/96 file?
Redbook quality breezes by, though. Even on this old, mediocre, Vista machine. Ripping a regular CD securely, with a FLAC conversion, takes about 4 minutes. A WAV to FLAC conversion with dbpoweramp is super quick.

That's just a regular album, though.
I'm assuming you're talking about a full concert recording? I could see how that at 24/96 would take some time.

 

[robert_kc]

OP: Is your question: Why is a higher bit rate audio file often more expensive (compared with a relatively low bit rate file)?

Let me first say that I don’t work in the music industry, and I have no inside information. With that said, I worked in business for many years. My conjecture is that many sellers of audio files engage in “whatever the market will bear” pricing. Because many potential customers (though not all) perceive hi-res (e.g., 24bit/192kHz FLAC or DSD) to be better quality (compared with CD quality or MP3 quality), the seller charges more for the hi-res file. And, many customers (though not all) are willing to pay a higher price for the “premium” high-bit-rate recordings.

If the original recording was mastered in 24bit/192kHz, then it seems to me that the seller’s COGS (cost of goods sold) is not more to download the file to the customer in the original hi-res format, vs. down-sampling the file to a lower bit rate. (The download time will be longer for a larger file, but I can’t imagine that having a material impact on cost). It seems to me that the seller is attempting to maximize profits by charging more for something that has arguably better quality – regardless of whether or not their COGS is higher. Of course, this is standard business practice in marketing premium products and services.

It’s important to remember that if you download a relatively low bit rate audio file, converting it to FLAC does not improve the audio quality.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you provide a link to the recordings you are considering downloading.

 

[robert_kc]

P.S.

OP: How do you plan to play digital music files?

If you want all of your digital music loaded onto a NAS drive, and searchable via a GUI, then you might face many hours of your time associated with ripping, transcoding, tagging, etc – depending on the source of the recording (e.g., a CD or downloaded file), and depending on music genre. (Tagging – i.e., establishing search criteria - for classical music is a major PITA because there are no standards.)

OTOH, if you use a “universal player” (e.g., Oppo UDP-205), then you can play any downloaded file, and any disc, “as delivered” - i.e., no effort on your part to “rip”, convert file format, tag, or concatenate multiple files associated with a composition that involves multiple movements (e.g., a symphony).

Music genre is an important factor in determining requirements for playback of digitized music. Opera and ballet are visual art forms - in addition to music – and Blu-ray videos (including hi-res surround-sound) are IMO the technology of choice. (Ultra HD Blu-ray is starting to become available.) Also, Blu-ray videos of classical music concerts are becoming common, and IMO are enjoyable. (There are some great Blu-ray box sets, e.g., complete symphonies by Beethoven, Sibelius, Brahms, Schumann, etc) And, there are many modern surround-sound SACDs of classical music that sound fabulous. And, many recent classical performances were recorded in hi-res, and are available as a hi-res download. OTOH, if you listen solely to “classic rock”, then the ability to play 1960s and ‘70s audio recordings might be all you need. In other words, “hi-res” playback technology is more relevant to a 2018 classical music performance, than for a 40+ year-old pop recording.

Or, forget all of these concerns, and stream all of your music from sites such as Spotify Premium, and Youtube. (If you want to wade into another debate, read about MQA. Google “mqa site:audiokarma.org” )

Here’s an earlier post of mine that might be relevant: Where Do I Start?

Does this help, or confuse things?

 

[mfrench]

What are you talking about - if you use EAC, you can rip right to FLAC and tag. It is not any slower than going to WAV files. Also converting wav files to flac is nothing in JRiver - I took 30 seconds for a WHOLE CD of music.

Wav are approximately 2X the size of a FLAC file, not 2/3's the size.

There is no processing for FLAC other and unzipping and that can be done on the fly. FLAC = WAV in a basic zip package.

All of your arguments are either silly or nonsequitors.

It seems like you're having a splendid morning.

CD's,... I don't have but maybe two dozen commercial cd's in my entire music collection; no time for them, and no interest in the commercial studio music that goes into them.

I realize what a FLAC file is and isn't. I produce a hundred gigabytes of original new data to FLAC on a good weekend. How much original recorded musical content do you produce to FLAC in a good weekend?

Me: I just checked,.. from just last night, as raw data, 8 more gigabytes without doing the first lick of editing. Three two track stereo recordings of a chamber music trio at 2496.
Then add the edited masters, the combined two track stereo masters, the split files. This one concert will easily go over 30gb+ before I start into compressing to FLAC. And we haven't even made it to the weekend yet.

Have a more pleasent day.