Discussion in 'Digital Sources' started by niamatk, Jul 13, 2017.
Flac , Wav (OR) CD ? for music .
both FLAC and WAV are lossless audio formats, FLAC is compressed and WAV isn't
CD's are just WAV in PCM form
IME there is 0 difference between a FLAC, WAV, or ripped CD (WAV) of the same file/song
you start to lose fidelity when you use lossy codecs (mp3 etc). Just because FLAC is compressed doesn't mean it loses fidelity, it is a lossless format.
It's all identical in the end, all things being equal (bit depth/sampling rate).
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.
Once you go FLAC.......... you won't ever want to go back.
I rip all my CDs to FLAC for reasons already stated. If I want to load music on something that doesn't do lossless it's easy to set up Foobar2000 to resample to MP3. Not so easy to go the other way Using WAV for archiving just wastes space and doesn't support as much metadata.
While I stay away from Apple products where I can, I still use an Apple 5G Ipod and it does not support FLAC. So to play my lossless tunes on the Ipod I convert FLAC to M4A, Apple's own lossless format that they impose just to be difficult.....
like I said I avoid Apple when I can.....
[edited - didn't read fully before posting]
The other problem with WAV is that unless you store checksums, you won't know if you have corrupted bits until they screw up your audio stream. Flac does at least have checksums built in that will alert you during decode if it finds an issue.
44.1 kHz 16-bit linear PCM data is in fact the underlying format for audio CD. WAV is technically a container format, but it's mostly known for storing linear PCM. On the CD it's just been converted to eight-to-fourteen modulation with FEC and such; but you can stick a linear PCM stream in an .aiff file as well.
Technically not true. You can have metadata inside a WAV file; the problem is that there is no standard for storing that data. So it's a total crapshoot if your software has the support for how the software wrote them. Program A might do it one way, program B will do it another, and C does it entirely different. Some players look for method A, some for C, and some for all three.
If you're talking about the old 5th generation iPod Video units; those can support FLAC by way of installing Rockbox on it. I've never run an iPod Video that didn't have Rockbox on it.
I use Windows Media Player to rip LOSSLESS WMA. When I started ripping files years ago, I don't think FLAC existed. Wanted to mention this as alternative. I would rather do this than rip to WAV. Some folks don't like how FLAC works - compress and decompress.
I use JRiver as player and it can't rip to WMA but plays it just fine.
I don't believe there is any functional difference between WMA lossless and FLAC save for the fact that there is more widespread support for FLAC. In fact, if you found the right software you can transcode back and forth between the two formats. Foobar2000 doesn't support WMA lossless though, I gave up on that exercise when I realized that it was pretty pointless to use WMA lossless anyway because the only place I would want to use it is in my car, and in that environment I'm not really sure I could tell the difference between that and MP3/320.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Incorrect. FLAC creates a hash of the wav before encoding and verifies the data it gets out matches. If there is a problem anywhere...it immedately produces an error.
FLAC has no real lag to speak of. If you can detect it....it would be of such insignificance you could blame it on the margin of error in your test method.
FLAC uses linear prediction encoding...so it may require all the samples. But this is standard.
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...
I didn't want to put it this way...but I think I will.
There are a handfull of basic reasons people reject FLAC:
They read some misinformation that tries to claim to decoding can causr "lag" and affect sound. Entirely untrue.
They think any form of data compression is bad.
They use Apple products.
They for some reason think there can be data corruption. That is rare and requires corruption of the actual file...which would ruin a WAV file anyway.
They don't care about sound quality and think MP3 is fine because "no one can tell the difference and you're stupud for thinking otherwise." These are the same people who dislike something and feel everyone should hate it with them and belittle those who refuse to follow them.
But they all have one thing in common.....none of them are very valid reasons.
Separate names with a comma.