@keiserrg
everyone’s results might vary and might have different reasons for the same.
i tested and listened to a few songs of in my system ,thru CD ,wav, flac and streaming options of the same song.
below were my consistent results in the highest order of sound quality
best thru vivaldi one CD transport OR thru CD ripped as WAV file streamed thru roon via RAAT to vivaldi
FLAC streamed thru local network via roon to vivaldi thru RAAT or mosaic
tidal or qobuzz thru moaic or roon
had the same results when i had rossini or bartok earlier as well. ( i mean WAV file vs streaming)
in short red book CD or WAV always sounded better than flac or internet streaming of roon-tidal-qobuzz
Thank you Goodsource, this is helpful and actually consistent with what I would expect. In particular, my overall contention is that longer/more complex signal path with result in inferior performance.
It makes perfect sense to me that WAV would outperform FLAC in a highly revolving system like yours.
I am about to rip my collection (yes, I guess I am a 40yo dinosaur) to AIFF. My understanding was that AIFF and WAV are both bit perfect uncompressed, but that AIFF has better metadata support. Why did you choose WAV pls?
WAV (hi-res): The standard format in which all CDs are encoded. Great sound quality but it’s uncompressed, meaning huge file sizes (especially for hi-res files). It has poor metadata support (that is, album artwork, artist and song title information).
FLAC (hi-res): This lossless compression format supports hi-res sample rates, takes up about half the space of WAV, and stores metadata. It’s royalty-free and is considered the preferred format for downloading and storing hi-res albums. The downside is, it’s not supported by Apple (so not compatible with iTunes).
AIFF (hi-res): Apple’s alternative to WAV, with better metadata support. It is lossless and uncompressed (so big file sizes), but not hugely popular.
Is there a difference between lossless FLAC and WAV? Very simple: no. There is no difference in the output of a flac file and the original wav file. You can encode and decode as many times as you want. The outcome remains 100 percent the same as the original. Is it possible to hear a difference? No, in principle not. Unless there is something wrong in the codec or the hardware perhaps (maybe it isn’t fast enough?).
Just to comment that FLAC is not necessarily lossless compressed. When ripping you can select from 8 levels of lossless compression. In addition there is an “uncompressed” option ( not to be confused with level 0). The result of using this option is the equivalent of a .wav file but with the preferable metadata handling ability of FLAC.
Many have reported a slight sonic degradation streaming FLAC, the greater the (lossless) compression the worse the sound. This appears to relate to latency issues in unpacking the data on the fly prior to conversion. I have test files of the same repertoire as .wav. , FLAC ( level 5 compression) and FLAC uncompressed. Using JRiver as player and with the original mapping of Vivaldi prior to installing v.2 I could hear those reported differences. Now using Mosaic and Map 1 I can no longer detect any degradation from files with FLAC level 5 compression when compared to uncompressed FLAC files ( or .wav for that matter).
Unless I’ve misunderstood, Pete, that might just be down to the phrasing used by the people who make dBPoweramp (and more particularly, whoever coded that part of its interface).
I’ve not found anything (yet) about an uncompressed version on the website for the people responsible for FLAC itself:
I’ll keep looking though. I love this sort of nerdery
No. You will also note that the FLAC features link that you posted also does not mention the 8 levels of increasing lossless compression that it offers either. I am not making this up.
Totally get you, Pete. I’m sure you’d make up something far more outlandish if you were of such character!
I use dBPoweramp also, and see exactly the same options you do. I can also see the benefit of ripping a CD to a FLAC file even if the result was entirely “uncompressed” — FLAC has much better metadata handling than WAV does. If I were near an optical drive at the moment I’d try the following:
A: Rip a track as a WAV file.
B: Rip a track as a FLAC file, using the “Uncompressed” setting.
Then I’d compare the file sizes. If B was smaller, we’d have some sort of answer!
That is raised elsewhere in this thread. The data size of different storage protocols for what is taken as the same file will not necessarily give you the comparative information that you want. They will probably differ, not because the music data is different, but because the data packing is not the same. In addition data stored other than the music data may be different. For example the .wav file will not contain any metadata but the FLAC will.
The latter is why I have ripped thousands of albums using uncompressed FLAC. The music data content is the same as .wav ( though not necessarily packed similarly) but it also has the metadata in ID3 format included in the file.
I’m just reporting what the originators and wiki itself report. dbPowerAmp’s implementation is an entirely different matter, though I agree it illustrates your point: one can use FLAC without actually compressing. I’ve never used FLAC or any other “lossless” compression, except when required (I always rip to AIFF), or no other option was available, or a file—always compressed—is delivered to me that way.
For fun (ish!) — I ripped an EP four different ways.
The file sizes for each (I compared the music files only, not their enclosing folders, rip reports etc., since those would have slightly different sizes based on filenames, and maybe other things) are:
I think it’s entirely possible that a FLAC can be half the size of a WAV, though. There are different settings for how much compression you get with a FLAC file.
I assume there are time and processing penalties at both ends of that, though — compressing it, as well as decompressing it.
Oh my, if one were to do a little searching from many years ago, one would find heated arguments about whether WAV and AIFF sound different, and if so, which sounds better. It was borderline hilarious. Or pathetic. Take your pick. I tried to hear a difference and could not. I stuck with AIFF for much easier and richer metadata, though I believe that most, if not all, of that difference has gone by the wayside.
