FLAC vs. WAV (a listener's perspective)

Posted by: gary1 (US) on 07 March 2010

OK, here we go.

I downloaded a 24/96 album from HDTracks by Peter Berstein called Monk. Really good album BTW, his take from a guitar trio perspective on the music of TS Monk.

After downloading the album, I then converted it to WAV using Dbpoweramp software, created a new folder and transferred both to my NAS (D-link 323 and Naim approved). What happened is that although the folders are recognized as two different ones on the NAS, the HDX software sees this as one artist, the second folder was never recognized by the HDX IPUI. Therefore,when I selected Peter Bernstein Trio and "added to current playlist" all 24 tracks were there and listed as 1-12/13-24. For some reason my album art did not load so according to the HDX IPUI I could not differentiate between the file types. In essence, I unknowingly created a double blind study.

Listed to the first track "Let's Cool One" and then the same track again, but with the second unknown file type.

Within the first 10 seconds there was a big difference between the recordings. The second had a lower tone, more dynamics, presence and feel. Going back again to the first it was louder, muddled and missing the dynamics of the second track.

I repeated the "experiment" with the second track "Pannonica"-- same result. The same for all tracks.

I then opened up the DTC under now playing which listed the tracks in the same order as my "Current Playlist", but this time I got to see what the file types were:

Tracks 1-12-- FLAC
Tracks 13-24-- WAV

Now I know the argument about bit perfect, etc... I am also aware that FLAC contains the same material as a WAV file, just encoded differently.

However, the ears say differently. I cannot compare with anyone else's system or setup, just within the confines of mine.

The difference were there, no question and they were not subtle.
Posted on: 09 March 2010 by gary1 (US)
quote:
Originally posted by PureHifi:
quote:
Originally posted by gary1 (US):
After downloading the album, I then converted it to WAV using Dbpoweramp software


Gary, can I just ask if you maintained the higher 24bit rate in the WAV encoding or did you convert a 24/96 FLAC file to a 16/44.1 WAV file ?


24/96
Posted on: 09 March 2010 by PureHifi
Thanks for the clarification, your results make sense to me...WAV is the closest format to the way a CD is encoded (just some differences in the file header I beleive) so whilst WAV is quite a bloated file format it probably requires less processing than FLAC for playback.

Perhaps another reason why Naim chose WAV as the default file format for their ripping process. They will of listened to all the options and picked what they thought was best, I would imagine saving half the HDD space with FLAC would of been tempting but seems they got it right.
Posted on: 10 March 2010 by gary1 (US)
quote:
Originally posted by PureHifi:
Thanks for the clarification, your results make sense to me...WAV is the closest format to the way a CD is encoded (just some differences in the file header I beleive) so whilst WAV is quite a bloated file format it probably requires less processing than FLAC for playback.

Perhaps another reason why Naim chose WAV as the default file format for their ripping process. They will of listened to all the options and picked what they thought was best, I would imagine saving half the HDD space with FLAC would of been tempting but seems they got it right.


It will be interesting to see if 1.5 makes a difference, since Dave said that they have improved the FLAC decoder, so I too will be interested in listening.

For me personally, with the prices of storage do not understand why many continue to "worry" about storage space and thus prefer FLAC over WAV (aside from the metadata). I would rather have the full file as it was intended to be. Currently for under $400 you can outfit a D-link DNS 323 with 2x 1.5 TB, which is either 3TB JBOD or mirrored 1.5 TB. Seems like a heck of alot of music to be stored.
Posted on: 10 March 2010 by js
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
quote:
Originally posted by js:

Encoder shouldn't really matter but I would use '0' setting on encode to keep decoding as easy as possible.


It isn't necessarily the case that FLAC decoding compression level '0' is 'easier' than, say, level 5. Setting a higher compression level allows the encoder to spend more time finding a potentially more efficient strategy, which may be quicker to decode. After all , the more compression the less data there is for the decoder to process. According to FLAC's own tests here Level 5 offers the least decode time. But the results vary according to the type of music.

Whichever level you use though, if the results sound different from the equivalent WAV file, then something is broken somewhere, and I very much doubt it is the mathematics of FLAC.
I don't disagree that it shouldn't be a big deal but those same graphs suggests that actual decode cpu load as lower on 0 even though it isn't the fastest overall.
Posted on: 11 March 2010 by likesmusic
Sure js, but the differences are pretty small whichever level. Judging from other posts on this thread, the disadvantage of FLAC would seem to be that it is harder to get right.
Posted on: 11 March 2010 by js
Not really sure what the problem is and like I said, I really don't like that there is one with lossless at all. I do believe this should get sorted out at some point and perhaps the assumption that all is perfect while streaming is what's held it back.

I wonder if the time involved but lower CPU usage has to do with how different levels of FLAC operates. Not really interested in doing the tech stuff but more buffers and/or parallel processing due to variable compression could account for those #s.
Posted on: 11 March 2010 by pcstockton
quote:
Originally posted by PureHifi:

Perhaps another reason why Naim chose WAV as the default file format for their ripping process. They will of listened to all the options and picked what they thought was best, I would imagine saving half the HDD space with FLAC would of been tempting but seems they got it right.


I would hazard a guess that the HDX doesn't use FLAC because it doesn't have the proc power to encode. It is quite intensive. Alternatively, decoding is cake (the beauty of FLAC), which is why it can play it easily, as almost any handheld can as well.... save iPods.

Regardless of sound quality, i just dont think encoding to FLAC is an option for a computer as stripped down as an HDX. So it is kind of a moot point.

It doesn't mean much to say the WAVs sound better, when you cant even make a FLAC file to compare it to. Very convenient.
Posted on: 11 March 2010 by sbilotta
quote:
Originally posted by likesmusic:
It all varies with the type of music anyway.

Interesting statement Likes.
Just yesterday I listened to several tracks from various artists, type of music and bitrate (16 and 24 bit)in Flac (with both 0 and 5 compression rate) and wav formats.
The result was that I heard no difference between the two Flac compression rates for all songs and noted a distinct difference with only three tracks (out of the approx. 10) between flac and wav format, wav being better: the three tracks were all instrumental acoustic guitar of which two songs were from Tommy Emmanuel, the other being from Antonio Forcione.
That said, the obvious thing that hit me was that I heard a difference only with a certain type of music Confused

As I had already heard the flac and wav format difference while I was ripping the Tommy Emmanuel cd (which is what got my curiosity going), and knowing about this debate re which format sounds best, I was expecting a more consistent outcome i.e. flac equal or better than wav, or vice versa, instead I got a wav acoustic guitar better than flac Roll Eyes
Posted on: 11 March 2010 by likesmusic
sbilotta - the more time you give a FLAC encoder the more compression strategies it can evaluate before selecting one which is most effective for the track concerned. I just don't think you can make sweeping statements such as "WAV sounds better than FLAC". You can say that System X plays WAV better than FLAC, but since there should be no difference, then I would take that as a criticism of the equipment, not the FLAC format. For example, if you read David Devers earlier posts, it just seems that NAIM may have got their FLAC decoding wrong in earlier versions of their software, which they've now fixed.
Posted on: 11 March 2010 by js
I tend to agree except it has been every instance for me with a wide variety of kit. I do find that the difference is minimized in certain computer setups. Seemingly due to the lack of enough goodness to discern as much of anything.