wave or flac

Many respondents to past threads of this kind reckon that there is no difference in sound quality. The data content is the same for both types of rip and the processing overhead of FLAC is minimal, such that many argue, theoretically, that it has no impact on sound quality.

FLAC files are about half the size of their WAV equivalents and, decisively in my view, are very easy to tag. WAVs can be tagged, but were not formulated with this in mind, so the process is more convoluted. There are several free 'taggers' (e.g. Tag&Rename and Mp3Tag) which enable you to tag FLAC files individually and in batch.

Of course, if you get ripping and then decide you have chosen wrongly, you can always transcode either way without loss of anything but time.

Fraser

My files are flac but the Upnp Server transcodes to wav, so my NDS is fed with that.

I hear no difference between WAV and FLAC. Others say they do.

Why don't you try ripping the same album in both formats and see if you prefer one to the other?

No harm trying.

FWIW - I shall sit on the FLAC side of the fence purely because of ease of tagging (I use MP3Tag when I want to mess with the tags).

Try comparing FLAC against WAV through the NDS on some favourite pieces. You can flip between the formats easily and without degrading the file. For something so critical in playback you really should trust your own ears and not other peoples' opinions and beliefs. Of course, that won't stop us all throwing ours in - so here's mine.

Through the HDX and NDS there is a difference in my ears. Some concur with my ears, many don't. I prefer WAV and given that I think I can hear a difference, it is no surprise that I prefer the truly"lossless" format. 

If you're using the NDS why bother? Just go for the highest quality available in a format that is not compressed, tweaked, and can be played natively by the NDS without on the fly conversion back to what it was in the first place. WAV.

Disc space is cheap, Bit prefect ripping software is good. WAV can be tagged just as well as FLAC if you have good software. Why make it more complicated? Or potentially compromise musical enjoyment.

Compared FLAC, WAV and Apple Lossless on my KDS...no difference here.

I'm with rjstaines- FLAC allows you tagging, so I'll wait for the new UnitiServe upgrade

to go from WAV to FLAC (and use the music files for other devices as well).

It wasn't WAV in the first place. The stream on the original CD is ripped to WAV, just as it would be to any other format. As rippers are said to vary, so, by the same argument, must the WAV files they rip.

There is no magic to WAV. The only element that specifically differentiates WAV is that no compression is applied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV refers.

Fraser

So what is a FLAC file being converted to by a Naim streamer for playback if not WAV? So why bother? To save disc space? Please!

That's what I like about WAV, no magic. And no bull. Can't be tagged? That's more bull.

But hey! Each to our own. No worries.

meni48,

Try it and listen to whether it makes a difference for you in your system.

When I used a laptop and the nDAC I heard no difference between WAV and FLAC.

BUT, I went to a fellow forum member's house, where he used a server as the source into nDAC/PS555 - and we were then comparing this to his CD555 dual PS555 - I could reliably pick between them, and the WAV was better.

When I bought my NS01 THEN I could hear a difference, and so unflaced all my files; which I would much preferred to have avoided.

For me, in my system, I use WAV.

M

You can have the same ease of tagging for WAV files now with the free KID3 program.

It offers more or less the same functionality as MP3Tag, but does include WAV support where MP3Tag refuses to add WAV support.

Cheers

Aleg

With my Uniti WAV sounds better defined, fuller and more dynamic than FLAC.

Using UPnP.

Cheers

Bobby

thanks all of you

Bobby, the difference in 'sound' is not due to the file but the renderer. With Naim FLAC and WAV do sound subtly different, I prefer WAV.

However I usually now rip to FLAC (to try and reduce my ballooning storage) and then transcode on the fly to WAV for my Naim. It works a treat.

FLAC encoders have mproved.. I used FLAC early on and used to have occasional problems with files that would stop part way through play back, or have issues with meta data .. No such issues now.

Simon

if cover didn't exist for a WAV file, is it possible To tag it with an another free tagger ?

Use KID3, you can add covers to wav-files

Can you explain more detailed the difference in render?

is it General or Just with Naim?

what nature are the differences in Sound?

AFAIK you use a streamer, how do you transcode on the fly?

Hi the difference to my ears (and interestingly to a blind listening test group using an NDS at Signals last year) find FLAC is slightly flatter and slightly shrill/glassy compared to WAV. It is subtle, but the more revealing your system and speakers the more apparent it is.

I have heard this only on Naim and Linn, but I suspect this applies to all revealing network players.

I use Asset as my main uPNP DLNA server and it converts my FLAC files to WAV files on the fly whenever my Naim plays them.

I hope that helps.

Simon

Thx

very interesting

Some say that WAV has advantages because, unlike FLAC, the audio samples don't have to be recalculated. This uses less CPU power and creates less noise.

Others say that FLAC is better because the file is smaller, transport over the Ethernet needs less packets and interrupts and thus creates less noise.

Some say Naim streamers prefer WAV and Linn streamers prefer FLAC. I use FLAC with my Linn DS. If I were to switch to Naim streamers I'd probably have my NAS transcode from FLAC to WAV on the fly.

Jfritzen, one observation, if the Ethernet payload was so sensitive to 'sound' different between FLAC and WAV then you would be scuppered with hidef file formats. However I agree with your processing load and associated EMI from rebuilding a sample with FLAC as that noise would have a specific signature related to the PCM and therefore more noticeable.

The Ethernet TCPIP load however is quite variable and bursty and so the signature would be non deterministic to the PCM ie would therefore appear more as 'noise' and therefore less intrusive and would result more usually in raising the noise floor.

Simon

I knew the theory had a catch somewhere . But it's not my theory, so I'm not clinging to it.

Coming from the computer science, I always thought that it cannot be a difference between flac or wav as they are 100% bit identical. But after reading this thread I have tried to switch my NAS to let it convert flac to wav on the fly so that the uniti device only had to play wav (via wlan). I did some comparisons and found that I was not sure about the result. Maybe the wav really sounds a bit less harsh, but as I knew which alternative should sound better, I could not say if it just was imagination.

So I asked my 12 year old son if he could hear a difference between some test plays, without telling him which one played wav or flac and which one should sound better. I just told him to maybe pay attention to the highs. I did choose 2 test tracks from the Jack White album Blunderbuss.

The result: For both tracks he said after listening about 10 seconds that the wav version does sound nicer, warmer, with more room!

Wow, I had never believed that this is really true. So I let the NAS switched to convert flac to wav as it does not make a difference in handling. Unfortunately it does not convert mp3. But ogg is converted, too. (Synology DS213+)

So the best way for getting a good sound was to have a separate DAC-device? The decoding device probably can be the cheapest china mp3 player as long it has a digital out? Maybe a small computer running mpd that can be controlled by an android mpdroid app or something?

Greetings,

Gert