Flac vs Wav audio quality

Bruce, are you comparing the two formats as played back directly from the HDX, or is one version sitting on a NAS ?

When I compared the two played back from a UnitiServe HDD, I found that WAV revealed subtle timing cues that were buried in the FLAC version. That said, I like the sound of FLAC files, which seem a bit softer, more rounded, but the WAVs seem more dynamic. Opposite to your findings.

The differences are subtle though, and I could live with FLACs, if disk space were a limiting factor.

Jan

I decided to rip using FLAC from the start, though not with an HDX or similar.  I did many comparisons between the two formats, but I would say that any difference is insignificant with my system.  There were several occasions where I thought I could hear a benefit from WAV over FLAC, but in the end I concluded it was my imagination.  Mainly because it seemed which ever format I listened to second was the one I preferred, purely because I'd notice some detail, significant note or level of warmth that I had not noticed with the first listen.  However, I found that to be true regardless of the order.

What I don't follow though, and I'm not very familiar with the HDX, but why does it need converting?  If the files played via the HDX were good, why do they need to be changed?

Jan.

I guess some of the files are stored in the HDX and some on the NAS played through the HDX. About 50% is NAS stored now as my HDX filled up years ago. I had not really thought to see if the site of the stored files made any difference. I played a lot of music old and new last night and it all seemed consistent so I suspect it was a mixture.

I'm converting them as I am selling the HDX and have bought an NDS. Several people have advised converting the files. Main reason is to have more data tagging etc. Although my NAS UPNP server did seem to identify track ordering correctly on the wav files I am aware not all server software does this well with WAV files so it seemed sensible at this point to 'future proof' my library for future NAS/server software changes. I'm also aware it takes up a lot less space as FLAC vs WAV, and I have a lot of music.

Bruce

Bruce, I found that where the files are stored can make a difference. If you can play back both the WAVs and the FLACs from the NAS, that would level the field.

Jan

What compression level of FLAC?

I recently converted everything from wav to flac and fixed/added all the missing metadata. Even on my UnitiQute i can hear a difference. Flac is quieter and more smooth, just as you have reported. I still have some wav albums in parallel with their newer flac cousins. All data comes from the same device and no 'conversion' takes place on the fly. I've not yet heard the results through my more resolving SU as it's too cold in the listening room atm.

The conversion is done by the HDX utility. I do not know what compression.

Bruce

My dbpoweramp program defaults to compression level 5. I'm no expert but this is about 'average' compression, files are now taking up about 40% of their previous size (obviously the metadata for each track has 'grown'!) At the moment I'm enjoying the flac more as I can turn up the Qutes and get them 'cooking', wav seemed loud and a little coarse, but the coarseness may be due to the lower level gain being used in the amp rather than the files themselves.

I have my files stored in Flac on a Qnap Nas and use Assetnas as music server.

Listening through my NDX the Flac files of the Wav files (transcoded on the fly by assetnas) makes no difference to my ears.

Cheers

I have been experimenting with this all week. I find whilst there is a difference it is very small. I have come to the conclusion that Flac uncompressed gives the best trade off between tagging and sound quality.

My very favourite albums are stored in wav. I only use a unitiqute2 so not very far up the Naim tree. my collection is medium ish in size and it still took a reasonably fast computer and network 24 hours to convert from flac level 5 to flac uncompressed. This was using dbpoweramp.

The interesting thing is I hear a difference between this and asset serving up transcoded to wav material. Going to leave as is for a while to see if its all in my head or not.

I have experimented with some high def (24bit 96khz and 176khz) files from Qobuz which allows you to download multiple copies of purchased albums. I have run direct comparisons between the WAV and FLAC files offered by Qobuz; WAV is usally better BUT if I convert the FLAC downloads to Lossless FLAC using dBpoweramp then run these then I FLAC is better (and of course allows good tagging info using MP3tag).  The size of the files are the same in lossless FLAC and WAV by the way whereas FLAC as downloaded from Qobuz is usually about 65% smaller. (My system is NDX, DAC, 555PS, NAC 252, NAP 300 and Ovator S400 speakers. I use a Tranquil PC running Windows Home Server and Asset to serve the files to the NDX over a gigabit LAN run by a Draytek Vigor 2930n modem/router.)

With the cost of storage space low and getting lower we can please ourselves, assuming we hear a difference. I can and I stick with and convert to WAV. 

Clear difference here compared flac lossless vs wav. Now Asset doing flac to wav to NDS.

Bonner, there is no difference to the audio contained  in lossless files by definition, which includes any inherent quality. However the process of unpacking the data from the files creates side effects that appear to interact with circuitry associated with audio replay. Therefore choose the format or steps that sounds most pleasing in your replay chain/replay equipment.

The beauty of lossless files is that if and when your system changes in the future you can re choose your formats or steps to suit your new equipment with no loss of information or any contained quality.

Simon

Picked up the free B&W Peter Gabriel 96/24 FLAC yesterday

I experimented with it to recheck my file format preferences (again) 

.flac as downloaded

.flac with no compression

.flac transcoded to .wav

.wav (all my albums are .wav)

.wav gets my vote again -- a touch more detail overall & a hint of more body in the bass

For those interested I now have my NDS. I think the flac files sound a fraction cleaner than the more juicy wav files back-to-back but the differences are far more subtle than they were with the HDX as the server. The NDS seems to do pretty amazing things with even a rubbish mp3 so I'm very happy with my flac library. My UPnP server does not have the option of flac to wav 'on the fly' conversion during playback.

I'll just get on with re-discovering my music with the new system again!

Bruce

Months from now you'll still be hearing the NDS serving up unexpected little delights on music you thought you already knew intimately. Nothing but fun awaits.

I have already been incredibly surprised by all sorts of nuances in favourite tracks I've played hundreds of times before. Not just dry detail but a lovely integrated whole. It also has some of the natural unforced musicality I recall from my old CDS3, and a bit of grit too when needed. I'm hugely impressed.

Bruce

Rip them in FLAC.  WAV is rubbish for tagging data.  If you really want to play WAV then get your server to transcode.

What Bill said.  FLAC is designed to be very easy to decode, portable players can do it with ease.  That's why it takes far, far longer to encode in FLAC than decode.

One other thing mentioned, that CPU's must have more work to do decoding FLAC than WAV.  Well the WAV files are larger so the CPU is decoding for longer...

"On my PC, using Sysinternals Process Explorer (the benchmark tool for CPU usage analysis), playing a WAV file in Foobar required a scant 0.327 seconds of total CPU time from a single core of my multicore processor. This works out to about 0.2% CPU usage. Playing the exact same file in FLAC format, required 0.312 seconds of total CPU time—also about 0.2% CPU usage. These numbers are essentially the same, and the FLAC number is even slightly lower. Why? It’s likely because the CPU has to read half as much data with FLAC compared to WAV. But these numbers are so small, they really don’t matter. Other background tasks in the operating system consume far more CPU than FLAC decoding. So this alone should put the myth to rest."

I must remember that,  it seems I might be deluding myself over my many .wav albums that have ripped with the tag data.

Maybe you can tell me what .flac does that .wav cannot.  

WAV rips get locked metadata at source it appears. I can't change any metadata from my own ripped WAVs, although all purchased ones I don't feel any need to add more. My entire library is WAV but I am tempted to create a second FLAC library to help me with the metadata on my ripped DVD-As and BR discs, although DVD-AE uses a metadata library and allows changes before ripping.

Having said that all the UnitiServe CD rips are all fine for the metadata I require and are WAV. Hmmm...

FLAC uses the same system as mp3, WAV does not.  WAV files can be produced that do not allow many changes to tags and in fact...

In fact don't bother to read this please read Dan43's post above he has put it much better.

Jota that is very interesting.  The argument is that:

(a) WAV and FLAC send 'bit-perfect' streams to your player, whether wired ofWiFi - don't believe anyone who says different.

(b) FLAC requires more processing on your streamer so can cause the beast to heat up more than a WAV file, this will increase the noise floor.  There can be NO other way for WAV to sound better than FLAC.

But your observations seem to blow this out of the water - interesting.

You are quite right about the design of FLAC.  The goal was to produce a lossless compression system that required minimal processing to decode but was 'expensive' to encode.  Because you only encode once.

I rip to flac but convert, in my server software, to wav on the fly. To me this sounded more 'musical' than flac straight into Naim.

OK,  I'm obliged Dan & Bill.  Seems I got it right when I ripped the 500+ that are OK as I see no reason to want to change what the rip has locked in.  

I do have 3 albums that do/did have issues,  x1 I fixed using dBpoweramp editing, it was a bit of a pain as its not listed on any of the tagging databases. I will dig out the other CD's & try ripping into .flac & see if that fixes the problems.