Flac vs Wav audio quality

I use MinimServer which allows you to configure the decision tree, so to make that work I need to be able to edit the tag data.  But even if I didn't need to, I find that all the labels use a slightly different tagging scheme and the overriding principal of music tagging is CONSISTENCY!

I can't hear any audible effect from processor loads when playing via optical SPDIF from my Mini. I can be ripping and compressing DVD video (huge processor load) while playing audio tracks with iTunes. They never skip a beat sound the same (to me) as when the Mini is doing little else. Modern computers can do audio with incredible ease, as Jota notes. They don't break a sweat.

Technically FLAC holds metadata as 'Vorbis Comments' rather than the ID3 format of MP3, but the overall effect is the same.

However, in order to hold metadata, WAV files have to use proprietary formats.  Because ID3, Vorbis Comments or any other metadata formats aren't actually included in the MS WAVE specification, their use in WAV files is still proprietary.  So, since there is no standard for metadata for WAV files, it's unpredictable as to whether any particular software or device will support any particular scheme.  In fact it would be perfectly acceptable for a WAV file renderer or editor to report that a WAV file with tags isn't a valid WAV file.

Yes, I also know that most WAV file renderers (in fact possibly all real ones) actually ignore correctly formatted RIFF based extensions to the WAV format, but they are extensions.

You can add non-standard tags to WAV and they may or may not work.

Your choice.

Just don't blame the software or hardware if they don't work.

Huge, I think you and I have discussed this before exchanging links etc, but WAV does include meta data as part of it official specification (IBM/MS) - but not the simplified subset used for the latest MS consumer audio libraries. They are the List Info comments. It is the ID3 comments that were informally added. Agree List Info is very comprehensive and is more suited to commercial  use and not limited to consumer audio files and so its mapping to ID3 tag type info is open to some interpretation for some values. 

Of course a compliant WAV file reader may chose to ignore chunk IDs it doesn't recognise... That is a beauty of WAV in as far as it supports future developments and backwards compatibility.

Some popular WAVE meta data tag types used.

http://wavmetadata.blogspot.co.uk

Simon

Huge I think you will find that they both use Ogg Vorbis.

Hi Simon,

Since this is an aspect of system programming, the answer is a little bit long as there are several parts to it.

I have looked this up and I am certain that I understand the position.  I have reviewed the detailed format definitions for both WAVE and RIFF (including the provided C++ sample code and header files).

Identification of metadata blocks is contained within the generic definition of RIFF, but not in the specific limited list of FOURCC identifiers for the WAVE subset.

Most (if not all) WAVE file renderers (including the Microsoft ones) are actually RIFF parsers, but ones that only interpret the WAVE subset data blocks (they ignore other RIFF data blocks with FOURCC identifiers that are not in the WAVE subset).

So using the underlying RIFF

As Big Bill says, in practice, Ogg Vorbis comments can be included.

In practice, so can ID3 (two different types).

In practice, so can any other Metadata anyone cares to define within an RIFF metadata block.

But these are relying on the underlying RIFF structure: as far as the WAVE format is concerned they are undefined & unknown RIFF blocks, as the FOURCC identifiers for them aren't specifically defined within the WAVE specification.

In other words within RIFF datasets you can choose to use whatever metadata format you want, provided it's contained in an appropriate block.  However, whether any specific reader can understand the format you choose is an entirely different question.  It doesn't have to read any metadata blocks.

The WAVE format doesn't help with this as it doesn't even define a FOURCC code for metadata (that's only defined at the RIFF outer layer and WAVE doesn't include the entire RIFF set of data block formats).

There is no practical reason why you should not include metadata within WAVE files; it simply may or may not work.

There is no onus on anyone writing a WAVE reader to read any metadata block at all.  There isn't even a definition of what format to use, should they even try to read it.  If it fails to read it or reads it wrongly, that's your hard luck, it's not a fault in the reader (unless the manufacturer specifically says it will read a particular form of RIFF metadata).

Hi Huge, indeed RIFF chunk IDs can be ignored..  But interestingly with OGG files which to my eyes are chunked sequenced packaged pages as opposed to linear chunked data as typically used in WAV there is no standardised (from my notes as of 2007) for incoporating metadata. Thefore with an OGG format the suggested recommendation is to use Vorbis Comment type value pairs within the codec chunk itself such as in Vorbis or FLAC. Therefore implementing Vorbis Comments in RIFF feels possible but would require some bespoke implementation coding, just as it has been for ID3.

Also the Vorbis Comments is a living list of expanding type value pairs.. Therefore even with Vorbis Comments it may be possible to come across types you can't parse, and so you need to handle that just as with RIFF, but this time it is within your codec parser as opposed to your file parser.

So I guess I am saying there are pit falls everywhere for the unwary 

Simon

AAAGH...

Thud...

OW!

Now how do I get out of this pit.

I too tried the FLAC vs. WAV test some months back and couldn't distinguish between them.  I'm not trying to discredit others findings, just trying to add another viewpoint.

Both files were played through the same source chain (NAS / switch / NDS) to eliminate other differences.

While both are a lossless format, FLAC does offer different levels of compression and I wonder whether this is what people are hearing?  All my material is ripped to lossless uncompressed via dBpoweramp.

For those who can hear a difference, had you all ripped to lossless uncompressed?  If yes, just call me cloth eared

Thats interesting.

All lossless uncompressed, however with NAS/HDX vs NAS/NDS as I said the differences much less obvious. Absolutely no mistaking through the HDX but with the NDS it is slight. I've stopped comparing now and just got on with enjoying stuff.

Cheers

Bruce

Stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

Erm Graham all uncompressed must surely be lossless.

The thing is that if you change anything in your file structures then you make life difficult for someone, so basically you get stuck with it.

Both mp3 and FLAC used the earlier Ogg Vorbis tag system, which is a very simple system and was proven.  A good decision in my book.

It is surprisingly easy to read off tag data from FLAC (or mp3) and I have been working on developing a system for reading my FLAC files and storing them in an SQL database.  That means you can make changes to the database and then 'implant' them back into your FLAC files.  The tage data is stored at the beginning of the file and is described here --> https://xiph.org/flac/documentation.html

Get yourself a copy of notepad++ and look at individual FLAC files with it.  That will show you what is happening.

Pot - Kettle 

In what way is FLAC 'stuffed'?  Just not sure what you mean.

Bruce, if you have the disk space you should convert your flac to be fully uncompressed. Others do this by transcoding to wav on the fly, each and every time they play music. That doesn't make sense to me, as they introduce load in to the system every time.

I think flac sounds better than wav when uncompressed, and the tagging is so much better. I agree with your description of flac sounding more detailed and incisive, whereas wav is a fuller sound. Maybe different formats work better with different setups?

My tuppence.

Steve

Wat, I think you'll find the original AIFF file based on EA IFF 85 (Electronic Arts Interchange File Format 1985) had no metadata other than name, author, copyright, and free form comments and or annotations. I think Apple later formalised the metadata within AIFF, perhaps  to catch up with WAV

Not sure on your comments regarding stuffing.. Both WAVE and AIFF are RIFF constructs so there is very little padding other than perhaps a few even byte boundaries in a few locations.

Simon

Simon,

You are taking it all a bit literally man.

They are all packets/boxes/bags or what ever you want to call them?

They can all be stuffed.

Some are just bigger/smaller than others.

Since Yoshi apple have almost all in iTunes yet people are still cluttering up using other systems to rip when there is no need to anymore.

They all come with great album cover art flow.

Gale,

I'm with Simon, the content's of the box have to be the right format, "stuff" it with the wrong thing and you get garbage.

To continue your analogy; take a box marked 'Cornflakes', if it actually contains rat poison, there's going to be a problem!

Why would anyone with less than a quarter of a brain do that?

You lot just like making things seem complicated when they are not.

You stuff the box with data of the right format so that other people can know how to write code to read the data.  If you don't use the right format then the data in the box are useless, as programmes won't be able to work out what it means.

That's why you do it.

The complication is due precision needed to make it work.

Bill, you are being objectionable just for the sake of it or do you actually have a "Universal Pit Escape Method"? 

Actually, to put the record straight, I was wrong about MP3 tags, I thought that ID3 tags were officially supported and this is not the case.  The current ID3 and ID3v2 tagging schemes are actually unofficial, even if they are almost universally adopted.

ISO/IEC 13818-3:1998 (the specification for MPEG-2 Layer III) doesn't specify use of ID3 tags.  In fact it doesn't specify any extended metadata at all.

It doesn't specify the Xiph comments (also known as Ogg Vobis comments) you stated, and these are rarely (if ever) used in MP3.  As you stated, they are however officially supported in FLAC even though, as Simon said, there is no officially specified list of field names for the name / value pairs.

Is it just me or has this thread become very difficult to follow?  Not enough alcohol in my system I suspect!

Too much blood in the alcohol stream?