Download: FLAC, WAV ?

Innocent Bystander posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

allhifi posted:

Do you feel, believe, know (lol) if a FLAC file can be 'un-packed' to a precise, bit-for-bit accurate WAV file ?

When I have done technical analysis of transcoded FLAC and Wav using WireShark and using Asset or MinimStreamer the PCM rendered has been bit for bit identical over gigabits of material. The technology used is prevalent in the IT world and digital communications - and if it didn't work much of our use of IT services would collapse into a big messy puddle.

Now here is the interesting bit - if there was some future encoding format or transmission format that didn't quite do bit by bit identical and added continuous low level digital errors, as opposed to analogue audio errors, then the resultant audio would sound a mess....

S

Or indeed present (MQA).

But of course MQA isn’t random

Innocent Bystander posted:

allhifi posted:

Hmmm. Omitting point (4). let me ask simply: I have a CD. I copy that CD to my computer (using internal CD/DVD ripper).

Using dB poweramp, I decide to "rip" the CD in three file formates; WAVE, FLAC, AAC . All file formats are completed with no hitch.

Using Foobar 2000 for playback of just copied files, I proceed to press "play", and listen to Version 1. Then Version 2, then three -all the while not knowing which is which (FLAC, WAVE, AAC.)

On my little note-pad, I rate file #1,#2 and #3 -from Best down (with detailed accompanying SQ notes -how it differed.

In all cases (likely 20 songs thus far), WAVE was selected BEST, and by a substantial margin ! 

Please explain.

pj

I have explained, in some detail, as have others!!!

Please re-read my posts, in particular carefully study my post showing as 16 or 17 hours before this post, and paragraph 3) in my last post, and NBPF's post immediately after mine 16 hours ago.

If you still have questions, please explain what it is that you do and don't understand about our explanations, and I will try to clarify.

And if you still have concerns over the accuracy of dBPoweramp's conversion of the ripped files, please try my suggestion in my 5th post.

I.B.: In point form (Coles Notes -lol) summarize for me.

I find it difficult to 'rewind' and look at the numerous replies (including yours) that are most  appreciated but my newness to the site makes it difficult.

Thanks.

 pj  

allhifi posted:

B.r. Peter: That actually served to enlighten. Yet, in the end, using your own words: " In my experience the processing of a WAV file sounds superior to a FLAC on Naim streaming equipment.  (As it does on my simple system/experiment, namely; converting from CD on my  dB poweramp 'ripper' and playing back using the (potential bottleneck)  Foobar 2000 -and/or associated  cables/switches/ connectors etc. 

PJ: And don't forget the rest of your system including your brain..............................

The mathematical music information in FLAC and WAV files remain interchangeable and identical though. (In which case one is to deduce, what exactly ? 

PJ: As stated before: the mathematical (audio) information in bits "0&1's" that can be stored as corresponding "EM charge" information on a HDD magnetic disc, USB stick, optical disk etc.................. 

Don't misinterpret; I'm grateful for all the information and effort put forth. No dubt a continuing learning curve remains. But, I will say this; for all the potential greatness of Streaming/Computer Audio, there is indeed something to be said for the simplicity (and consistency) of spinning the old silver disc.

Final question: Since I will continue to convert the remainder of my CD collection is at least three formats, WAVE, FLAC and AAC -various (AIFF proved awful in my set-up), what is the best, most consistent way to use those WAVE files ? (I have a basic Pi 3B running moode/MPD. By the way,  I was slack-jawed when I connected a AQ "Carbon" USB cable from Pi to DAC. Incredible.

PJ:

"Once we've made sense of our world, we wanna go **** up everybody else's because his or her truth doesn't match mine. But this is the problem. Truth is individual calculation. Which means because we all have different perspectives, there isn't one singular truth, is there?"

These are the first spoken words on the new album "To The Bone" of Steven Wilson. Wonderful music and lyrics according to my truth. Please enjoy your ride discovering your truth. 

wish you best, Peter

Thanks,

pj 

Wow. Shockingly philosophical. Kumbayah my friend.

P.S. What "truths", liking/disliking ? I'm here to ask questions and get others thoughts. That I commented that my (VERY EARLY) experience favors WAVE -by a wide margin, actually startled me, considering the notion/understanding that FLAC is indeed a identical (sounding) replica of the original LPCM file.

I've been informed (graciously here) of the variables involved, and perhaps how my personal impressions may change moving forward.

Personally, I couldn't care less if AAC, FLAC or an y other format is the preferred (collectively understood) best option.  

pj 

Innocent Bystander posted:

allhifi posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

allhifi posted:

ChrisSU posted:

Mr Happy posted:

I can easily hear the difference between wav and flac. To me also wav sounds better. I feel transcoding must have some musical loss, although ive never tried this myself. If you have enough storage then why not just rip to wav in the first place?

Loss of what? No bits are lost in transcoding. 

Again (forgive my naivety -or stupidity), yet why is it then that I can (and many others) clearly hear a very distinctive SQ improvement when WAVE is used (in my case,a CD rip -using dB power & Foobar 2000 for playback.

Therefor, as Mr. H posted (and I experience nearly every single time) how is it that a bit-for-bit so-called "lossless compressed" FLAC file sounds clearly inferior to WAVE files (in my admittedly early, non-extensive) comparisons ?  WAVE sound quality is superior -by a wide margin. It really is, an obvious, easily discernible difference.

pj      

Oh dear! As already said by others as well as me: because it is the effect of your renderer (Foobar and your computer) rendering the file into a digital music stream. Nothing to do with whether the two file formats contain exactly the same digital description of the music. Flac is just 'squashed up more', to put it crudely, and your renderer may be less good at teasing it back out unchanged. Other renderers may be more or less good at it, and some may be perfect (so some people may report no difference). Or it can be teased out in a process seperate from the renderer, either on-the-fly if the serving NAS or computer has sufficient power, as others have described, or some time earlier, e.g  after downloading a flac file convert to wav before storing, with a program like dBPoweramp.

But note again, this is talking about a standard flac file, not MQA flac.

Now that I CAN understand. SImply put, this noob is (or may be) experiencing the limitations of a basic 'renderer' (Foobar 2000).

If I understands correctly; Foobar may have a 'preference' for WAVE, or I may be experiencing the limitations of encoding using dB poweramp whether program related or my computer processor/power supply/noise levels running in the background causing some  interference (for lack of a better term) ? Naturally (I'd assume) A FLAC file would be more sensitive to (let's say) internal computer noise as it is computing compression as opposed to FLAC -that requires less a pristine recording/encoding or indeed decoding process.  

I also understand (from what you've said) that a superior renderer may very well render (no pun) FLAC/WAVE much closer (in SQ) to what I've discovered thus far using the 'system' on hand.  

Tell me I've got it ! (at least a bit -again, no pun)  lol

pj

Getting there, I think, but a few points to clarify

1) dBPoweramp's conversion (transcoding) is not in question (well, only by you!): it either converts [accurately] or it fails, and the effect of a lesser computer is simply a longer time to do the job, which is of no consequence because it is not playing it at the same time. So you can safely download, say, .flac files (not MQA) and convert to .wav with dBPoweramp before storing in your library, which is what some people do if they are concerned about either the renderer coping adequately with .flac, or the reliability of transcoding on the fly (see 4 below).

2) In rendering an uncompressed file that is in the format for which the renderer is designed (usually .wav, except maybe Apple renderers), it could be 'bit perfect' or not - hifi oriented renderers will always at least intend to be bit perfect - however, sound quality can be affected by other aspects such as jitter and superimposed electrical (RF) noise, depending on the susceptibility of the DAC that it feeds, which is where the argument "it's just 1s and 0s" can fall down.

3) How well any given renderer deals with a compressed file that needs unpacking (like .flac), or a non-native format that needs transcoding to the native one (possibly in your case this applies to AIFF), bears no relationship to the sound quality dealing with a file in the native format (commonly .wav), so one could have a perfect .wav renderer that sounds hopeless with other formats, or they could sound equally good (or equally poor).

4) Transcoding 'on the fly' before reaching the renderer, i.e while the music is being streamed from the store to the renderer, such as when done in the NAS, need not have any negative effect provided that the device has sufficient processing capacity to do that as fast as is necessary for the rate of streaming to be unaffected. But if processing power is limited, or, possibly, diverted due to something else happening in the NAS/computer, then it could adversely affect the process and hence the sound - the biggest risk of this may be if the processor is not dedicated to the music serving function, e.g. if the device is a computer being used at the same time for something else*, or perhaps a NAS simultaneously serving other files on the network. (*Which potentially could also affect the renderer's performance if the computer is also doing the rendering.) 

As I re-read your points above (1-3 specifically) I appreciate the thoroughness of the reply.

I suppose I was simply overloaded with conceptualizing previously.  

Here (thanks to you) is what I've "newly" read/understood  (lol):

"So you can safely download, say, .flac files (not MQA) and convert to .wav with dBPoweramp before storing in your library, which is what some people do if they are concerned about either the renderer coping adequately with .flac, or the reliability of transcoding on the fly (see 4 below)."

Got it. Finally !

POINT-2: 

2) In rendering an uncompressed file that is in the format for which the renderer is designed (usually .wav, ..."

Again, thank you.

POINT-3: 

3) " ...How well any given renderer deals with a compressed file that needs unpacking (like .flac), or a non-native format that needs transcoding to the native one ..."

My head may be hard (and square), but things do eventually penetrate !

Much appreciated.

pj 

I'm glad that is sorted - I had been trying to draft it in a simpler way, so I will stop now!

Hi I.B: (lol)  You may wish to continue (the re-framing/writing), a fantastic mental exercise if nothing else. (I try to do the same all the time).

It truly is a difficult skill to master; describing succinctly (the old saying  "pretend you are explaining to Grandma ..." ) is something we should all keep in mind within our daily activities.

Thank you,

pj

allhifi posted:

Hi I.B: (lol)  You may wish to continue (the re-framing/writing), a fantastic mental exercise if nothing else. (I try to do the same all the time).

It truly is a difficult skill to master; describing succinctly (the old saying  "pretend you are explaining to Grandma ..." ) is something we should all keep in mind within our daily activities.

Thank you,

pj

Well, my post commencing "oh dear" a couple of days ago was, I thought, pretty much as simple as I could get it, so with you at last understanding I'm not going to spend yet more time on it.

Understood. As I continue to transfer CD to computer file; FLAV, WAVE, AAC-LC, MP-3 -lame, I NOW know (lol) that upon playback (Foobar 2000), what I'm hearing (from a digital/program/format perspective) is, at least in part, due to the type/quality/choice of the 'renderer' (recorder) used, and perhaps the Foobar (Program) itself.

What I'd like to know is, given the considerable variables at play, is there one "format/file-type" (and associated Renderer/equipment that one can safely employ to obtain consistently good/excellent sound quality (within ANY file format) ? 

pj

allhifi posted:

...

What I'd like to know is, given the considerable variables at play, is there one "format/file-type" (and associated Renderer/equipment that one can safely employ to obtain consistently good/excellent sound quality (within ANY file format) ? 

pj

I am confused. Are you asking whether there exists one fft and associated re such that (fft,re) guarantees excellent sound quality for any fft? What does that mean? You can either fix the fft and ask for the best re for that fft. Or you fix the re and ask for the best fft for that re. But you cannot fix a fft and vary it at the same time!

allhifi posted:

Understood. As I continue to transfer CD to computer file; FLAV, WAVE, AAC-LC, MP-3 -lame, I NOW know (lol) that upon playback (Foobar 2000), what I'm hearing (from a digital/program/format perspective) is, at least in part, due to the type/quality/choice of the 'renderer' (recorder) used, and perhaps the Foobar (Program) itself.

What I'd like to know is, given the considerable variables at play, is there one "format/file-type" (and associated Renderer/equipment that one can safely employ to obtain consistently good/excellent sound quality (within ANY file format) ? 

pj

It is impossible to be absolute.

Regarding file format, as any manufacturer of renderers could choose any format, but from what I have seen it appears that .wav is near universal (with the possible exception anything developed by Apple). So if you were to store as .wav the chances are it would suit most things. Or store as .flac for smaller storage space and possibly better metadata management and simplicity of download, and transcode on the fly from the server if whatever one you have prefers .wav (or any other format), as many do with Naim streamers. And provided it is a lossless format you can always change your mind later: dBPoweramp is vertpy effective at batch conversion, though obviously it takes a bit of time (not operator time) requires additional storage space until finished.

Regarding renderer: it surely would be best to go for a renderer giving tbe best sound quality then match the file format to its pretpference, if it has one, rather than choose a renderer on the basis of giving equal performance on all formats, after all it is a simple matter to convert lossless file formats without detriment to sound quality. And whilst in some cases there could be detriment to associated metadata, that would be irrelevant if transcoded on the fly whilst playing.

Excellent. That's what I thought (WAVE, FLAC) and process/compress from there (if required).

WAVE would be (for obvious reasons) the file-format I'd wish my (premium) renderer to handle/massage (lol) with aplomb ! 

Any (Renderer) rec's ?

pj

Naim offerings include those combined with DACs, namely the network players aka streamers, ND5XS, NDX and NDS (the first two also being popular just as renderers into external DACs. Also Uniti Core has a renderer function, combined with being a store. Much on this forum about these.

Melco and Innuos Zenith are also excellent renderer/stores. Also mentioned in various threads.

microRendu is said to be excellent, and intermediate cost, but somewhat hands-on and knowledge needed to set up best. Much experimentation combining with raspberry pi as server - see the "Hugo of streaming" thread.

I use Audirvana on a Mac Mini, which is said to be one of, if not the, best computer-based renderers if optimised and on a dedicated machine (I run it headless) - but beware that the electrical output of a standard computer is riddled with RF interference so needs special care isolating if the DAC is susceptible (e.g Hugo or Mojo). This is another combined store-renderer approach that personally I prefer as it avoids streaming files over a network, but again is a bit hands-on to set up right, and Audirvana's library handling leaves a bit to be desired - if I was looking afresh and didn't already have a Mac I'd consider one of the other options if the library isn't improved. 

nbpf posted:

allhifi posted:

...

What I'd like to know is, given the considerable variables at play, is there one "format/file-type" (and associated Renderer/equipment that one can safely employ to obtain consistently good/excellent sound quality (within ANY file format) ? 

pj

I am confused. Are you asking whether there exists one fft and associated re such that (fft,re) guarantees excellent sound quality for any fft? What does that mean? You can either fix the fft and ask for the best re for that fft. Or you fix the re and ask for the best fft for that re. But you cannot fix a fft and vary it at the same time!

Hi: I will play WAVE file exclusively -when/where I can. I must determine which other format (compressed lossless or not) is the runner up -for best SQ on the majority of playback devices I'll be using; including a CDP, Pi-3, and another Streamer/Renderer/Player not yet determined (if it blows away the Pi-3 (running moode/MPD).

pj 

Innocent Bystander posted:

Naim offerings include those combined with DACs, namely the network players aka streamers, ND5XS, NDX and NDS (the first two also being popular just as renderers into external DACs. Also Uniti Core has a renderer function, combined with being a store. Much on this forum about these.

Melco and Innuos Zenith are also excellent renderer/stores. Also mentioned in various threads.

microRendu is said to be excellent, and intermediate cost, but somewhat hands-on and knowledge needed to set up best. Much experimentation combining with raspberry pi as server - see the "Hugo of streaming" thread.

I use Audirvana on a Mac Mini, which is said to be one of, if not the, best computer-based renderers if optimised and on a dedicated machine (I run it headless) - but beware that the electrical output of a standard computer is riddled with RF interference so needs special care isolating if the DAC is susceptible (e.g Hugo or Mojo). This is another combined store-renderer approach that personally I prefer as it avoids streaming files over a network, but again is a bit hands-on to set up right, and Audirvana's library handling leaves a bit to be desired - if I was looking afresh and didn't already have a Mac I'd consider one of the other options if the library isn't improved. 

 

 

Excellent. Thanks for that. A perfect start then (for me) would be use the very capable Raspberry Pi-3B as my Renderer?, Server? Playback device ?

As you can see, I'm a novice with respect to the terminolgy (and indeed understanding) of this  playback medium/system. Said another way, knowing what I have now (Raspberry Pi-3B -running moode/MPD, Schiit Modi-2 Uber DAC (all for now) and the brilliant AQ "Carbon" USB cable) what do I need to make this thing/combo sing ?

Many thanks,

pj 

nbpf posted:

I am confused. Are you asking whether there exists one fft and associated re such that (fft,re) guarantees excellent sound quality for any fft? What does that mean? You can either fix the fft and ask for the best re for that fft. Or you fix the re and ask for the best fft for that re. But you cannot fix a fft and vary it at the same time!

Bizarre, when I first read this I read it as questioning the Fast Fourier Transform of a functional distribution 're'!

On later reading I presume that you're referring to File/Format Type (fft) and Renderer (re) and the association and/or combination of the two (fft,re).

Others  will have to advise on the gear you mention as I have no specific experience - however there's a lot of info and about RPi on the very interesting 'Hugo of Streaming' thread, in between the bits about microRendu (and ultraRendu).

allhifi posted:

nbpf posted:

allhifi posted:

...

What I'd like to know is, given the considerable variables at play, is there one "format/file-type" (and associated Renderer/equipment that one can safely employ to obtain consistently good/excellent sound quality (within ANY file format) ? 

pj

I am confused. Are you asking whether there exists one fft and associated re such that (fft,re) guarantees excellent sound quality for any fft? What does that mean? You can either fix the fft and ask for the best re for that fft. Or you fix the re and ask for the best fft for that re. But you cannot fix a fft and vary it at the same time!

Hi: I will play WAVE file exclusively -when/where I can. I must determine which other format (compressed lossless or not) is the runner up -for best SQ on the majority of playback devices I'll be using; including a CDP, Pi-3, and another Streamer/Renderer/Player not yet determined (if it blows away the Pi-3 (running moode/MPD).

pj 

I very much doubt that you will be able to establish a file format ranking based on sound quality alone and on the rendering computing platforms that you are envisaging to use. All I can say is based on the experince of running MinimServer (a UPnP server) and upmpdcli (an MPD-based UPnP renderer) on Raspberry Pis and on a fitPC3. All my music files are in FLAC format, apart from a few WAV files for testing purposes. When I set MinimServer to transcode FLAC to WAV I cannot hear any difference as compared to serving the correspondent .WAV files. Transcoding 24/192 FLAC files to WAV on a RPi3 increases the CPU load at replay time from less than 5% to about 20% in my setup. On the fitPC3, the increases are less significant. If your renderer is not running on the same machine as your server (which is always the case if you use a Naim streamer), I would expect transcoding to have nil impact on sound quality. Thus, sound quality is not, in my view, a relevant criterion for selecting which file formats to use. Relevant criteria are (again, in my view) metadata editability, inter-operability, data transfer times and, less importantly, disk space. Best, nbpf

nbpf: Thanks for that. BTW,, when you (correctly) state: "I very much doubt that you will be able to establish a file format ranking based on sound quality alone", that was more what I gathered from some of the replies I received here on this site, not my personal observations (that I must reiterate, are only a few-weeks-in-the-making (lol), yet this far, I clearly and consistently prefer WAVE.

Also here on the site, I was led to believe it may have nothing to do with the file type but rather the renderer I'm using (among other variables I guess). Therefore, my last question (that come to think of it had garnered very little if any reply ! Hmmmm ?) was based on what I've been informed of thus far (or at least my interpretation -lol) regarding the possible reasons I find WAVE to be clearly superior to the others including FLAC.

You know, as I think upon it right now, I see that 'Streaming' audio basically lacks a reliable foundation (in terms of sound quality perceptions) and that as a result, users strive for this, that and the other looking, scrambling, experimenting, paying (money/time-frustration) to establish consistently good sounding music from this platform. Ironically enough, with a lack of a physical foundation may indeed be the problem itself (spare me -not you- the digital theory mantra (bit-perfect shit in an analog world).

It's no wonder I'm just starting out in this "modern" music listening technique; it's fraught with inconsistencies and random, expensive "add-on's", equipment and a heap of unrelenting dialog that is indeed incessant -for how many years now ?  Good grief. What I think I'll do is take this step-by-step and report back once I establish what I can accomplish with my Pi-3B and the various files/systems/platforms I can run through it.

I do appreciate your reply. And all the others.

pj

Hi,

I would like to think that we have established WAV is the best format for listening purposes. Pple would choose to keep their file formats in flac or any other because of metadata and space. However, there exists transcoding on the fly by the various NAS and servers so that the renderer will get the WAV format file even though it is stored as flac, hence removing any issues of loss of sound quality as a resultant of file format. If you can afford to save your music in WAV format and ignore the double/triple in size compared to other lossless formats, save as WAV by all means.

I also don't agree with your statement that only digital music era has 'lack of foundations for a good sound. In the eras past, for the same vinyl, different turntables give off different sound qualities and only the best turntables give the best sound quality, with additional power supplies and what not. Likewise for amps and preamps. So I don't get this grouse of digital music. 'Faithful' music reproduction has always been elusive for many except for those with the deepest pockets. So I think that this journey is always challenging, analogue or digital, we just need to try our best to be happy with what we get for the budget we are willing to pay.

Best, Dox

Perfect; WAVE it is !

(As yet  another CD transfer in four formats; AAC-LC (320 Kb/s), AIFF, FLAC and WAVE) blindly decided.

#1 (By a massive margin WAVE  ( I have detailed listening notes to share)

#2 FLAC

#3 AIFF

#4 AAC-LC (320 kb/s)

The astonishing thing is that this can be clearly revealed through an outboard, decent (but cheap) 3-way desktop speaker system ! (How in the world (when you think about it) could this analog representation steeped in basic loudspeaker performance, poor speaker placement (upon my computer desk; Left speaker 12-16" behind my monitor, although angled toward me lol, and the Right channel speaker nestled between -and slightly behind- the monitor and a massive Canon printer extending way past the front plane of the speaker face)  offer up such SQ distinctions within all of the analog stages using a precise digital file rendering (of all the formats) ?

Amazing.

pj

P.S. If you are a real music lover (and genuine audiophile) it matters not how much "disc space" the music consumes.

Honestly, how much disc space would you need for 500 of your finest music albums ? ( $500. ? $1,000?  Less ?)

Furthermore: Was this directed at me ? : "I also don't agree with your statement that only digital music era has 'lack of foundations for a good sound. ..."

And finally: . 'Faithful' music reproduction has always been elusive for many except for those with the deepest pockets."

Absolutely not ! Anyone in the business long enough can give you countless examples of modest dollar sound-systems that sound much, much better than expensive rigs. I've heard it many a time. We all hear it.

If you know what to listen for/purchase, you can assemble a premium, stunning SQ system in the $10-$15K (retail price) area. Never, ever believe that enormous price ='s automatic enormously great sound. IT DOES NOT. I assure you. Without question, there are a handful of very expensive hi-fi with fine performance, but so is there are down-to-earth prices.

Let's start with the superb KEF Reference-1 loudspeaker; $8K/pr. US$ This baby will challenge any, at any price. You won't get flat down to 20 cycles -you don't really need to (although it helps when reproduced faithfully -very, very difficult to achieve) but on any other criteria, the REF 1's compete with the best.

You need a world class preamp ?(from your shores no less), consider the brilliant Cambridge Audio 840-E (not 851E). Here, regularly sold for $700-$900 CA$ ! A superb second-hand amplifier; look no further than the splendid Classe CA-2100 (circa 2005-2011 -along with CA-2200/CA-M400) hovering around $2K (US/CA$).

My list can continue. And it will not reach unattainable dollars. But will give you the real-deal, genuine high-resolution, high-realism sound reproduction. In fact, goose-bump inspiring. 

pj

allhifi posted:

...

The astonishing thing is that this can be clearly revealed through an outboard, decent (but cheap) 3-way desktop speaker system ! (How in the world (when you think about it) could this analog representation steeped in basic loudspeaker performance, poor speaker placement (upon my computer desk; Left speaker 12-16" behind my monitor, although angled toward me lol, and the Right channel speaker nestled between -and slightly behind- the monitor and a massive Canon printer extending way past the front plane of the speaker face)  offer up such SQ distinctions within all of the analog stages using a precise digital file rendering (of all the formats) ?

Amazing.

...

It is the Canon printer! It has been hacked by hard boiled pro-wav-files evengelists. They have modified the printer's firmware and now your device sends high-frequency electromagnetic beams every time it detects a .flac or a .aiff file on its way to your dac. The beams are tuned to deteriorate sound quality. I suggest random renaming of .flac and .aiff files to .wav and vice versa. Or switching off the printer. Best, nbpf 

Woah. That's truly way beyond my comprehension. Talk about esoteric -only from the tender sensibilities of Naimophiles.

I'll try turning off the printer first. Then, report back.

Nanoo, nanoo ...

pj

Harry posted:

I use dBpoweramp also. Life would be easier if I couldn't hear a difference between FLAC and WAV. But I do.  So I convert when I can't obtain a WAV file, which is rare.

Hi Harry: Indeed it would be much easier ! As it would be if we knew why AC power cords have such a profound impact, USB cable quality and the myriad of other "tweaks" that  have no basis in our current (technical) understanding. The best example of this would be the bi-wire loudspeaker input terminals (if using a single-run run) ; connecting to the bottom terminals presents as more "bass" and conversely, more "highs" when connected to the upper terminals -prompting many to use the diagonal connection method.

My question Harry, is, have you had any issues re-playing the WAVE files on other playback devices (CDP in car, personal "Walkman" type digital player, etc.) ?

peter 

Paradox2701 posted:

Hi,

I would like to think that we have established WAV is the best format for listening purposes. Pple would choose to keep their file formats in flac or any other because of metadata and space. However, there exists transcoding on the fly by the various NAS and servers so that the renderer will get the WAV format file even though it is stored as flac, hence removing any issues of loss of sound quality as a resultant of file format. If you can afford to save your music in WAV format and ignore the double/triple in size compared to other lossless formats, save as WAV by all means.

I also don't agree with your statement that only digital music era has 'lack of foundations for a good sound. In the eras past, for the same vinyl, different turntables give off different sound qualities and only the best turntables give the best sound quality, with additional power supplies and what not. Likewise for amps and preamps. So I don't get this grouse of digital music. 'Faithful' music reproduction has always been elusive for many except for those with the deepest pockets. So I think that this journey is always challenging, analogue or digital, we just need to try our best to be happy with what we get for the budget we are willing to pay.

Best, Dox

Hi Para(Dox): The following is not directed at you at all, but as my (seemingly exponential) learning curve moves forward, I discovered a few "add-on's? and/or "transcoders" offered up to those of us enmeshed in streaming/digital audio.

Specifically, I stumbled upon XiVero (Audio Algorithm Engineers) and their most impressive products:

https://www.xivero.com

One of the products is (what appears to be?) a FLAC encoder/transcoder; 

https://www.xivero.com/xifeo/ (FLAC Entropy Optimizer) 

(Excerpt):