Let's assume we will only discuss uncompressed WAV; I don't there is a difference in metadata capability, or really anything except maximum file size, between W64, RF64 and "standard" WAV. FWIW, WAV is the default file format for PCM mastering. For storage, archiving and transmission in the recording industry, FLAC is often used, then uncompressed to WAV for use in mastering.
MQA, Worse than FLAC?
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
Flac also is uncompressed off toy check the box on options
but does have an option to compress. the why is I hear it. also in converting iso files into tracks you can try all and pick
im not claiming up special lol maybe short bus type. but there are a few on here one who does mastering did say he can hear but depth
and varying resolutions
Yes, FLAC uncompressed is very similar to AIFF. FLAC compressed is often used for archiving, frequently used for transmitting audio files (to then be uncompressed before use). I don't understand the rest of what you posted.
Qobuz just opened in Canada today. In the same best player, Audirvana, at higher bitrates, Qobuz sounds more rich right away.
The whole there may be irrelevant given MQA may be going away.
From a purely analytical point of view, FLAC is flawless. Anyone can easily prove this. Take a WAV file and create a cryptographic hash of it. Convert it to FLAC. Convert it back to WAV and compute its cryptographic hash. They will be the same. The process of converting to and from FLAC does not degrade the WAV at all.
From a purely analytical point of view, FLAC is flawless. Anyone can easily prove this. Take a WAV file and create a cryptographic hash of it. Convert it to FLAC. Convert it back to WAV and compute its cryptographic hash. They will be the same. The process of converting to and from FLAC does not degrade the WAV at all.
Playing lossless copies include headache induction caused by processor noise introduction while decompressing on the fly. Uncompressed files sound like I could fall asleep to them. Original cd players were uncompressed, you can't beat it. We need a player that can save a stream to disk uncompressed as a temporary file, then plays that file directly.
I heard that argument before. They argued that copying yielded no audibly detectable difference under blind conditions. A perefect copy of a flawed original may not be relevant
I would prefer not to return to physical media. It has many drawbacks. Mostly a restricted library. Is it required that streamed music be compressed?
.
As I understand it, there's no "on the fly" in a streamer. The FLAC file is buffered and converted, then sent to the DAC as a wave file. CD replay on the other hand, is usually "on the fly", although a few transports use a buffer.
I've compared zero compression FLAC files to .wav files many times, both stored in my NAS, looking to hear any sort of difference. There's no difference, they sound identical.
Last edited:
When playing flac, the cpu uncompresses into memory as it plays, which introduces noise on top of the wav. Playing uncompressed directly avoids that step, and the output is more relaxing. It's not a big difference, but it's free to be playing my own files uncompressed.
Could you please provide some external references to support that? From my standpoint it just sounds like the usual absolute gibberish surrounding digital on everything audio on forums. I can’t even parse the meaning of that sentence.
Sorry if it's confusing. My reference is using my own ears to listen for a difference. Trying uncompressed after flac, there is less of a noisy edge to everything. It's more relaxing. A friend came in and I asked her to try to see if she could tell if there was less noise in my sound compared to before, and she said yes, it's very relaxing like that. I would have kept my opinion anyways, but nonetheless, someone else agreed. Now I fall asleep easily if music is playing. I would not have seemed like it made as much of a difference on my old dac, but with the new one, it's more obvious.
And that is using Audirvana on a mac or pc as source? (If I assume from your previous posts)
PC Audirvana, kernel streaming (most natural), playing wav's off a thumb drive, which also seems to make the entire track have less base noise throughout vs mechanical, usb out to dac.
If you feel like being picky about your output, uncompress an album and play it as wav, turn up the amp a bit, and see how you feel about it. I find it quieter, like I may want to turn it up to hear it better, but then I realize that it's quieter due to less noise. Now it's my reference playback. It's a great rich guy who doesn't care how much he spends on audio technique. So is the amp straight into the wall tip, too bad no dedicated wiring behind that for me. Into anything else will just constrict it.
If you feel like being picky about your output, uncompress an album and play it as wav, turn up the amp a bit, and see how you feel about it. I find it quieter, like I may want to turn it up to hear it better, but then I realize that it's quieter due to less noise. Now it's my reference playback. It's a great rich guy who doesn't care how much he spends on audio technique. So is the amp straight into the wall tip, too bad no dedicated wiring behind that for me. Into anything else will just constrict it.
IMHO it's hard to jump to the conclusion that what you hear is being caused by flac vs wav. Perhaps in your setup things happen to the noise in the digital side of your system that make you favor playing wav vs flac. Almost any change you make in the 'dirty' side of a digital audio chain can yield differences in perceived sound quality. For that reason, I tend to bring in isolation to section off a 'clean' side to rule out a lot of nasties that happen somewhere along the way from source to ear.
See this thread to see what I mean: https://whatsbestforum.com/threads/ethernet-tweak.36727/
In my setup I perceive no noticeable difference between flac or wav, both coming from the same SSD drive on the dirty side, however both going through a fiber with reclocking on the clean side.
Cheers, Hans.
See this thread to see what I mean: https://whatsbestforum.com/threads/ethernet-tweak.36727/
In my setup I perceive no noticeable difference between flac or wav, both coming from the same SSD drive on the dirty side, however both going through a fiber with reclocking on the clean side.
Cheers, Hans.
I'm not asking you to conclude anything, I'm just sharing my own perceptions. There probably is noise in my setup without a power conditioner for my dac, but cleaning up other noise would only make me hear a bigger difference flac vs wav. Playing uncompressed seems not as loud, because there's no noise edge all the time.
I couldn't hear much noise from an ssd, but I figure, since it's a higher powered drive due to trying to be fast, it will be noisier. Too bad for me that a 1tb thumb drive costs more, but it's worth it.
I guess if you can't perceive a difference, you won't care about it. It's not a problem for me, happy listening.
Feel free to quote me as a source, though. I like being able to tell the difference.
I couldn't hear much noise from an ssd, but I figure, since it's a higher powered drive due to trying to be fast, it will be noisier. Too bad for me that a 1tb thumb drive costs more, but it's worth it.
I guess if you can't perceive a difference, you won't care about it. It's not a problem for me, happy listening.
Feel free to quote me as a source, though. I like being able to tell the difference.
On the contrary... I care a lot about anything making a difference... Ultimately there should be no difference between a wav and a flac being played, hence the continuous effort of bringing the possible noise sources in the system down to a point that they make no perceivable difference anymore.
We disagree on your statement that cleaning up noise would make the difference bigger, but we agree on happy listening. At the end of the day that's what it's all about...
Cheers, Hans.
We disagree on your statement that cleaning up noise would make the difference bigger, but we agree on happy listening. At the end of the day that's what it's all about...
Cheers, Hans.
Why should there be no noise? Electrically, your flac playback gets modified by a super powerful chip full of transistors. If you can't hear it, it's fooling you to save drive space.
What do you mean by 'we' disagree that cleaning up noise makes differences bigger? Do you speak for everyone else in the world? Noise masks everything thing you hear, so of course cleaning it up will make differences bigger. It's not my problem what your sources have been.
What do you mean by 'we' disagree that cleaning up noise makes differences bigger? Do you speak for everyone else in the world? Noise masks everything thing you hear, so of course cleaning it up will make differences bigger. It's not my problem what your sources have been.
What I'm trying to say is that ultimately there should be no difference in sound between a flac and a wav, as after unpacking it is the same data. This unpacking process will create some processing noise in the dirty side of my network, which gets stripped off in the reclocking process in the clean side of my network, so no noisy edges which you conclude that are caused by flac...
With 'we' I mean you and me discussing this, I cannot speak for anyone else in the world.
With 'we' I mean you and me discussing this, I cannot speak for anyone else in the world.
The people at Microsoft didn't think there should be a difference playing through default sound vs kernel streaming either. If you can't perceive a difference there, will you want to be talking about that, too?
Due to the fact that the flac file goes through your processor, the result has a noisy edge added. You can say that theoretically flac is meant to be the same, but remember, it's designed to fool you. Uncompressed is the one that is theoretically perfect.