Do WAV Music Files Sound Better than FLAC? Here's Why and Why Not - SoundStage! Real Hi-Fi (Ep:9)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- Does WAV sound better than FLAC? Or how about against other lossless music file formats? In this episode, SoundStage! Network founder Doug Schneider explores this popular and controversial topic by giving you the straight goods on why the different music-file formats do and don't sound the same. Watch to find out more.
#lossless #hifi #audiophile
What a relief as I've been collecting FLAC music and came across recently that WAV is the raw format. I'm a software guy and the logic is sound.
yes it seems every evolution in format..tends to compromise quality a bit..in exchange for consumer convenience ..i think the order is vinyl record>dat tape>cd>flac>mp3
@@kaizen5415 Vinyl sounds no better than a flac file, even if you spend 10 grand on a turntable, another 10 on the arm, another 10 on the cartridge and another 10 on the pre-amp. Add to that that most people who can afford a hi-fi that expensive are usually of an age where their hearing has deteriorated to an extent that they may as well spend one 10th that amount.
It's a half based logic. The devil is is in the details! Read the article in HIFICRITIC named
'Why Do WAV And FLAC Files Sound Different?'
@@kaizen5415 mini disc goes after cd
@@AnUndisclosedLocation then they just say vinyl has a unique sound to justify spending 50k on a vinyl set up
This topic is very well presented. I especially like that you converted the file through multiple lossless formats to show that the data is perfectly intact throughout. Your example of playback volume leading to perceived differences in sound quality is also greatly appreciated.
Great to hear you enjoyed it! Thanks for the feedback.
Thank you for addressing sighted bias as it’s the number one reason useful reviews can be so elusive
Bias definitely factors in! Thanks for the watching.
Thank you.
For clearing the confusions.
I have been collecting FLAC music since last month.
But was confused about quality, loss of information between different formats.
You cleared all these things.
What can be said is that this video is a MPEG codec. When we watch this video you notice that it plays perfectly, and we can see Doug with no degradation. The MPEG coding is decoded on the fly in real time, and converted into a video bit stream that is then played by the software. It isn't even lossless, but if the software was not decoding properly, then the video would be corrupted and we would see it instantly. Its the same with sound, except the processing requirements for sound decompression is a fraction of what is required for doing video.
Great points
Gosh thank you!! I was getting overwhelmed from the massive debates on Reddit about this!!
There are massive debates about this there? Who's winning?
Nice summary. This is exactly the same as using zip (or another lossless compression method) on a file. If even a single bit were lost in the process, it would have been abandoned as useless from the get go. Lossless means lossless.
As much as this makes sense and I always believe this for decades. I was listening to a download in WAV and as usual I convert to Flac. I notice straight away it didn't sound as full. I went back and listened to the original songs and yes, the WAV sounds fuller, like the bass is fuller for example. All settings are exactly the same playing in VLC player. It makes no sense but its true.
But I tested converting back from Flac to Wav and then it sounds the same. It has to be from CD originally to WAV to notice the better sound.
I *think* I know what might be happening, but I don't want to guess (in effect, your playback software is treating the files differently). I have to proposed tests for your to determine if it's that or the files. One is to simply take the files you think sound different through VLC and play them somewhere else entirely -- like on your computer. Do they sound the same or different then? Or, send them to me and I'll look at them. That said, I suggest finding somewhere else to play them back and see as a first step.
I am also noticing this same phenomenon when it comes to music, and I'm starting to realize how much better wav actually is; wav just sounds cleaner, this is also why I've ripped all my music to wav, so there can be no issues happening because it's uncompressed; therefore, it'll play right away without computation being necessary which flac could effect the files to sound different if they're compressed because it requires extra computation and extra processing which wav needs no processing, therefore making wav the better choice as it is instant playback and it sounds the best for pcs, (in general).
If I could ask what converting you did, I'd be interested if it's possible for me to turn my flac files into wav by uncompressing them so that I can hear if there's a noticeable big difference, which there likely will be due to the extra processing required of flac.
The uncompressor you use also matters; not every software uncompresses in the same way. If the flac when you converted it to wav sounded the same as the original wav you had, then I think to solve my issues on my processor, I have to convert the flac to wav, correct?
If so, please teach me how to convert flac to wav. Thanks as I'd really appreciate it and I hate seeing flac in my music collection. Wav just sounds better. It's the literal name of "Wave", which is what an audio is. It sounds more professional to use wav than flac. Artists don't use flac, they use wav and then convert it to flac to compress it. This compression can cause noticeable sound issues I fear and the only fix is uncompressing it.
FLAC compression takes away the microdetails.
Very very well done video. Thanks man I love FLAC and the amount of support it has for music info. I honestly find a great passion in just being able to put all the info about the song on it, and have the same quality and less space at the same time.
Glad you enjoyed it!
How to download bthis app and where?
It blows my mind that there are people trying to out think this. You can demonstrate it in under five minutes with ffmpeg, sox, and the music of your choice. Just dump the wav file to a raw binary bit stream using sox. Then encode the wav file to flac, or m4a, using ffmpeg. Convert back and forth between them a few times, if you like. Then convert the flac or m4a file to a wav, and again, dump it with sox. Note that the two resulting raw bitstreams not only have the exact same length, but also THE EXACT SAME MD5 FINGERPRINT.
We are not out think anything. Everything I believed in for the past 20 years about Flac is just not true. it makes no sense but I came across wav files and like I always do I convert to Flac, but I noticed it was sounding better before, so I went back and testes, the original WAV does sound slightly fuller. It makes no sense at all, but you don't have to think, you only need to listen.
@@victorfernandes83 Yes, it pains me to see the stupidity of some people, they relay on math and blind tests but the ears don't lie. The inferior quality of the flac's are obvious. Read the research article
'Why Do WAV And FLAC Files Sound Different?' in HIFICRITIC. The devils in the details!
The mind is a powerful thing....
That's for sure!
Ty for this and the blunt/humorous way you presented it.
Career computer nerd turned audiophile here ... i agree with you 100%. Lossless means loseless. Same string of 0's and 1's come out of either format. Period.
Thanks for your response. I'm going to create another video about this because there are many people who simply don't understand what "lossless compression" means. They see compression and think something is lost, permanently. It's simply a more efficient way to write data to conserve space, but without loss.
@@dougschneider8243 Absolutely correct! Couldn't have said it better.
I’ve been enjoying your videos- short and sweet, and yet very informative.
And by the way, thanks for the Paradigm Founder 100F review- it was excellent.
We thank you for that feedback! We know many people were waiting for Doug's review. For those who haven't seen it yet, it's here: www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/1574-paradigm-founder-series-100f-loudspeakers
Thank you James Hatfield brother for this video.
Hi great video being a comms engineer what you have said is absolutely correct with the platforms . Regards mark
Great episode. Keep them coming! The sound a lot better now as well.
Thanks for the feedback. Doug and the video team worked with some microphone placement and settings changes to improve things. Glad it's being noticed.
Good video. I usually only do flacs 80 percent of the time all the time for my high res daps but i still use some old players that don’t take flac so I convert them to wave at a lower bit and kbps and sometimes they do sound good. I think it has to do with the hardware
Can't disagree. I do wonder why the music industry (recording studios) seem to predominantly use WAV rather than FLAC. That's why I prefer WAV and I appreciate all the points and I wouldn't notice the difference.
They use WAV because that's the format music software processes audio in - raw PCM.
To use a compressed format it would need decompression first - into WAV - and then recompression after. This is useless and does nothing but cost CPU time. There's simply no point in doing it.
That's the only reason flac isn't used in audio processing. There's no difference in sound quality, only in direct "processability".
The main reason I use WAV is for audio editing and post production. The files are large but there are good reasons for this. Is it broadcast quality on the whole yes. MP3 has its uses.
⚖producer here_i read every digital processing of audio changes to waveform to some extent_i hear this even if i comsolidate/render/export am audio track edit or project session to WAV_sooo the process of compressing WAV down to FLAC_those missing megabytes are in fact sacrificed audio quality right?
Just like you I was a bit shocked that Wav file sounds better than Flac on my iPhone. I don’t think it’s due to gain settings but rather the way audio engine that processes bits. I tried various apps, including Apple’s Music and by far the best sounding is Plexamp. Wav file sounds not on louder, but more spacious, detailed instrument separation, more natural with better base response. These differences are audible. By now, most of the people can identify streaming sound. Wav file played on the phone doesn’t sound like streaming.
If the WAV sounds louder, then that could also be why you're hearing those other qualities.
WAV sounds better. Each time a file is changed, thhhe sound gets worse. The youtube videos sound better on video files, before they are changed to WAV or FLAC.
@@myronhelton4441 While that's true with lossy compression, not with lossless compression. The file is compressed and uncompressed and comes back the same -- every time. Doug explained this in the video as well.
Wish someone told me years ago to get wavs when djing night and day difference on speakers (decent pro range)
Some mp3 files are good, FLAC is better, WAV is best. Have to find equipment that will play WAV.
Great video!
Thanks!
You are right I did the same thing I ripped a original cd using extact audio copy or even ez cd audio converter with gap detections and error detections, and burned it to a blank cd and ripped again, and everything was a matched, even the sectors matched from ripping from the original cd with the burned cd, and I was shocked.
But I do have a problem with VLC player skipping on the newer version 3.0.18 with FLAC but works fine on 3.0.17 no dropped frames on that version I don't know what they did to VLC player but it drops a frame here and there. Some of the people complaining about flac sound, it could be the audio player that you're using.
I just started getting into music (I do hobby low level programming) and there’s sooooo many variables that go into the listening experience that any argument can’t be resolved by what format is the best.
Most of the people arguing don’t understand the application of bits to waveform (bytes is an easier representation) and what the data physically looks like and how it’s interpreted.
The biggest misconceptions comes from the people who think wav sounds better than flac or vice versa. Usually positions are taken because Flac is compressed whereas wav isn’t, but that’s actually to Flac’s benefit due to how the compression algorithm contains empty data in much smaller amounts. Both formats are lossless but if a song in wav has a series of empty bytes it’ll store those bytes. The actual streamed array of bytes is exactly the same between the two formats though, one just saves space.
Tldr anyone saying wav sounds better is akin to a snake oil salesman. Doesn’t matter if your Uncle who’s an audio professional think it does, he’s wrong lol
They make stuff up with no idea what they’re talking about.
I thought the same for the last 20 years. I was also blind like you, well, actually deaf.
Thanks for this. Do you have a recommendation for cd ripping software for mac? I know you mentioned JRiver which I suppose is your recommendation?
We know that common, good ripping software packages that work are JRiver and dBPoweramp. We hope that helps.
@@soundstagenetwork thanks a lot. It can be very confusing and intimidating starting the process of ripping and organizing again. Figuring out the format, the organizing method, etc. so many RUclips clips about this one knows not where to start!
@@soundstagenetwork thanks! dbPoweramp looks good. Do you use a separate program to organize all your collection? I’m talking about an iTunes type program/interface. Sorry for the basic q.
@@diegoinjapan No problem -- and it's not that basic, really. It's the kind of thing people should be asking to get started quickly. I use Roon for playback and it automatically does a great job of grabbing my catalog of music and presenting it well. However, Roon's a little expensive -- though worth it in my opinion. I'm not sure what JRiver is doing in that regard these days -- I last used it for music playback several years ago. However, I do believe they've been consistently upgrading it, so it might do a good job, too. It's so inexpensive -- and it has a free trial -- that it's worth just starting there.
@@dougschneider8243 thanks! Will give it a look.
I have a qstn about FLAC vs WAV...
On a DAP, would 5 CD's worth of WAV's be "kinder" on battery drain due to not having to process the unpacking of the audio for every second the track plays!??? Logically, despite being smaller files - you'd expect WAV's be lighter to process for the processor?
Good question. Here's the thing that most people don't think of. Yes, the processor works more to decode a FLAC file. However, in a typical laptop, say, the most energy- and time-consuming things typically have to do with input/output, like to or from storage device. Since the FLAC file is about 1/2 to 2/3 the size, it's much quicker to read, taking less energy there. So all told, I don't think it's going to change battery life that much. Graphics operations, on the other hand, strain batteries big-time.
One question... When I'm listening to a song on RUclips, how do I identify if that song is an audio file without loss of quality or if it's an audio file with loss of quality? Where can I see the specifications of the audio being played to know if it is, for example: a “WAVE” or “FLAC” format (without loss of quality) or if it is an “MP3” type file (where there was compression and loss Of Quality)? Is there any extension for the Chrome browser that shows real-time specifications of the audio being played? I visited RUclips's audio file guidelines and it says the following... “[...] Supported file formats: (1) MP3 audio in MP3/WAV container, (2) PCM audio in WAV container, (3 ) AAC audio in MOV container and (4) FLAC audio. Minimum audio bitrate for lossy formats: 64 kbps. Minimum audible duration: 33 seconds, excluding silence and background noise. Maximum duration: none “[...]”. Therefore, RUclips accepts audio files without loss of quality and audio files with loss of quality.
When it comes to RUclips, it's quite easy to answer -- what is streamed to the listener is ALWAYS lossy, even when a lossy file is uploaded. When a file (video and/or sound) is uploaded to YT, it's always "processed" by YT, which is where the lossy compression takes place, if the original file was not lossy, and that's what delivered to the user. Hope that helps.
Thanks for answering. So as a result of what you said, it must be concluded that... The audio contained in all those demonstration videos of High-End and/or Hi-Fi sound systems, in fact, is not “lossless” audio, or In other words, that audio has undergone some type of compression by RUclips and so we cannot say that it is higher quality audio and/or that it is high resolution audio? Is this conclusion correct?
Sorry, but I'm a little confused... I thought that these videos that demonstrate High-End and/or Hi-Fi sound systems had superior audio, that is, audio that did not suffer any type of compression, until because people who post this type of video emphasize that audio capture is always done with professional/advanced microphones, and that we should always use high quality headphones to be able to perceive all the rich details of the music reproduction, consequently being able to perceive the quality top of the High-End and/or Hi-Fi system being exposed.
But if when the audio reaches RUclips it suffers some type of compression (loss), then even using a high quality headphone, I will not be able to hear/perceive all the rich details of the music, as the audio I am listening to is not a faithful representation of the original audio. Is this reasoning correct?
@@VendendoNaInternetAgora You're correct in assuming all that. But there's more. You can assume that if someone has recorded a system on, say, their phone, they've likely recorded it in a compressed format. But even if they didn't, when it gets up to RUclips, RUclips is going to convert lossless audio and it might even convert lossy audio again to a format/size it likes. The point is, that audio on RUclips is really getting mashed up -- so you're not even close to hearing lossless from them. Lossy with, likely, at least one conversion.
I use wave. Storage is cheap these days.
Fair enough reason!
I prefer to be efficient where possible so not my problem.
this is the most useful comment on this topic!
@@DADIWOWO Only the 2nd half.
At last, someone who knows what the hell they are on about!!!! Absolutely SPOT ON!
We are happy to read this.
Excellent description 👍👍👍
This is what I want to know. Thanks for sharing 👏👍.
I think it’s hard to believe that in 2023 a good receiver/cd player would stress uncompressing a flac file
It is.
@@soundstagenetworkfor which the player/receiver manufacturers are way more to blame than the flac compression itself tbh...
Wonderful video, very important info. Appreciate it!
Great to hear
I like WAV better because I told my brain it is better and my brain believed me. : ) I'm embracing the placebo effect. I said hey brain, "WAV is better than FLAC because it isn't compressed and the music will be more free with a better soundstage." My brain nodded and agreed. Ignorance is bliss.
Well, the biggest difference I hear at my aging life is, did I turn my amp on…? 😬
I have started to re-rip my CDs. As I have tons of dick space, now, I tried ripping a few to WAV, but gave up. The reason is that, for whatever reason, I can rip an entire CD to FLAC in the time it takes to rip a couple of tracks, to WAV. I just don't have the patience.
I also have a ton of "dick space" it's not easy lugging this big thing around😂
To you guys perceive the difference between hear , FLAC and Wave , this is only perceived in some kind of musics which has multiple complex audio at same time , in my case :
I . FLAC wrongly mixes the small ecoes of the complex high pitch audios ( specifically plates , you know , that ss ss sound in plates usually presented by twitters ) in my players , while wave no ...
II . FLAC stuck my player , wave no ...
III . FLAC committed mistakes presenting audio it's kind skip some noises , wave no ...
IV . Fade plates ecoes in musics which has lots of complexity at same time ...
V . Losses of volumes ...
VI . The end of the lines in highs in the musics got distorted , you can see this included in graphics lines of music ...
VII . It's impressive how I got mp4 from RUclips took out audio from this mp4 in wave format high definition , then unbelievably funny got better than the original source ...
So to bad computers and or processor memory whatever , go wave no doubt about ...
FLAC compresses using prediction , if you know a bit about development of software , you know no matter how strong is a PC , a bad development can makes it stuck ...
Putting everything in a scale : to me it's extremely easy decide the bestest format to hear listening a music and it is still .WAV ... ✌🏾
@@nicksterj Yeah wave , every musics 600 mb , didn't cause it , flac caused ... Flac Monopoly I don't know ?
The conversation from WAV to FLAC is just pure maths. The decompression of the FLAC file is the same process in reverse. Computers are designed to do this stuff in their sleep (well, almost) so, provided the software isn't doing anything crazy, the results will be bit perfect.
That's wishful thinking, the devil is in the details. Read HIFICRITIC Why Do WAV And FLAC Files Sound Different?
Myself wish things are that simple, but the Ears don't lie!
the problem with flac is that most likely it's a vinyl copy which obviously is even worst than a low bitrate mp3.
But would you be able to tell a difference between a wav & flac if they were converted from MP3? No, right?
We are not sure what you are getting at. Explain more?
Thank you.
100% hell YEAH!
Thanks for clarification, I have many WAV files and most common programs AIMP, SONY music, etc. don't support codec WAV. So now without regret I will convert them into FLAC. Any suggestion for the best conversion program ??
There are many potential ones you can use. I have always used JRiver. The company had mastered bitperfect playback years ago -- and one of the developers created a lossless algorithm. So I trust them to know their stuff.
Foobar2000.
If on Mac, XLD.
High-capacity hard drives are affordable there is no need to use a compressed format at all.
Thank you for the extensive research. At a risk of sounding dumb: Is it possible to throw compressed lossless files on a CD and thereby "increasing the storage" (or rather potentially number of songs) or how does that work?
You can assume that FLAC, for example, will bring the size down to about 2/3 compared to WAV, with no loss of information. So, yes, you can store far more with lossless compression than non-lossless. We hope that helps.
@@soundstagenetwork @andrepedersen5924 His research is slim, it cannot be called an extensive research or even as a research. It's based on few plain sight data and wishful thinking. If you are interested in extensive research read 'Why Do WAV And FLAC Files Sound Different?' in HIFICRITIC. The devils in the details!
Thank you! Great video!
Thanks!
I used FLAC 24 bit for my hi res listening audio experience plus 1 more dual driver anc BT wired playback
Yeah nowadays everyone knows they're identical but when listening to flac on vlc audio player it glitches, there's popping, and on a song of mine where there was a break it just literally stops playing.. literally stopped lmao.
Still is broken to this day so I have to use windows media player only for playing flac 😂
4:50 😅 the files can sound differently...........in the mind
👏👏
The reality.
It's (kind of) a sad situation......people who "just" want to listen to the music regardless of format (lossy or lossless) are better off than people who constantly debate whether wav is better or flac is better. I have a lot of flac files (there are a few wav files which I have started converting to flac). Perhaps, just perhaps, flac does not sound as good as wav. But then, I have the option of re-converting the flac files back to wav. Best of both worlds, no? Thank you for the video.
They just don't understand the conversation and playback processing introduces jitters in the flac file. You continue sticking to the wav.
I ripped all my cds (hundreds) to wav files. I now wish i had used flac. I’m going through the process of converting them to flac using this software called AIMP. When I convert the wav file to flac it doubles the bit depth from 16 to 32, is this normal? The file as a whole is smaller in size.
It must be a setting in your conversion program tp create 32-bit files. It probably pads 16 bits with zeros, which is why FLAC will compress them tp very little.
Shoutout to J River Media Center!!
It's the only playback software I use for ripping CDs into WAV and playing those music and audio files!
Sadly the Burner portion of JRMC didn't do so well - got a lot of jitter and skips on the disc, and the CD text was coming back as absolute gibberish. It could have been a speed issue (I found that burning any faster than 10x - or 12x tops - yields bad burns with lots of "chirping" and skipping on playback). Luckily I found a much better burning software with more options anyway. Rarely ever get a bad burn.
For the record, for video, I prefer VLC. For some reason, playing video on JRMC plays back much darker than its actual resolution and I cannot find the reason for that.
VLC plays true, so that's the one for video.
As for the topic at hand - WAV vs FLAC - since my burning software converted every imported file to WAV anyway, I decided to just start ripping as WAV to begin with and stop wasting time on conversions. I've never had much experience or use for FLAC or anything else, so I don't know much about it other than what I learned recently (that FLAC is like WAV, but compressed in file size).
When it comes to audio, compression is not a good thing in my books. Something has to be lost, even if we cannot detect it. The only other format I might consider after WAV is AIF/AIFF, cos that works out about the same as WAVs in all aspects, but offers metadata tag info (like an MP3 does), which WAV does not seem to have. But my WAV library is too damn big to convert everything now. JRMC allows me to enter all that track info, which it stores in its own database in the directory, which is fine.
So WAV it is, and WAV it will stay.
“Has to be”
Assumptions are _not_ a valid source.
As most people who make the music record in wav why would you bother to convert it to flac? Why not just use wav?
Many people use FLAC because it takes less storage space and has strong metadata support.
@@soundstagenetwork fair enough👍
It’s not MP3.
So why are CDS not Flac? They could fit more songs, explain that.
@@victorfernandes83 because they were invented in 1982
Los archivos Wav suenan mejor que los flac 100% comprobados por mí, la diferencia son notorias en parlantes hi-res
vamos a suponer que suenan igual.
pero: no todos los dispositivos reproducen FLAC.
y además: solo recurrir a FLAC por el tamaño de archivo? solo por eso? es como comprarse una camioneta 6 cilindros y preocuparse por la gasolina.
_entonces no te la compres_ , y en audio si queréis calidad de audio y te preocupas por el tamaño del archivo, que aburrido, como si les doliera un Mega Bit o in Gigabyte.
so today im concluding that TIDAL flac / Apple alac are cool listening..but for projects..WAV🎯
its fine for previewing & casual bumping..far more so than Spotify 320..depends on your setup🔊
i.e. Yamaha HS80M + 10" sub_Yammy has a way of bringing honest audio in a balanced way forever
just about every song we've heard since the 80s has been mixed on Yamaha NS10_it trained our ears
play the same track in WAV / FLAC / MP3_on a set of reference monitors_the difference is nite & day
but the convenience of streaming Tidal HIFI Flac..im grateful..their MASTER library is very limited but thoughtful
Id love a way to stream WAV..but ive concluded to just buy the WAV download_
now's the issue_did their mastering engineer 'export/render' the project to WAV..for if he did..
..that's another rendering process that has altered the audio fron the original project..
that fcks with my head..but I'll take the closest WAV print to the original project master I can get💽
There are two easy to check ways to prove to yourself flac compression is indeed lossless:
- compress a wav to flac (using any compression setting)
- decompress the flac to a second wav
- compare the decompressed wav file and the original with your favorite hex editor
Alternatively, use ffmpeg to calculate an audio hash for both wav and flac to note they are identical. If those proofs do not convince you, nothing will.
What are your views on atrac mini disc quality. I think i can hear it's a bit less quality than cd
Not that familiar with it, but, yes, it's was a thing back in the 1990s. I don't know what the exact sample rate and bit depth were, but less than CD, I think, plus it used compression.
With the current speed of home networks and HDD capacity being very cheap and fast, one could just rip to .Wav and be good to go... using .FLAC for steaming services.
You're correct. Most networks today are blazing fast -- and, in fact, it's not an issue to STREAM WAV either. The whole bandwidth thing is completely overblown on a wired network -- and even wireless.
@@dougschneider8243 It was an issue maybe 10-15 years ago, streaming .Wav files from my DLNA folder to my Wiim mini is immediate and flawless, all over Wifi on an old ATT Wifi router.
I can certainly understand the streaming companies, Amazon, Tidal and Qobuz to use .FLAC, but everything else .WAV is fine.
@@thomasward00 Agree. At a time though -- and I think it's still true -- FLAC had far superior tagging abilities, so there's that. But I'm not sure if some playback software -- Roon, for example -- could compensate for that.
Good to know. Thanks.
Thanks!
You are a true scientist!
some of these comments... "audiophiles" are like the homeopaths of tech nerds
FLAC at 16bit 44.1khz is fine
There are reasons I do favor higher sampling rates -- mostly moving the filter far, far beyond the audioband. But it's also possible to make 16/44.1 sound stellar and, in some cases, indistinguishable from the higher rates.
People who don't beleive in math and science are fools. If they are ardent music lovers, they remain just that, fools.
Monty is an extremly knowledgeable and diligent engineer. What do people imagine? That he didn't check and prove that his lossless format was really lossless (aka, bit for bit the same)?
It's ok to reckeck, but if after checking that the information is bit for bit the same people still are convinced it sounds different without being willing to prove so in a blind test, they have to be called delusional.
I would classify audiophilia as phobia. It's the angst, that you don't have good sound, irrespective of the actual sound quality you have or any argument that can be given to support the qualtiy you have.
I wouldn't call them "fools" -- they just haven't learned how computers store data.
@@dougschneider8243They're not fools. They're idiots. 😂
FLAC all the way all the time, always. Or WavPack if needs to go 32bit.
I've been using WAV for years but I do have a fair few cd's ripped in FLAC before I realised that WAV is the way t o go. I use dBPoweramp which rips in WAV and adds all the Metadata so happy days, and it does sound better than FLAC in my opinion.
Agree that FLAC is indeed lossless (encoded using Hoffman, used across many domains and is easy to understand and implement). But playback can be easily compromised with poorly configured hardware, bad driver, too low buffer size or just compiling software or using a game engine.
That's true - but playback of any format can be compromised. But even so, our writers haven't run into any problems.
A mp3 file converted to a WAV file doesnt improve the files. Converting a mp3 to WAV will make file sound worse, because whenever a file is changeg, it will sound worse. Sort of like copying a vcr tape to another vcr tape will make the picture worse.
@@myronhelton4441 Decoding an MP3 on the fly or to disk (and then playing it back from there later) should not make a difference, at least the resulting PCM bitstream would be identical. I guess other factors may mean that one process lead to slightly different sonic results during playback than the other (different pipeline, hardware circuits etc.). Though one day we might train a “AI” network to create a function that can restore the audio 😀
@@myronhelton4441 "A mp3 file converted to a WAV file doesnt improve the file"
unless you add a little plugin enhancement increasing the bits and a little better audio gain will be the final file. the result: a better audio file.
@@thepickyaudiophile Thanks for answer.
Upsampled WAV 176KHz sounds better a bit bright maybe FLAC sounds dull in comparison. It's important to up sample for the DAC to perform well.
You do know that you can have 176kHz (and many other sampling frequencies) FLAC, right?
@@dougschneider8243 I know.
@@alastorwyst9027 So if they're both holding the same music information, how?
I was just on the pro studiomasters website and I was listening to songs at 192 bit rate. it had an option to select in the menu from aiff or Flac. I had no idea what these meant so I just switched between the 2 thinking they would be the same. then I noticed that the AIFF sounded tighter and the notes were jumping out and back into a more silent noise floor. it felt snappy like the notes were glowing out of the darker noise floor. I have a fairly new computer and the same settings were for both formats. I wanted to know what AIFF was so I went onto RUclips and typed it in and it brought me to your video. I also watched other videos saying that this is a common perception when listening to the two formats and there were countless comments in the comments section all saying this same thing. its not the kind of video I would watch again so I think a lot of those comments are coming from people that have not been influenced prior videos. hope this helps, aiff is fun.
Yh totally agree data loss equals corrupted file
Sorry not true. I have jsut been through a saga with itunes apple lossless malfunctioning in an A&K player . Converted those Apple files to FLAC on Mac Mini , problem fixed . Then I bought and A&K Ripper mark 2 , just ripped Yello's Toy to A&K sr25ii And the sound is BETTER. Its richer deeper hypnotic sound . I have both lots of files on the same machine and Using iem ie900 The tracks are a richer more mesmerising sound in the Ripped files . The diffenece is subtle but just enjoying the tracks , the apple lossless converted files aren't as deep and wide .
You have me a little confused here, but it sounds like your files might not've been ripped right in the first place.
@@dougschneider8243 Could be. Apple is screwing with my ripping of cd's . I know this because itones refuses to upload the artwork or gives the wrong art (for years). I know this as I just bought A&K ripper2 which also connects to gracenotes And even obscure cd's have Correct(!) artwork and I've ripped stuff I already have ripped to check quality. Also A&K ripper FLAC files are 1/3 or more bigger than Applelossless and the FLAC files converted from APAL [FLAC is open source I assume so they have tweaked it to capture the background acoustics ?] . I think the cartel is jerking users around because they want$ to get people to stream permanently but I don't need half the crap 'music' these streaming services are pushing. And I don't want to be plugged into music all day long . So Yes under laboratory conditions lossless is lossless But under cartel conditions the Machine takes control...
@@styx1272 I wouldn't trust the iTunes ripper. Use a good ripper such as JRiver, ExactAudioCopy, or dBPoweramp.
@@styx1272 Use XLD if on Mac, not iTunes.
Flac has to be decompress by players and I can say very minor occasion I get aberration..maybe it's jitter or processing stutters. I'll stick to wav.
"Does WAV sound better than FLAC?". I can't answer that. I've never compared the two. I would say, it depends on your hearing health ability and mental bias. I've always thought and still do. WAV is the purest digital recording format. Direct voltage sampling to data. No alteration to the data. I've done WAV recordings. Transferred them to Mini Discs, (ATRAC), and turned the same WAV into high bit rate MP3s. It's amazing how those data compressions get restored so well during playback. I really can't tell the difference, even with quality headphones on.
Final point. This issue matters if you are archiving original music works. I doubt 99.9% of people can tell which sounds better.
"WAV is the purest digital recording format. Direct voltage sampling to data."
I honestly can't understand what that means. It's a computer encoding format. Can you explain what you mean?
@@dougschneider8243 VERY Long comment but I think it will be helpful in understanding WAV.
Have you ever used a voltmeter to measure the voltage of a battery? (Any measuring tool.) It reads a value and displays a number. You see the number and might write it down. You just took a direct voltage sample to data on paper.
The audio hardware in your PC does the same thing with say, your microphone. But tens of thousands times a second.
That's where audio recording programs on a PC comes in. That data is collected. Lots of editing option, but let's put that aside. You can save the collected/recorded data to many audio file formats.
The WAV format is one that makes no changes to the data. If the input value was 11426 the output will also be 11426. It also results in very large file sizes.
Other file formats use complex math on that data to eliminate some of that data reducing the size of the file. When playing back that file, math is used to rebuild the missing data. The output may be slightly or more different than the input of 11426.
That's why the WAV file format is the purest digital recording format. The output is identical to the input.
@@tigerzero5216 I have to be honest here -- you really, really, really don't know how lossless compression schemes work. 11426 or whatever number you wish to choose comes back. If it didn't, things like your computer wouldn't work. Look at a ZIP file -- tech more than 30 years old. The data are there, intact, exactly as they should be. Also, I don't think you realize that WAV is simply a computer format created by Microsoft and IBM and released in 1991. Prior to that, we had other PCM encoding schemes, including what's on the CD. But back to the original point -- if you think a lossless encoding scheme loses the correct numbers, you really don't know how it works. Sorry to be so blunt.
The whole format war thing is psychological. In just about any blind test, no one can tell. The difference I heard? With high quality gear, high compression (like 128k) is obviously lacking. But a 320 file may be indistinguishable from the original in most cases.
Well, studies have shown that about 30% of the population can reliably distinguish between lossy audio (even a high bit rate) and lossless. I happen to be in that basket. Maybe you aren't, but do try to keep an open mind about it - individual mileage can indeed vary with such things.
This video specifically address lossless, though. Doug made another video about lossless vs. lossy. While it is true that sometimes they are indistinguishable, sometimes not. ruclips.net/video/2z5Y7HYNMdQ/видео.html
A mp3 file converted to a WAV file doesnt improve the files. Converting a mp3 to WAV will make file sound worse, because whenever a file is changeg, it will sound worse. Sort of like copying a vcr tape to another vcr tape will make the picture worse.
@@myronhelton4441 who would do that? Quality is limited and can’t be improved by changing format.
@@scottlowell493 RUclips stopped file copying. I use to copy files. You have youtube files, whatever they are. Lets pretend most of youtube music videos are AVI files. My software copies the complete videos that are uploaded to youtube on $10,000 record players with both picture & sound as AVI files. My softeware has AVI that sound the best, because the files are not changed. My software also has mp3, FLAC, & WAV files, that CHANGES the AVI uploads to either mp3, flac, or wav files. Pay real attention to the word CHANGES. I hope that anyone that uses foolish numbers as 24 bit, 32 bit, 44hz, & 48hz BS can say their brain knows better without doing the experiments. I know many hi-end stereo people that swear these files sound great. But I guess there are many jealous ones that never study anything that will say I just wrote a novel.
👍🤓👍
I can't tell the difference between MP3 and FLAC only some bad quality MP3'S
That can happen.
Yup, i'v e been through that before, only slight difference i've noticed was the decreased sound volume in MP3 and FLAC was a tad louder. I could convert a file to lets say 192kbps and add the Normalize option and it sounds sometimes even better than FLAC. The music sound volume is boosted and it just sounds more define than even a regular FLAC file,but i guess that happens because of how good the software is. There weren't even any distortion. I usually convert my FLAC to MP3 using Switch Sound File Converter, its the best software ever if you ask me,simply because i love WMA, its just a defualt player i've been using since 98 lol
I convert flac files to MP3 aswell to squeeze the file size down there for I can have more music question is does it decrease the Sound doing that I use my cell phone Sony music player and I have function on that makes sound better that enhances the sound to near Hi Res Audio
@@gamergabs1991 Are you talking to me?? Once you convert Flac to MP3 you are throwing away information, in other words in my opinion, the music sound diminish a bit,just the sound,and no distortion. But i recommends 192kbps the extreme lowest or 320kbps if you can. If you use Switch Sound File Converter,you might get back the sound that you lost during converting if you click the Normalize option.l,it's the best software and very easy to use. If you also use the Amplify option,i suggest you read carefully about it because that option can damage your music completely, but it can also make it sound even better depends on how you are using it and what is the right Gain 0db you set it.
the masses🥴are still fine with compromising quality..for convivence 🐑
🤔im not one of them🔬_we are not the same🧬_..i need💯% quality⚡
Its basically the difference between losslessly compressed and uncompressed files. If there is a difference it doesn't matter.
There's no difference - except for how much storage space they take.
@@dougschneider8243 congrats that is what I said.
you mean, it doesn't matter to you. and if you can't hear a difference, you need better equipment.
@@XX-121 If you hear a difference between uncompressed and lossless compression it's placebo. You are just convincing yourself there is a difference and therefore you hear a difference. But I promise if you weren't told which was which you actually couldn't tell.
📽i know an example from the video world_now on your projector screen or VR headset..
watch a Blu-Ray Disc..then the MKV/MP4 version at the same resolution but smaller file size
on a bigscreen..you'll see massive amounts of pixelated compression..artifacts..picture noise..🚫
on a tiny cellphone or tablet screen..how most of the masses🥴view entertainment..they cant tell🐑
Just fork out for a new drive. People need to stop trying to save space when they don't really need to.
You aren’t the boss of me or anyone else m8.
@@zugo-tg7125 soz
Wav format just better sound. Play at my dap. Compare flac on apple music
You haven’t even fulfilled the bare minimum of steps to be able to have an opinion on this, come back when you do a phase inversion & conversion test.
99.997% of systems will not be able to expose the differences between WAV and FLAC. Yes, there is a noticeable difference, but unless you're listening to the files on a highly-resolving system with very sensitive electronics, you're not going to hear it. The more resolving your equipment is, the more obvious the difference becomes.
I always find comments like these amusing -- because what is a "highly-resolving system"? I have access to all the best electronics and speakers money can buy -- including some permanently in my system -- so I'm pretty sure my system is highly resolving. The question is, however, what are the differences you are hearing -- or THINK you're hearing. And what do you mean by "sensitive electronics." My amplifier and preamplifier has noise and distortion below the threshold of most audio analyzers. What am I missing?
@@dougschneider8243 What is your system?
@@betaomega04 I have a lot of equipment here, but if you want to know what my top components are, probably the Revel Salon2 loudspeakers driven by the engineering-sample Purifi Eigentakt amp. Up front, EMM Labs Pre preamplifier and DA2 DAC.
Come back when you’ve done a phase inversion test.
Oh, and convert the FLAC file back to WAV, then compare it with your original WAV file.
@@zugo-tg7125 Real-time conversion, genius. There is a difference.
I won't follow the trend for FLAC files.
if the file size is the issue, really I don't care, why shoud I worry about the file size?
do I worry about the gas consumption when I feel better inside my car with the AC refreshing? to me is absurd and bored to worry about (to cry about) the file size, when the WAV has given me the best results easy and direct, I record my favourite tracks in WAVE and I burn my sellectd CD colleciton. FLAC is for crying babies.
The fact that you feel the need to insult people with a different preference from you says a lot more about you than it does about them.
@@zugo-tg7125 fact: to have a car and try to show superiority and get worried because I don't have a coin to fill the gasoil.
Similar to cry and worry about FLAC WAV storage: Trying to show SUPERIORITY WITH HIGH QUALITY DEVICES..... oh yes assclown, worried because FLAC saves space in my brain.
@@georgemartinezza That's a superficial & shallow pursuit in & of itself so can't blame anyone for not caring. When you go to your grave you will not take any of that with you.
Also, look in the mirror. You're everything you accuse others of being.
@@zugo-tg7125 no, of cours not. THINK and try to use the basic logic:
do I worry about FLAC and storage?
no, really I don't, and I mock when you get offended about it. : )
@@georgemartinezza More power to you.
There's people out there who don't care about lossless/uncompressed at all and use MP3 or AAC instead.
Does that then bestow upon you or anyone else the right to belittle them or act like you're somehow better?
Simply enjoy the music. Doesn't matter what format you choose to use.
WAV is better than FlAC point blank, regardless of the big space, it's just self explanatory😁
Which much better to convert
mp3 to wav or aac to wav ?
A mp3 file converted to a WAV file doesnt improve the files. Converting a mp3 to WAV will make file sound worse, because whenever a file is changeg, it will sound worse. Sort of like copying a vcr tape to another vcr tape will make the picture worse.
Sure, if you don’t like metadata.
Converters exist m8.
@@zugo-tg7125 I use Switch Sound File Converter, its the best to convert to MP3..
@@northside3701 MP3 is so last 2 decades, it’s either AAC or Opus now if lossy. Everything I have is either lossless FLAC, or WavPack for CD image files.
And Foobar2000 is the only converter for me (as well as Fre:ac at times).
But anyways, no, WAV isn’t “better” than FLAC, just uncompressed and more established. Both contain the exact same data. And if you’re encountering compatibility issues with FLAC, simply convert back to WAV (with an actually good program), or even better, AIFF.
Bit to bit does not mean the same sound quality. At the mastering stage, wave sounds better than flac.
I believe in a good mastering engineer more than you. Of course flac is useful for using metadata.
But sound quality deterioration should be considered.
Can you please tell us what mastering engineering says that these formats won't sound the same? BTW, at the mastering stage, FLAC is not generally used, but not for sound-quality reasons. Still, please point us to the appropriate mastering engineer.
@@soundstagenetwork I don't tell you the name. For I don't believe you. And you will not have a chance to meet him.
He is a mastering engineer who made many high resolution mastering. You will know the mastering studio he belongs.
But I will not tell his name.
@@oxygendestroyer That's not a very convincing argument -- if someone wants to be considered correct on the topic, they should have no reason putting out their name. But thank you very much anyway.
@@soundstagenetwork I talked about sound quality. Not about using flac for mastering. At the very high sound quality, it will not difficult to distinguish wave from flac. Misunderstang, misunderstanding, sigh. I do not want to convince you. Keep on misunderstanding.
@@oxygendestroyer FLAC is encoded using Hoffman, which is for sure 100% lossless. I would encourage anyone who doubts this fact to understand it/learn how to implement it. This can be done using RUclips and pen and paper (and can be used to encode a multitude of things). I never came across FLAC in a studio environment, but I do hear differences with various encodings (lossless ones at least). So not saying you cannot hear a difference, but at least it’s not because FLAC is. It bit perfect (it is!).
NO it's Not MIND. Flac sounds inferior and and quite jittery, very obvious if processed with the recommended Level 5 setting in dBpoweramp. Read the article in HIFICRITIC named
'Why Do WAV And FLAC Files Sound Different?'
While I don't generally like to critique others' articles, I looked at the article you mention and there's so much misinformation in it that it's impossible to take any of it seriously as a result. For example, you can convert from one lossless format to another over and over all day long and the data in the file will always be the same. When it's the same, there's no loss in sound quality and saying anything else is just plain wrong. For example, if you start with a WAV file and convert it to FLAC and back to WAV, it'll be identical. If you convert it to AIFF or any other lossloss format, it'll always remain the same. And when the data in the file remains the same, it's the same -- period.
FLAC suck !
Huh?
@@soundstagenetwork FLAC, like ZIP, is a container that is used exclusively for UNPACKING! The end product is the GOAL! And the final product is called WAV. Only WAV audio is awesome, sublime, magnificent, unrivaled!🤫
@@nikolasantamaria9335 You might want to read up on your understand of digital playback. WAV is simply a music-file format developed by IBM and Microsoft and released in 1991. There are other music-file formats, too. A Compact Disc uses a different type of encoding scheme. These all get dealt with inside a DAC, before digital-to-analog encoding. In a nutshell, WAV is NOT the "native" digital stream getting converted by the DAC.
@@dougschneider8243 But WAV simply sounds the best of all audio formats (except DSD). This needs to be mentioned again and again. Not that newcomers to HIFI music listening have to deal with FLAC for years and then realize that WAV is better!
@@nikolasantamaria9335 Okay, let me guess how you rationalize this. First, you make a claim about WAV that I blow apart. You don't try to refute it, but now you simply say it sounds better, but offer no proof of that. Get where I'm going with this....?
someone correct me on this order of audio quality:🔬vinyl record>dat tape>cd>flac>mp3
my uncle worked @ Sony💽-we grew up on the best sound systems_tape decks_boom boxes
a cassette tape in a Walkman or cd in a Bass Boost stereo sounds like dolby 3D surround compared to compressed flac/mp3
yes its mostly sublte..📊90% of people can't tell_but for us the 9% contributors & 1% creators..in projects🧪..never compromise quality🚫
spotify really kills me investing their entire nut into podcasts🥴_completely abandoning HIFI
theyve got the largest userbase✅_the best playlists✅_legit viral algorithm chart rankings✅
yet theyve tried to turn themselves into NPR talk radio podcast network_& left us stuck w/ 320🚫
most people_myself _if i pod_its on youtube_for video pod episodes have replaced late nite talk shows we grew up on💯
FLAC sounds like it's getting decompressed while being played back, whereas WAV sounds already decompressed, kind of like more in the open i.e. better ,when I ran my AB test of the same track with the highest quality of both these different formats at 44.1khz sample rate export using vlc media player, so whoever said such was the case ,I'm behind them, they're are right,i can hear the subtle difference.😂🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🛴🌊
Hi, I really have trouble buying that argument unless someone can prove to me that they can distinguish the difference blindly. It's easy to say "I hear a difference," but much harder to demonstrate it.
@@dougschneider8243 The difference is subtle ,so blindly it would of course be difficult to spot out the difference, but the difference is there still regardless, and I'd pick wav over flac any day.
@@kbs752_ So what you're saying is that the difference is "difficult to spot" in a blind test, but is there regardless. So in other words, you can't hear it, but are confident it's there. That more or less confirms what I say in the video -- bias is what's likely swaying you.
@@dougschneider8243 no you can pick it up even in a blind test if you have very sharp ears.
Your first mistake is using VLC.
Your second mistake is not doing phase inversion tests.