2. digital
  3. 119461-65769

FLAC vs WAV

I have observed (heard and then tested so as to confirm) the following “condition” as it relates to the widely debated issue of FLAC quality. The purpose of this topic is to gather opinions as to whether or not your observations are similar too – and therefore support – my own.

It is widely understood and accepted that a FLAC file while “compressed” is “lossless” as compared to its corresponding WAV file. Let’s assume (i.e. not debate) this is completely true. What I am noticing is that when the FLAC file is “played” via any FLAC player it sounds different from the sound of the “same” (equivalent decompressed FLAC) WAV file when played back via the same player that was used to play the FLAC file. This is specifically noticeable (to me) in the low frequency spectrum. The WAV has considerably more “sonic energy” that manifests itself as appearing to be a bit louder, wider in frequency range and perhaps even dynamic range as compared to the FLAC equivalent.

I’m curious as to your findings when you compare a FLAC file played natively as compared to the WAV equivalent played via the same player (for example, play both the FLAC and WAV via VLC media player) or practical equivalent, such as if the FLAC was burned to CD and you are comparing the FLAC played via VLC and the CD played via a CD player.

I am further assuming that the WAV file is a more accurate representation of the audio than the FLAC. This is to say that should you agree with the aforementioned, it would be preferable to play the WAV file or decompress the FLAC file before using it.

128x128gdhal
58 responses Add your response
gdhal's avatar
gdhal OP
1,641 posts
 
DTC, the short answer to your questions is no.

The longer answer is as follows. The FLAC file(s) I am speaking of are "created" outside of my control. Specifically, I download them from bt.etreeg.org using Utorrent (64-bit). I then burn to CD using Ashampoo version 6. Playback via Emotiva ERC-3, Musical Fidelity M6si, Golden Ear Triton One's. It as at that point in some instances (music passages) I can notice more "bass energy" (simplistic term but that will suffice for now). Then, I have compared that point (time and track data) in order to play back the FLAC and decompressed WAV version of it via my computer, Gateway NV79. That connects to my M6si via USB. Granted, the DAC on the M6si differs from the DAC in the ERC-3, however, that should have nothing to do with this because what I am finding is that the WAV when played back is more representative (all around but looking at the bass energy here) to the ERC-3 playback than the FLAC. This is to say the FLAC and WAV when played via the same computer and at the same track and time index produce different (in some passages that I can detect using my ears only) bass energy. Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that I use VLC player (latest version) and the "settings" are kept the same when playing.
dtc's avatar
dtc
1,047 posts
 
Just as you assume flac is indeed lossless, I think it is fair to assume that the decompression algorithm on any reasonable player does its job correctly.

Have you tried zero compression flac? It is not compressed but has a flac header?

Systems that play from memory can decompress a flac file and then put the PCM into memory for playing. At that point, the computing to decompress is not important. Have you tried that approach?
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,428 posts
 
Computer decompresses data, places it in the memory and adds timing to create and output S/Pdif (PCM). The only difference, assuming bit perfect conversion, can be jittery S/Pdif timing, that would add noise to music but dynamic range should be the same. Since computer timing errors would be very small noise would be added to mid and high frequencies. I cannot imagine how it could affect the bass.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,119 posts
 
It has to be converted to standard PCM format which is was format before it can be converted to analog.  So there is an extra step in the process.   If done properly it should not matter but may not be in some cases.  But the information content of the source is the same assuming the software that encodes the flac does its job correctly.  

So Flac may not sound as good in some cases or vice versa but if so its not because of the format.   Just like how different cartridges may sound better or worse playing the same record.  
gdhal's avatar
gdhal OP
1,641 posts
 
Thank you mapman and emailists. I concur with you Emailists, although I have not used AIF with a MAC. Perhaps to restate my point of this thread in different words, what I am saying is that it certainly appears as though it is "best" to pre-decompress the FLAC first - using say Traders Little Helper - and then once decompressed to WAV then play it. Perhaps FLAC players which decompress on-the-fly while playing does not do as good of a job as pre-decompressing. So mapman, while I agree that lossless is lossless, in my opinion (and emailists and perhaps others) while the file is lossless it may not be as good as when decompressed into its then uncompressed lossless state. 
dbtom2
382 posts
 
I am glad to read someone else has noticed this.  In thinking about it I concluded that there are still a lot of variables between the formats.  The codecs, cpu time, players, throughput.

I have settled on AIFF for now but I hope to learn more by reading other's experience and practices.


emailists
923 posts
 
I too have noticed for a long time (first with PS audio PWD1/2 and now with thier DS) that flac does not sound as good as WAV or AIF. This was running first with Elyric and now Jriver on an old Mac pro and now a new Mac pro. Transcoding to wav on Elyric on the fly sounded better than streaming flac, but pre converting the flac to AIF file sounded the best. When I buy HD tracks now, I choose AIF.
none of this makes sense, except possibly the extra CPU overhead degrades the sound. Hard to believe with how much power my 6 core Mac pro has, but then again many things in this wacky hobby seem counter intuitive. (like the improvement I got with cat 6a ethernet replacing cat 5).
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,119 posts
 
Lossless is lossless. Format should not matter.  If it does then gear is doing a better job with one than the other foe some reason.   I have used both and found format has not mattered.  
Log in to respond
More to discover
80x80
MBL 1621A and 1511
80x80
Weiss Engineering DAC501
80x80
CH Precision D1