WAV versus FLAC

Ballwho, sorry, brain fart. Of course MP3 is compressed. i read it wrong that you were saying all lossless is uncompressed, which it isn't. FLAC and others exist as losslees and compressed. Nuff said.

I realize you can;t explain it; I haven't heard a good explanation other than some malady with decompression, which still seems to be an innocuously small amount of processing to produce sonic differences with the same ulitmate data.. But very many of us hear the differences. There have been mounds of forum responses about it. It's not a new debate.

It seems to be it should be easy to do blind testing in this case. Just load up some music in WAV and FLAC format and hit shuffle play. Make a note of your impressions, and only check the playlist when you're done.

I think people are just imagining these differences. That's only an insult if you take your subjective impressions of sound way too seriously.

Ted,

Pardon my smart-A, "...they are, in fact, compression methods..." response.

I need to get a slew of various formats lined up and just run through them and *really* listen, even if just for the pure heck of it; I'm curious to see if I can discern, or if my system, for that matter, can discern/resolve any difference, whatsoever... In the end, though, I doubting anything will surface. We shall see.

Cheers.

Daverz said it best.

Please no offence to all; please take the following FWIW!

The difference between FLAC and WAV is subtle, but it is there, IMO, so it will be not easy to hear. For example, a cable can mask it to a point that is non-audible.

I am sorry if I have hurt the feelings of those who are perfectly content with FLAC (and for a good reason), but we are talking about the last bit of "naturalness" possible, in which case WAV is superior.

Best,
Alex Peychev