WAV versus FLAC

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

Which cables mask the differences? Do I need silver wire?

Hello,

What about wma Pro Lossless with redbook? Rounder and warmer, not as edgy as flac. Some say it sounds as good or better than wav when upsampled to 96hz.

Jean

For what its worth, I used EAC and ripped Williams SeaSymphony - TELARC: firstly in WAV format and then in FLAC format in two separate folders

On one hand I use low fidelity computer audio...so my results may be dubious

On other hand - After I listen to these a few times, I asked my wife to go beteen file#1 and file#2 and "click" and I was listening BLINDLY

Results: from 9 trials I indentified WAV and FLAC correctly 9 times and it was rather easy as each has its own unique sonic characteristic.

I cannot say which one is "better": WAV was warmer but softer and FLAC was crisper but not bright and with better PRAT factor. If this is true "forever" then probaply WAV is better for solos such as female voice and small ansembles and FLAC is better for symphonic music...

its not definite experiment but its was fun, please do not take it seriously.