Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: FLAC or WAVE? (Read 41823 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #25 –
Quote from: tefleming on
If FLAC were a standard, we would not have so many other lossless formats.


What do standards have to do with the number of other formats of a particular type available? Also define what you mean by standard. Being able to play something in iTunes does not make it a standard!

As for FLAC and geek appeal I'm really confused, have you actually looked at the FLAC site and seen how many devices now support it? It's the same as any other codec, you install it and use it.

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #26 –
I think most of this thread verges on the idiotic.

However, it is a shame that foobar2k refuses to tag .wav files. It's not hard to add new chunks in a compatible way. There's already bwav. APE2, or similar, at the end in its own chunk would be great.

There is a sensible use for .wav files: they're for audio that you want to edit or process! I have a great number of these on my machine. I'm not going to FLAC them just so I can tag them. For now, the information in the filename itself is all that's usable.

Cheers,
David.

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #27 –
Mike G and kornchild2002: you make excellent points about FLAC files in general and maintaining metadata for WAV files in the future.  It makes me uncomfortable to have the metadata stored in a separate file and that I will have to rely on WMP to access it properly.

So, I'm becoming convinced of the value of FLAC files.  I can easily convert my WAV files to FLAC, but the biggest problem I have now is tagging thousands of FLAC files.  Why doesn't Foobar tag the files as they are being ripped?  Is there a plug-in that does this?  For the ones that are already ripped, is there a batch tagging app that works well?

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: tefleming on
Lossless formats such as FLAC compress wav files to about 65% of the original size.  When you can buy a 1.5 TB hard drive for under $200 USD, the file size issue is not so important.


That's definitely a silly comment.

Quote from: tefleming on
So, I'm becoming convinced of the value of FLAC files.  I can easily convert my WAV files to FLAC, but the biggest problem I have now is tagging thousands of FLAC files.


Software like EasyTAG can do it for you.

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: JJZolx on
I've never heard a difference on the systems through which I've listened, but the claim has been made by _many_ audiophiles that wav sounds better to them than flac.  And like me, many other have said they also hear no difference.

Call it what you will - placebo effect, lack of objective testing,


OK, it's expectation effect, and lack of objective testing.

_Many_ 'audiophiles' are too credulous, as well as ignorant of psychological norms.


Quote
whatever - but I've known some of these guys that could blindly tell you the brand of output tube being used in a amp.  I know that's difficult to believe for many, particularly the under 30 crowd iPod generation here at HA.


No, it isn't, since tubes do tend to audibly distort an audio signal, and conceivably someone could train themselves to hear variations.

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: tefleming on
[...] but the biggest problem I have now is tagging thousands of FLAC files.  Why doesn't Foobar tag the files as they are being ripped?  Is there a plug-in that does this?  For the ones that are already ripped, is there a batch tagging app that works well?


Well, if you use the freedb-plugin, foobar definitely will tag files during ripping. As far as I remember it is part of the default installer. Also for existing whole albums the plugin is capable of quickly (i.e. 3-4 clicks per album) tagging existing albums. It is accessible through the context menu "Get tags from freedb".
There exists also another plugin, foo_discogs, which I generally prefer as the information from that databse has a higher quality standard.

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #34 –
Quote from: probedb on
Quote from: botface on
Quote from: greynol on
Not to mention that the under 30 crowd stands a far better chance at being discerning than the over 30 crowd.

why's that?


Do some googling and find out. Everyones hearing deteriorates as they get older so you can hear less high frequencies if I remember correctly.

So, being able to hear high frequencies makes you discerning? Or is it that tubes only produce high frequency distortion - Google it and find out

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #35 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
If person A in possession of WAV file X makes a Flac file Y out of it and gives it to person B, person B does not need any other information than this Flac file to completely reconstruct the original WAV file X on his computer. B can go to A and ask him, hey I've got this WAV Y now, can you compare it to your WAV X, please? And A will find that every bit in X is identical to every bit in Y.

That's not exactly true. FLAC can (but doesn't by default) keep non-audio chunks from WAV files.
The audio data would be bit-identical, though.

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #36 –
There should be no doubt that a FLAC file gives the exact same output as a WAV file (when properly decompressed).  Therefore, the sound is the same.  This has been tested and re-tested many times by many individuals.  Not only is it lossless, but it is also reversible.  So if a WAV file is compressed to FLAC, the identical WAV file can be reproduced from the FLAC file.

The advantages of FLAC are: 1. Metadata stored within the FLAC file itself, 2. Space requirements, and 3. Support within the computer audio community.  My original thought was that there was no reason to compress to FLAC.  I have since been convinced by kornchild2002 and others that storing music files in FLAC is the way to go.

The argument about 24 bit vs. 16 bit files is a bit more complicated.  Whether differences can be heard between otherwise identical recordings depends on many factors: type of music and instruments used, recording equipment, processing equipment, editing, playback equipment, and the listener.  Whether DVD-A and SACD sound better than CD is a similar argument.

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #37 –
Quote from: botface on
Or is it that tubes only produce high frequency distortion - Google it and find out
Distortion is generated from overtones.  In the case of tubes they are even harmonics (ie. 2x, 4x, 8x, 10x).  Last time I checked 2x is a higher frequency than the fundamental.

Did you actually read this discussion before inserting your 2 cents?

Go back and look at the 8th reply.

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #38 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: botface on
Or is it that tubes only produce high frequency distortion - Google it and find out
Distortion is generated from overtones.  In the case of tubes they are even harmonics (ie. 2x, 4x, 8x, 10x).  Last time I checked 2x is a higher frequency than the fundamental.

Did you actually read this discussion before inserting your 2 cents?

Go back and look at the 8th reply.

Yes, I did read it. I wasn't sure what your remark about the under-30's being more discerning was getting at as there was no context.

Last time I checked 2x 200 hZ was 400hZ and I'm damned sure anybody over 30 can hear that.

Why do you have to be so agressive all the time?

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #40 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
However, it is a shame that foobar2k refuses to tag .wav files. It's not hard to add new chunks in a compatible way. There's already bwav. APE2, or similar, at the end in its own chunk would be great.

Agreed. I'd actually love to see a new chunk with XML-formatted tag data that's extensible, not unlike iXML, but I know parsing performance is an issue there. An interesting benefit with such a scheme, however, is that tag data could be potentially kept external in .xml files if desired.

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #42 –
You're acting as if I was the one who told you to go google age-related hearing deterioration, though the guy that did seemed to know the simple answer.

Anyway, I apologize for being testy.  This topic was hopeless from the first post.

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #43 –
Quote from: ameyer17 on
That's not exactly true.  FLAC can (but doesn't by default) keep non-audio chunks from WAV files.
The audio data would be bit-identical, though.


You shouldn't say this out of context or the audio-esoteric queens will read it again as "see! I told you so". You can write all kind of stuff of data into a WAV header not needed for spec-conforming interpretation of the audio stream. If you limit yourself to the minimal header needed for the definition of the embedded PCM stream, the FLAC output will be identical even in the standard setting. If you happen to hide a small poem besides chapter marks and tags from your editing application inside the header, Flac won't preserve that until you tell it to do so.

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #44 –
Quote from: greynol on
You're acting as if I was the one who told you to go google age-related hearing deterioration, though the guy that did seemed to know the simple answer.

Anyway, I apologize for being testy.  This topic was hopeless from the first post.

I too apologise. I was reacting to what seemed to me to be curt relies to a perfectly innocent question - only one of which was from you it's true.

Let's start over

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #45 –
Ok, but before that, I would like to concede the point that life-experience and training can make a difference between someone under 30 and someone over 30.  When I was in my 20s and used to go to boutique stereo shops, the guys who knew the tube amps and the guys who could afford them were in their 40s.

To acknowledge another point that was raised in a part of the discussion that was split concerning progressing technology, I get the feeling that fewer and fewer kids in their 20s are being exposed to tube amps; though I'm not saying this is a bad thing.  I think most of us agree that it's better to have an amplifier that doesn't color the sound.

Off-topic discussion initiated by danvolker has been moved here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=617588

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #46 –
Quote from: botface on
Quote from: probedb on
Quote from: botface on
Quote from: greynol on
Not to mention that the under 30 crowd stands a far better chance at being discerning than the over 30 crowd.

why's that?


Do some googling and find out. Everyones hearing deteriorates as they get older so you can hear less high frequencies if I remember correctly.

So, being able to hear high frequencies makes you discerning? Or is it that tubes only produce high frequency distortion - Google it and find out


No but younger people tend to be able to appreciate a wider range of frequencies which is likely to them being able to tell the difference between sounds. It may not ultimately have been answering your point so for that I apologise.

There seems to be a lot of people on forums that don't want to find things out for themselves, they'd rather behave like kids and keep asking 'Why?' to everything. Google can give you an answer quicker than a forum usually
 

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #47 –
Quote from: greynol on
Off-topic discussion initiated by danvolker has been moved here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=617588
A post from that which I think is worth discussing is the idea that "mp3" is like "fast food" - i.e. mass market junk - and that the potential for higher quality has diminished from the 1970s.

This is demonstrably nonsense. I have excellent records, and some good (some "top end") audio equipment from the 1930s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Some of it is undeniably far more fun than an iPod, and lots of it sounds far better than a bad mp3.

However, if we're talking about a decent mp3, played from an iPod either into one of these vintage systems, or into a modern pair of decent ear-buds, I find little to praise about the sound of a decent turntable and record against a decent mp3. At best, the differences are minuscule, and at worst, the problems of vinyl (and shellac!) are downright annoying in terms of damaging true musical enjoyment.

(If you want to listen to the sound of a 1960s hi-fi, then you need a 1960s hi-fi; if you want to listen to the music, an iPod has much to recommend it!)


Realistically, I wouldn't have been able to afford some of the old equipment I have when it was new. This is the other interesting comparison: a decent mp3 player is more "available", cheaper, and more widely used than a Dansette record plays from the 1960s, or a cheap music centre from the 1970s. The idea that iPods and mp3s have decreased the audio quality available to "normal" people is plainly wrong...

As most people have found, at a given modest price point, headphones let you hear far more of the music than similarly priced speakers. I think speakers are ultimately better - but for most budgets, most rooms/locations, and most "wife friendly" layouts they don't perform anywhere near as well as they could. So the widespread use of headphones lets most people hear more of the music.

Also, the idea that a typical record player from the 1960s or 1970s was getting most of the musical information from those record grooves is simply fanciful. I shudder to think of the most common styli and cartridges from the 1960s, and things weren't that much better in the 1970s. Very high end stuff was better, though TBH in the 1960s even the best you could buy would still wear the record out pretty quickly.


It's a simple fact really. The "common" system in the 1960s was a Dasette style record player. The "common" system in the late 1970s was a "music centre". The "common" system now is an iPod. It's probably the best audio reproduction that has ever become so "common".

No wonder audiophiles hate it!

Cheers,
David.

P.S. for "iPod" read "mp3 player". e.g. I use a Sansa Clip.

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #48 –
Is a wonderfully foolish thread! I just had to put my 2 cents in. Audio listening is often more of a religion than a hobby. I truly love the green markers!  I wonder if they got that amazing tech tip from aliens.  I know someone who only listens to vinyl because everything else is less. I don’t even try to argue with that one.  Maybe green marks would work on vinyl!!

If you can hear the difference to warrant all that extra space; do it. I know someone with 6 TBs of music. The format would really matter.

The reason why it is hard to find an encoder that will encode more than 320 CRB mp3 is the cut off for 320 is at the theoretical limit for human hearing. Only the very young perfect ears can possibly hear the highest tones.  If you can read this you are probably too old to hear those high notes.  Lossless preserves tones only dogs and bats can hear.  Maybe your dog enjoys music.

I remember a discussion about the Helix vbr mp3 process. It creates some artifacts well within a 40 year olds hearing. However, even much younger listeners couldn’t hear them. This is quite telling.  This was a sharp smack to reality. There is a world of difference between able to hear a highly amplified tone in a back ground of silence when you are listening for it than picking up that less amplified tone in music.

I believe the over 30 crowd really can't here the difference between 190 CBR mp3 and a wave file. I doubt that the under 30 can either. As we age, we rapidly lose the ability to hear higher tones but many of us learn to listen more carefully. My college age boy doesn't notice poor quality or artifacts even though he can still hear mosquito tones. They range 17-19 kHz. No one above 25 can hear those tones so they are used in HS for ring tones. Everyone but the teacher knows your cell phone is ringing.  By the time you are out of college you can't hear them either.

Most of us waste resources in audio over kill. I listen to vbr mp3s set to the highest setting knowing I can't hear the extra quality. That is MY choice to waist 20% file size. If you choose to have more overkill of 100s of percent that is your business.

The green markers are funny because carefully produced 192 CBR mp3 is more likely to produce a truer sound than the CD with green marks on it or not. Optical reads are not 100% reliable. The best rippers read the same block multiple times to insure they got the read right. I doubt that your average CD player does that.

I still have an old dinosaur stereo, one of the most powerful ever made.  Playing mp3s on my iPod with good ear buds comes close to the quality of the dinosaur.  The difference is the iPod does not shake the house.  Low notes from the dinosaur travel through the house even if the stereo is on very low.  I am not allowed to play it.  My speakers can produce an earth rattling 4 Hz while my buds can do 5 Hz.  They do rattle my head a bit but can’t rattle my body.

FLAC or WAVE?

Reply #49 –
Another comedy post full of factual inaccuracies! I hope this thread can be kept open and used for this light-hearted purpose. It makes a pleasant change around here and may stop the "virus" from spreading onto the rest of the forum if the infection is quarantined.

Cheers, Slipstreem.