Formats


#1

After reading some discussions about what is the best audible format.

I indeed can confirm that the wav format is clearly better than the flac format in my case!

Streaming from NAS to PWD i hear clearly difference between FLAC and WAV!!

It seams that the PWD can handle WAV easier!?


#2

i’ve compared the two many times in the past several years and came away with the same conclusion.



WAV sounds best in my system too…why??..i have no clue.


#3

Same here, WAV/AIFF sounds better to me on my system and not just because I get skips with FLAC.


#4
adimon said: It seams that the PWD can handle WAV easier!?

Processing FLAC files takes a tiny bit of CPU processing power.

Many speculate this is why they find WAV sounds better than FLAC.

#5

I used to be all aiff but changed them all to flac level 5. I also have JRiver set to transcode to WAV on the fly.



I spent a long time comparing different file types to each other and to CD. I have to tell myself that I am hearing any real differences. Far too anal IMO.


#6

There is a point when time is better spent just enjoying the music.



I keep reading the title of this thread as “Floor Mats.”


#7

I don’t hear a difference …


#8

. . . and you have superb equipment and a good ear. :slight_smile:



It is yet another controversial topic in audio. Fortunately, if you think there is a difference it is just a question of software settings when ripping and playing back - no cost, although you may inconvenience a lot of electrons.


#9

I like .wav native in particular, when comparing other formats to a good old CD. I alway’s thought wow nice a CD instead of streaming. But when comparing .wav to the CD they have something in common that I can’t lay a finger on. Wav native is even better than transcoding on the fly to .wav



On the second place I like Alac. Alac has a solid bass and very clean hights.

On the thirth place I like Aiff, it is has a lot off the native Wav, but a bit thinner and a bit less natural.

On the fourth place I think I like Flac, but can’t say I can enjoy it. The sound is a bit to flat.


#10

See also this thread: http://www.psaudio.com/vanilla/discussion/3002/wav-vs-aiff-and-transcoding


#11

And since we have some kind of voting here… In my system WAV sounds “easier” and with more air than FLAC (even with 0 compression). Tried with Logitech Transporter and PWD/Bridge.



And even better when upsampled to 24/96-192 on the fly. in this case the difference is very subtle, though.


#12

It seems that Wav is the preferred and I agree Wav has a more relaxed smoother sounding more natural.



though a well recorded performance goes a long way, and that is what I prefer to chase down and not focusing to much on the format, I have some CD’s that are recorded to an excellent standard for example and the difference is not significant when comparing wave and flac. A great recording and venue along with performance are the ones to get into your collection these are the one’s you will never fail to enjoy and wonder about things like Wav and flac they just sound good through the recording of the performance captured all the details and nuances of the live musical performance. Some recordings are golden and we know which ones those are in our collection we tend to reach for those more often



#13
Alekz said: . . . with more air than FLAC (even with 0 compression).

Even though uncompressed, FLAC 0 is still stored in a different format than Wave and, thus, requires conversion. As decoding even Flac 8 is a trivial task for a CPU, the conversion process itself may be the source of the difference.

johno said: I have some CD's that are recorded to an excellent standard for example and the difference is not significant when comparing wave and flac.

It is great fun when the recording and music is so good, the little things make no difference.

#14

I agree with WAV, it is just a bit more crispy. FLAC has a bit of a veil over it (very thin though). It probably as well has to do with every upstream as well (software/hardware).


#15

The only thing I can think of that would account for the difference between FLAC and WAV is processing - just like Elk suggests. We know it is bit perfect after conversion, so that’s really all it could be, nes pas?


#16

I suspect the little load on the CPU is such that this has some impact on how the data is retrieved/sent.



It does not make sense to me how this would have an impact on the sound, especially with asynchronous USB and any DAC which reclocks the data-stream.



Very mysterious.


#17

All of this assuming that what we use to measure “bits are bits” is really measuring the whole story.



I am anxiously awaiting BIT-MEASURER MKII OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE gOD PARTICLE”. :smiley:


#18
Gordon said: All of this assuming that what we use to measure "bits are bits" is really measuring the whole story.

No, to the contrary. We are assuming there is something beyond the bits, such as jitter, which explains any perceived difference. We know the bits are perfect.

Gordon said: I am anxiously awaiting BIT-MEASURER MKII OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "THE gOD PARTICLE".

I sense another Nobel in the offing.

#19

Yeah, problem #1: measure what? If this question is correctly answered - 90% is done.



So far we successfully measured the CPU cycles. Again, see http://www.psaudio.com/vanilla/discussion/3002/wav-vs-aiff-and-transcoding



In the beta forum I published my experience with reducing CPU cycles by killing unnecessary Bridge processes, what correlated with the sound quality: the more idle the CPU, the better (“easier”, less congested. more “airy”) the sound. This is the only working correlation" so far. However it does not mean that this explanation is correct or it is the only factor.



Just in case: FLAC 0 takes much more CPU cycles than WAV. FLAC >0 takes much more (see the thread above).



#20
Gordon said: "THE gOD PARTICLE".

I would prefer "the good particle" :D