Why do WAV and FLAC files Sound Different

[Paul R]

Yep. To my ears. And not only to mine.

 

But not to everyone's and not on everyone else's systems - some of which are probably much more resolving than yours. (And of course, some are not... didn't mean that as a cut, just that it isn't a question of resolving, or how good or bad one's ears are...)

 

The problem is that we don't know if your results are because of the conversion, or because your system is running on a high resolution low powered processor, or because you put them on different media, or because of <fill in the blank>.

 

I certainly have no problem believing you hear a difference, but I find it very very unlikely indeed that if your conversion software was operating correctly, that the files themselves are responsible for the difference. By that, I mean more precisely, the second WAV files WAV -> FLAC -> WAV, should be identical to the first, save perhaps for timestamp data. If that was not the case, then we can point to your conversion software as the culprit.

 

Elsewise, it is more mysterious. Try copying the file to a different disk, or to a USB thumb drive, and playing it from a different computer. See if the sound changes for you under those circumstances.

 

It would be great to get a fresh view on this age old problem.

 

-Paul

[wgscott]

Agreed, but I think Zelig and Clawson are charlatans rather than true objectivists. .... Objectivists they are not.

 

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting these clowns were "objectivists," even in jest.

 

There was an earlier thread entitled "Why do objectivists get so angry?". The answer, I think, is articles like this that the OP linked to, which create a false impression for newcomers that somehow ripping to lossless FLAC (or any other losslessly compressed format) is somehow problematic. Even in the exceedingly unlikely event that wav does "sound better" than FLAC, you can convert wav to flac and back to wav again, and the two wav files will have identical checksums, i.e., they are bit-identical. Hence there is no degradation or compromise of sound quality ripping to FLAC. Claims that they can still sound different due to a power supply or whatever other mystical power is invoked is pure undiluted audiophool bullshit. That should make everyone who isn't insane angry, not just objectivists.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting these clowns were "objectivists," even in jest.

 

There was an earlier thread entitled "Why do objectivists get so angry?". The answer, I think, is articles like this that the OP linked to, which create a false impression for newcomers that somehow ripping to lossless FLAC (or any other losslessly compressed format) is somehow problematic. Even in the exceedingly unlikely event that wav does "sound better" than FLAC, you can convert wav to flac and back to wav again, and the two wav files will have identical checksums, i.e., they are bit-identical. Hence there is no degradation or compromise of sound quality ripping to FLAC. Claims that they can still sound different due to a power supply or whatever other mystical power is invoked is pure undiluted audiophool bullshit. That should make everyone who isn't insane angry, not just objectivists.

We are on exactly the same WAVlength, or is that FLAClength? There is a difference, you know. I can hear it. The image sounds much bigger - higher to me in WAV. Yeah, right.

 

I also caught your beautiful irony in your original post. How appropriate in the atmosphere of political convention season, with all the spin and distortion of common sense that entails.

 

Again, why is this elementary issue of comparative sonic quality only now being resurrected after how many years? The underlying issue, obviously, if you read their original articles, is to push their agenda for this "perceived image height as a proxy for sound quality" concept. Pure BS.

[wgscott]

why is this elementary issue of comparative sonic quality only now being resurrected after how many years? The underlying issue, obviously, if you read their original articles, is to push their agenda for this "perceived image height as a proxy for sound quality" concept. Pure BS.

 

All ideas are equally meritorious on the internet.

[Bob Stern]

That should make everyone who isn't insane angry ...

If insanity is the cure for anger, what's wrong with insanity?

 

I hereby start an insanity cult. All donations accepted with equanimity.

[William_Liu]

As long as we isolate noise from PC and jitter condition was not vary when playback flac and wav, I believe the differences are not from file itself. We should put more focus on different components in audio chain.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[whoozwah]

if you're listening for the audible difference between a FLAC and a WAV then you're probably not listening to the music.

[AlainGr]

II have loved music for a long time and it brings something to my state of mind.

 

And since it is also a hobby, I like to read what others think. Yes there are controversial opinions, but I am ok with that. I don't feel I have the right to judge others in a personal fashion based on what they discover or talk about.

 

To say that someone is probably not listening to music because he is expressing his opinion between 2 formats seems a little peremptory to me.

 

I always keep in mind that "We see the straw in the eyes of others and we do not see the beam in ours".

[plissken]

As long as we isolate noise from PC and jitter condition was not vary when playback flac and wav, I believe the differences are not from file itself. We should put more focus on different components in audio chain.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

There are no differences to worry about.

 

Remember certain people are saying they can tell the difference between bit identical WAV files where one has gone through a conversion process of WAV to FLAC back to WAV and one that didn't where both have the same MD5 hash.

 

It's 100% bullshit and it's why you haven't heard back from the people that say they can when I offered $1K (to them) to their $100 (to charity).

 

Crickets.

[William_Liu]

if you're listening for the audible difference between a FLAC and a WAV then you're probably not listening to the music.

I must confess I did listen to "sound" instead of music. And, in fact, quite often.[emoji16]

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[sphinxsix]

@ plissken

 

Crickets.?

A question returns - '

[h=3]Why do objectivists get so upset?[/h]

I won't take part in your test for a couple of reasons. One of them is that if I picked the right sample I probably wouldn't convince you and other 'non-believers'. You may come to conclusion I was just lucky or that I hacked the files somehow and found the right one in that way.

 

I think the only way to prove the difference we talk about is actually to make YOU hear it. Sounds intriguing.? I may have a way to do it. Interested.?

 

No tortures or financial consequences involved unless you want to donate some amount to a charity of your choice.. I think a Christian one should be the first choice. After all we would deal with something you yourself could call a 'miracle' if we succeded

[diggle]

Ha, ha.. I will do the test plissken could we double the money?

2k vs 200

[plissken]

Ha, ha.. I will do the test plissken could we double the money?

2k vs 200

 

$1K at 10 samples per round at two rounds

 

$2K at 14 samples per round at two rounds

 

Still $100 to a charity of my choosing.

 

Again I'll:

 

1. Take Holtz the Planets: Mercury 16/44.1 and with EAC rip it to WAV

2. MD5 checksum the WAV

3. I'll copy the WAV file X amount of times for either the $1k or $2k option for two rounds (directory A and then B)

4. I'll verify the MD5 hash for all copies and I'll flatten all file creation/mod dates

5. I'll convert WAV >FLAC>ZIP>UNZIP>FLAC>WAV and MD5 hash it again.

6. This will be available via FTP and you download directory A and B

7. You have up to 30 days

8. You or as many people can listen to this as much as you want. You can only turn in one set of results.

9. You have to get the guess for both rounds correct.

10. I'll post a protected answer key ahead of time and release it after you submit results.

 

Let me know when you would like to proceed.

[diggle]

Got no time for playing a/round. 2k vs 200. 12 samples, one round. Ok for you?

[wgscott]

[diggle]

@ wgscott

@ plissken

When you're sure you wanna do it - let me know.

[plissken]

Got no time for playing a/round. 2k vs 200. 12 samples, one round. Ok for you?

 

No it's not ok.

 

You wanted to go to $2K and I'm fine with that. I'm certainly not going to keep the random 1 in 100 correct guess though.

 

It's called meeting half way: I've gone up $1000 and you need to come up to a 1 in 196 correct guess.

[plissken]

@ plissken

 

Crickets.?

A question returns - '

[h=3]Why do objectivists get so upset?[/h]

I won't take part in your test for a couple of reasons. One of them is that if I picked the right sample I probably wouldn't convince you and other 'non-believers'. You may come to conclusion I was just lucky or that I hacked the files somehow and found the right one in that way.

 

You're a daisy if you could...

[plissken]

See Guys and Gals? That's all it takes. No 11 page threads of back and forth. Just a well thought out bet where they can perform any ears only evaluation they like but they don't have the answer key ahead of time.

[Cygnusx]

If it sounds good to you, who cares. It's all a matter of opinion in my view. I personally would invest in a great sounding dac than to play around around with lossless sound formats or wav files. Honestly, most people don't have a good enough audio system or the ear to really tell the difference. I have a $20k audio system and after many hours of messing around with different speakers, amps, DACs, sources and pre-amps, I came to the realization that a high-end dac makes a bigger difference in the sound than the bitrate or any format. How we all suffer from this endless game of looking for the perfect sound. The audiophile game is a never ending money pit. Good luck!

[alfe]

@ wgscott

@ plissken

When you're sure you wanna do it - let me know.

 

I can supply this

[plissken]

I can supply this

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28029[/ATTACH]

 

I don't think attempting to gain information and showing someone that there are indeed absolutes in this business/hobby is an attempt at out man hooding another.

[kumakuma]

I don't think attempting to gain information and showing someone that there are indeed absolutes in this business/hobby is an attempt at out man hooding another.

 

I think the tape measure reference is to the criteria (image height) used in this article:

 

Why Do WAV And FLAC Files Sound Different? Article By Dr. Charles Zeilig And Jay Clawson

[plissken]

I think the tape measure reference is to the criteria (image height) used in this article:

 

Why Do WAV And FLAC Files Sound Different? Article By Dr. Charles Zeilig And Jay Clawson

 

Could be. Thanks.

[Paul R]

See Guys and Gals? That's all it takes. No 11 page threads of back and forth. Just a well thought out bet where they can perform any ears only evaluation they like but they don't have the answer key ahead of time.

 

Can you lay off with your bet thing? It has proven nothing and is arrogantly insulting to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.