WAV vs FLAC

[BestPCBuilder2017]

Is one better than the other? I've been told quite a few different things and it's very annoying. There seems to be some confusion about the two formats. I know FLAC is of the lossless audio format type, but I'm not sure if that's the same for WAV. 

 

Edit - my bad, I should have specified the WAV piece in my original first post statement to be lossless as well 

[kurtstir]

FLAC has better quality but is not compatible with all software and hardware while WAV is compatible with nearly everything

[Volbet]

Depends on what kind of WAV file it is. Technically speaking, WAV is only a container and can therefor contain lossy audio aswell as lossless audio. 

 

But if we're comparing apples to apples, lossless to lossless, there's no practical difference other than file size. 

While I have heard people claim that they can hear the difference between FLAC and WAV, I have never seen it demonstrated.

 

4 minutes ago, kurtstir said:

FLAC has better quality but is not compatible with all software and hardware while WAV is compatible with nearly everything

And what exactly do you base that on?

[BestPCBuilder2017]

3 hours ago, kurtstir said:

FLAC has better quality but is not compatible with all software and hardware while WAV is compatible with nearly everything

How can you tell that FLAC is better quality than WAV? 

[kurtstir]

Just now, NCIX Lampy said:

How can you tell that FLAC is better quality than WAV? 

One is completely lossless the other is not. Ill try and pull up some docs

[kurtstir]

2 minutes ago, NCIX Lampy said:

How can you tell that FLAC is better quality than WAV? 

Volbet probably has better info, listen to him

[Thorimus]

Just now, Volbet said:

Technically speaking, WAV is only a container and can therefor contain lossy audio aswell as lossless audio. 

This. FLAC is a codec. Look up the difference between containers and codecs, it's pretty interesting and often useful.

 

FLAC is usually a tad smaller than WAV files, but not enough to warrant using one over the other. WAV is more widely supported.

[BestPCBuilder2017]

3 hours ago, Volbet said:

Depends on what kind of WAV file it is. Technically speaking, WAV is only a container and can therefor contain lossy audio aswell as lossless audio. 

 

But if we're comparing apples to apples, lossless to lossless, there's not practical difference other than file size. 

While I have heard people claim that they can hear the difference between FLAC and WAV, I have never seen it demonstrated.

Since both are capable of containing lossless audio, wouldn't WAV technically be better than FLAC due to WAV being able to hold lossless and lossy while FLAC is only able to hold lossless? In terms of compatibility of course. 

[Volbet]

3 minutes ago, NCIX Lampy said:

Since both are capable of containing lossless audio, wouldn't WAV technically be better than FLAC due to WAV being able to hold lossless and lossy while FLAC is only able to hold lossless? 

Well, WAV is not capable of holding both lossy and lossless at the same time. Atleast not in a functional manner.

The only reason why WAV could be better is becuase lossless WAV usually contain uncompressed LPCM audio, while FLAC is, of cource, compressed. 

[Pomfinator]

20 minutes ago, kurtstir said:

One is completely lossless the other is not. Ill try and pull up some docs

That is false, FLAC and WAV are both lossless containers.

 

The only difference is that FLAC is a compressed format, and WAV is an uncompressed format.  WAV as a format is more common in production, for playback FLAC is much more common because of it's more robust tag system.

[BestPCBuilder2017]

3 hours ago, Volbet said:

The only reason why WAV could be better is becuase lossless WAV usually contain uncompressed LPCM audio, while FLAC is, of cource, compressed. 

Did you mean "contains"? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly, I'm adjusting my notes. 

 

Uncompressed LPCM is better than compressed LPCM, correct? 

[BestPCBuilder2017]

3 hours ago, Pomfinator said:

That is false, FLAC and WAV are both lossless containers.

 

The only difference is that FLAC is a compressed format, and WAV is an uncompressed format.  WAV as a format is more common in production, for playback FLAC is much better because of it's much more robust tag system.

It would be more correct to say that both containers are capable of containing lossless audio. That doesn't mean that WAV is limited to only use/support lossless. 

 

Isn't uncompressed format better? It seems that if that is the case, then WAV would be the better choice. 

[Pomfinator]

1 minute ago, NCIX Lampy said:

It would be more correct to say that both containers are capable of containing lossless audio. That doesn't mean that WAV is limited to only use/support lossless. 

 

Isn't uncompressed format better? It seems that if that is the case, then WAV would be the better choice. 

No.  Here is an analogy.

 

I have a string of letters.  AAABBBCCC

This is what FLAC does: 3A3B3C --> decode --> AAABBBCCC

 

There is literally no difference at the end of the chain.

[BestPCBuilder2017]

3 hours ago, Pomfinator said:

No.  Here is an analogy.

 

I have a string of letters.  AAABBBCCC

This is what FLAC does: 3A3B3C --> decode --> AAABBBCCC

 

There is literally no difference at the end of the chain.

I take it you're responding to the 2nd bit, not the 1st, correct? 

[Pomfinator]

Just now, NCIX Lampy said:

I take it you're responding to the 2nd bit, not the 1st, correct? 

The 1st bit isn't even a relevant question, because no one will be storing lossy audio in either of these formats.

[Volbet]

On 4/25/2017 at 9:06 PM, NCIX Lampy said:

Did you mean "contains"? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly, I'm adjusting my notes. 

 

Uncompressed LPCM is better than compressed LPCM, correct? 

I say "contain", becuase WAV (as stated earlier) is a container, not a codec. 

So when I refere to the audio file, I don't refere to WAV file itself, I refere to the file it contains. 

 

You can't really compress LPCM, since LPCM is forced to be uncompressed by the way it works. 

This is why we have lossless compression codecs like FLAC, ALAC, APE, ect.

Coverting the LPCM into a compressed, but still lossless, format helps save space on your HDD. 

 

Look at it like this:

If we were to write out an LPCM file out in binary, it could look like this: 

1010100111001010011101101110101101011001

Now, that should be 40 characters long and therefor take up 5 Bytes. 

 

If we were to compress it, it could look like this

23:1 - 17:0.

That's 11 characters, meaning the same information is now stored in almost a quarter of the space. 

 

Of course, this is only an example. Real audio codecs don't work like this.

[BestPCBuilder2017]

3 hours ago, Pomfinator said:

The 1st bit isn't even a relevant question, because no one will be storing lossy audio in either of these formats.

How so? WAV supports lossy format (seems like a wise container of choice). It seems quite possible for that to happen even for say on accident. 

[SSL]

 

35 minutes ago, kurtstir said:

FLAC has better quality but is not compatible with all software and hardware while WAV is compatible with nearly everything

 

You've earned yourself an afternoon in the naughty corner.

 

FLAC is better because it supports metadata editing. Some tools can edit WAV metadata, but it is not even officially supported on Windows. Stick with FLAC/ALAC or AAC if you don't care about lossy compression.

[anothertom]

4 minutes ago, NCIX Lampy said:

It would be more correct to say that both containers are capable of containing lossless audio. That doesn't mean that WAV is limited to only use/support lossless. 

 

Isn't uncompressed format better? It seems that if that is the case, then WAV would be the better choice. 

The term 'lossless containers' says it all, either will store an exact copy of the data you're encoding.

 

As for one vs the other, it's all about use case, and this follows the general rules and concepts of compressed vs non-compressed. However, for audio, in anything outside a production environment there's no need for the slightly quicker data read/write that you would get if you store in .WAV files vs using FLAC or ALAC, You then get the benefits of the smaller file size with pretty much no negatives by using FLAC or ALAC.

 

Also, this argument has been done to death many many times on many many forums/blogs/information boards with exactly the same result, can we please just use a bit of search functionality.

[SSL]

4 minutes ago, anothertom said:

can we please just use a bit of search functionality.

 

NO. We must welcome all n00bs no matter how lazy or banal their questions may be.

 

DISCLAIMER: I neither stated nor implied that the OP or any member in particular falls under this classification.

[Pomfinator]

8 minutes ago, NCIX Lampy said:

How so? WAV supports lossy format (seems like an awful container of choice). It seems quite possible for that to happen even for say on accident. 

There I fixed your sentence.  I don't really want to go into it, but if you want lossy, do not use WAV.  All lossy codecs already have their own containers that are just fine, and have much better tag support.

[BestPCBuilder2017]

-removed

[anothertom]

Just now, NCIX Lampy said:

intended

Implied.

[PlayStation 2]

WAV in the traditional sense is a lossless and uncompressed audio format. It's essentially uncompressed PCM in a container in this context. It can't officially support metadata so it's kinda pointless for storing music.

FLAC is a lossless and compressed audio format. Depending on what you're listening to, it may provide big benefits in storage space if the song itself compresses well. It also supports metadata so it has a better purpose for storing music than WAV does.

 

Neither sound better than the other at comparable sample rates and whatever but as stated above, FLAC is better suited for music.

[schwarzerrogen]

What kind of . wav are we talking here? Thew .wav that Microsoft programs like to pump away at like a cheap hooker from Cape Breton, or a Broadcast WAV that contains metadata and SMPTE timestamping to allow timeline alignment in most professional audio/video solutions? This distinction needs to be made.