WAV vs FLAC

[schwarzerrogen]

And the reason this needs to be specified is that you look at any professional recording software and they'll be using broadcast WAV files as their recording format of choice by default.

[spwath]

There is no reason to worry about any of this.

[flibberdipper]

4 hours ago, Thorimus said:

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.

"tad smaller"

Half the time the .wav's I get are twice the size of FLACs.

[arnavvr]

17 minutes ago, tmcclelland455 said:

"tad smaller"

Half the time the .wav's I get are twice the size of FLACs.

 

I copied like two albums into .WAV and it was 5GB...

[flibberdipper]

3 minutes ago, arnavvr said:

I copied like two albums into .WAV and it was 5GB...

kool story brah

[Ithanul]

25 minutes ago, tmcclelland455 said:

"tad smaller"

Half the time the .wav's I get are twice the size of FLACs.

Yep, uncompressed .wav files can get pretty big (using EAC).

 

I never really notice a difference in sound quality between .wav and .flac file formats (when both come from good quality rips).

Only issue I see with .flac is support across devices.

[Pomfinator]

16 minutes ago, arnavvr said:

I copied like two albums into .WAV and it was 5GB...

wtf, did those happen to be 32/192 or something? Even 24/96 for 15 songs was only about 2GB for me for WAV.

[BestPCBuilder2017]

On 4/25/2017 at 11:44 AM, Volbet said:

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

Any LTT users we can ask about that to demonstrate their claim to be true? I don't see how it would be true considering that both are of the lossless type. 

[BestPCBuilder2017]

I should probably have watched this video... >.> 

 

[Pomfinator]

9 minutes ago, NCIX Lampy said:

Any LTT users we can ask about that to demonstrate their claim to be true? I don't see how it would be true considering that both are of the lossless type. 

Your assumption would be correct.  Because when you playback FLAC, it will basically decode the file back into LPCM and then play it, so there should be zero difference.

[BestPCBuilder2017]

3 hours ago, Pomfinator said:

Your assumption would be correct.  Because when you playback FLAC, it will basically decode the file back into LPCM and then play it, so there should be zero difference.

My understanding of this audio stuff is really shitty and I've been adjusting my notes left and right. 

[Volbet]

1 hour ago, NCIX Lampy said:

Any LTT users we can ask about that to demonstrate their claim to be true? I don't see how it would be true considering that both are of the lossless type. 

To the LTT forums defense, I haven't heard those claims here. It's a claim that's more native to dedicated audio forums.

And those audio forums are usually not fond of demonstrating claims as true or false. The audio world is full of snake oil, and you're expected to swallow every drop of it.

 

And yeah, there's absolutely no difference between the sound quality of a FLAC and WAV.

[BestPCBuilder2017]

3 hours ago, Volbet said:

And yeah, there's absolutely no difference between the sound quality of a Facebook and WAV.

?

[Pomfinator]

Just now, NCIX Lampy said:

?

autocorrected from FLAC probably.

[BestPCBuilder2017]

3 hours ago, Pomfinator said:

autocorrected from FLAC probably.

Ohhhh mobile 

[Volbet]

33 minutes ago, NCIX Lampy said:

?

 

32 minutes ago, Pomfinator said:

autocorrected from FLAC probably.

This. Fucking phones.

[BestPCBuilder2017]

3 hours ago, Volbet said:

 

This. Fucking phones.

And just to clarify (I obviously assume, but just to be sure) you mean lossless WAV and lossless FLAC in that statement, right? 

[spwath]

Just now, NCIX Lampy said:

And just to clarify (I obviously assume, but just to be sure) you mean lossless WAV and lossless FLAC in that statement, right? 

FLAC is lossless.

free lossless audio codec

[Volbet]

1 minute ago, NCIX Lampy said:

And just to clarify (I obviously assume, but just to be sure) you mean lossless WAV and lossless FLAC in that statement, right? 

Of course. The other comparison wouldn't make sense. 

We are comparing apples to apples. 

[BestPCBuilder2017]

3 hours ago, spwath said:

FLAC is lossless.

free lossless audio codec

My bad, I forgot you don't actually need to declare FLAC as lossless because it's actually in the name itself. (my bad)

[BestPCBuilder2017]

On 4/25/2017 at 11:42 AM, kurtstir said:

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

Why did you even post this?!?!?!

[BestPCBuilder2017]

On 4/25/2017 at 0:34 PM, Dan Castellaneta said:

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.

Lossless WAV doesn't support metadata while FLAC does, correct? 

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, NCIX Lampy said:

Lossless WAV doesn't support metadata while FLAC does, correct? 

For effective use, correct.

[BestPCBuilder2017]

-removed

[BestPCBuilder2017]

3 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

For effective use, correct.

Metadata would be things like album artwork, track numbers, genre type, album name, song name, stuff like that, right? 

 

This type of information would be directly attached to file itself, right? 

 

I think I'm starting to get it now.