The Ulimate Debate: WAV vs. FLAC

[Manakin Skywalker 4,890]

Which do you think is superior, and why?

[Datameister 2,037]

mp3, with a really high sample rate and a really low bitrate. We're talking 2 Mbps, 3482 kHz. That's the ticket.

[Gurkensalat 336]

Nor sure if this a joke. FLAC is lossless compression format and indistinguible from WAV.

[Bilbo 3,709]

I use AAC as I listen to them on my iPod. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

12 minutes ago, Gurkensalat said:

Nor sure if this a joke. FLAC is lossless compression format and indistinguible from WAV.

 

This is Manikin Skywalker. He doesn't do jokes.

[Bespin 8,475]

WAV is for working (like restoring the sound from an LP).

 

FLAC is for archiving and sending files over the internet.

 

 

[Richard Penna 3,669]

Flac is a bit smaller so I've taken to using it. Otherwise, no difference as far as I'm concerned.

[Trent B 337]

Agreed FLAC and WAV have no difference in terms of quality to each other.  FLAC also saves up on hard drive space.

[Thor 7,463]

I don't really have a preference. I don't usually store wav or flac files on my harddrive. Too huge. If I want a super fidelity experience, I'll put on a CD -- which I assume is equivalent to wav or flac. But 99% of the time, I'm more than content with my mp3s, which are usually 320 kpbs. I have a good HiFi system, so the sound is fine.

[Jay 37,281]

4 hours ago, Bespin said:

WAV is for working

 

FLAC is for archiving and sending files over the internet.

 

Yep.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I only listen to WAV unless there's no alternative.

[Skelly 260]

Why would you store WAV on your computer? FLAC carries the exact same information at a much smaller size because WAV bitrates are constant.

[Jay 37,281]

I've tried explaining that to him before, he doesn't get it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

My collection is ALAC, not FLAC.

[Marian Schedenig 8,172]

The question is pretty pointless. Content-wise, both formats are exactly the same, so that they have the exact same quality is a fact, not an opinion. FLAC is "better" because it saves space. WAV is "better" if you want to save CPU cycles.

[A24 4,326]

WAV is uncompressed. FLAC is compressed.

 

 

 

Alex

[Marian Schedenig 8,172]

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

WAV is uncompressed.

 

Unless you zip it. Then it's compressed. But still takes more space than FLAC.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

On 12/5/2016 at 10:56 AM, Jay said:

I've tried explaining that to him before, he doesn't get it.

 

I get it. I don't want it.

 

On 12/5/2016 at 11:22 AM, Stefancos said:

My collection is ALAC, not FLAC.

 

This is actually compatible with iTunes, which I'm partial to. FLAC is not.

[Wojo 2,453]

I'm too deep down the FLAC rabbit hole to convert everything over to some wacky Apple format. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Any batch converter will fix that for you in a day of two!

[Wojo 2,453]

And preserve all the tags and cover art? 

[Jay 37,281]

Yes. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Of course. I just finished converting my entire digital collection from ALAC to AAC, so it all fits on the tiny tiny tiny micro SD card that goes in my DAP.

 

 

[Nipissictwi 0]

FLAC is awesome. You know of one other lossless audio format WAV. Yep, that same, good ‘ol format that your Windows system sounds are encoded in (though that’s 8-bit and usually mono). WAV preserves 100% of the audio information in 16-bit 44.1KHz stereo format when ripping audio from a CD.
FLAC is better than WAV for two reasons. First, it does everything WAV does (lossless audio), but in a much smaller package (WAV is extremely inefficient in its use of space). Second, it allows the use of more tags (including “illegal” tags in Windows) for marking files. That’s it. Otherwise, same juice, different label. WAV does have the advantage of being more editing / DJ-friendly (also less work for the CPU since it’s hardware decoded), but that’s not really relevant to what we’re talking about here. anyway, they can convert to each other, just like me, I tried to convert FLAC to ALAC successfully. http://www.videoconverterfactory.com/tips/flac-to-alac.html of course, it can convert to more formats. FLAC uses less space than WAV, and allows more precise tagging, making it ideal as a long-term digital storage medium for audio. No matter how many times you copy it (well, in the relative sense), generation after generation, the source audio remains virtually unaltered.Real audiophiles love FLAC because it helps preserve recordings in their original state, even after multiple rips, digital copying, etc. And because it does so in a comparatively space-efficient format.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I prefer ALAC.