View Full Version : Digital File Types
My Marantz CDP has a USB input so I've started putting music downloads on a USB stick. I find it more convenient than logging on to the laptop, and it's resulted in me listening to more digital music as it's so easy to access. I've got mostly Flac files, and some MP3s. The Marantz won't play Flacs, so I've had to convert them to WAVE, which plays well.
The WAVE files use up more memory, so does this mean better sound quality? They sound more detailed to my ears, but I could be wishing them to sound better! I've also converted the MP3s, and there appears to be an even bigger improvement in sound than that between Flac and WAVE.
My Marantz CDP has a USB input so I've started putting music downloads on a USB stick. I find it more convenient than logging on to the laptop, and it's resulted in me listening to more digital music as it's so easy to access. I've got mostly Flac files, and some MP3s. The Marantz won't play Flacs, so I've had to convert them to WAVE, which plays well.
The WAVE files use up more memory, so does this mean better sound quality? They sound more detailed to my ears, but I could be wishing them to sound better! I've also converted the MP3s, and there appears to be an even bigger improvement in sound than that between Flac and WAVE.
yeah my car wont play flac from usb. i converted to mp3 and in car you cant really tell imo. better compatability with metadata too
Filterlab
17-05-2021, 18:02
This is handy as a quick overview...
www.whathifi.com/amp/advice/mp3-aac-wav-flac-all-the-audio-file-formats-explained
I choose .aiff for that sort of thing, but .wav will do you the best as it's relatively widely used. Always go lossless when possible.
.mp3 is a terrible lossy codec, whereby data that the conversion process 'thinks' carries no information, is removed.
If you have the space, go with WAV. Completely uncompressed and no loss of information. I know there's far more detailed explanations out there but to be honest, I think it's fairly safe to stand by the rule of 'more information = better sound quality'.
Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk
FLAC has the exact same info though. Both formats are lossless.
FLAC has the exact same info though. Both formats are lossless.Completely agree but with hard drives being so cheap and black Friday deals on 4 & 8TB drives making them highly affordable, I just personally feel a certain piece of mind knowing the file is free of any compression, even lossless. OP's hardware can't read FLAC in this case so WAV it is but I see no reason in general not to use WAV unless you're trying to conserve space.
But ultimately I have no proof that WAV and FLAC of the same rip are any different in any way other than size...I can't even tell you they sound different (and that's the whole point is it not?) lol...
Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk
wav used to have issues with metadata, and was one of reasons i avoided it(apart from extra space) I do all mine in flac now, after trying a few it seemed the best overall and most used(outwith apple)
24 Bit Flac is the gold standard for me,
Bitrate's good 44K and above.
Neglagable differences above 44K but they are there...but 24bit vs 16bit makes a discernible difference imo.
24 Bit Flac is the gold standard for me,
Bitrate's good 44K and above.
Neglagable differences above 44K but they are there...but 24bit vs 16bit makes a discernible difference imo.
when i digitised my vinyl i used 24 bit. it sounded better
when i digitised my vinyl i used 24 bit. it sounded betterHow did you digitise your vinyl? Is it all in the player? Because I used to have a cheapy record player that advertised that but all it inevitably did was record the vinyl as it was playing and saved it to an MP3, no software I experimented with gave me the option for a higher resolution file type or higher bit rate...
Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk
24 Bit Flac is the gold standard for me,
Bitrate's good 44K and above.
Neglagable differences above 44K but they are there...but 24bit vs 16bit makes a discernible difference imo.Do/can you obtain 24bit from physical media or Hi-Res downloads only?
Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk
i have a good phono stage that can digitize and send it to a pc for tweaking and saving onto hd. A good vinyl copy program like vinyl studio pro. the stage can also play the digitized vinyl wave on fly staight to your amp shld you wish to.. the program is non distructive so you can always revert back a change you decide you dont like.
Thanks for the article. It more or less confirms my experience of file types. I download and store in Flac, and they're playable in high-res on my laptop and phone, both through Foobar.
I didn't know that Flac files are compressed though, yet lossless. I thought this was a contradiction in terms. And it puzzles me that the smaller file sizes with Flac - i.e. less data - can play at 24bit, whereas the larger WAV files only play 16bit cd quality. I like the sound of both, but if pushed I'd say the WAV files played from a USB stick sound marginally better than Flac files played from the laptop. The wonders of science!
Thanks for the article. It more or less confirms my experience of file types. I download and store in Flac, and they're playable in high-res on my laptop and phone, both through Foobar.
I didn't know that Flac files are compressed though, yet lossless. I thought this was a contradiction in terms. And it puzzles me that the smaller file sizes with Flac - i.e. less data - can play at 24bit, whereas the larger WAV files only play 16bit cd quality. I like the sound of both, but if pushed I'd say the WAV files played from a USB stick sound marginally better than Flac files played from the laptop. The wonders of science!I've honestly confused my ears before trying to determine the difference between the two and as sound quality goes, I've struggled to hear the difference between FLAC and WAV, I just like the piece of mind knowing that WAV is uncompressed.
If you have experimented and you're happy with your current system and way of listening then I don't think anyone else can be tell you're doing it wrong.
Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk
Ages ago I did quite some experimenting to see if I heard any difference between wav and flac. Ripped various tracks from various CDs and then had someone (swmbo) play wav and flac versions of same track in a random order, not telling me which was playing but keeping note of what I said I thought was 'better'. No proof whatsoever that one format was better - at times the results were contradictory.
Ali Tait
21-05-2021, 14:57
A FLAC and a WAV file of the same recording are identical. You could make a recording in FLAC, convert it to WAV, convert it back to FLAC and at all points of this the file will be identical to the original.
Filterlab
21-05-2021, 15:15
FLAC has the exact same info though. Both formats are lossless.
So does AIFF. All three are lossless.
A FLAC and a WAV file of the same recording are identical. You could make a recording in FLAC, convert it to WAV, convert it back to FLAC and at all points of this the file will be identical to the original.
indeed, ive done this and they are to my ear perfect each time. ive seen traces that prove it too.
I didn't know that Flac files are compressed though, yet lossless. I thought this was a contradiction in terms. And it puzzles me that the smaller file sizes with Flac - i.e. less data - can play at 24bit, whereas the larger WAV files only play 16bit cd quality.
You can compress a file two ways:
Lossless compression - file takes up less disk space than the same file uncompressed but no information is lost
Lossy compression - information is removed from the file so it takes up less disk space.
Neither should be confused with dynamic compression which is a completely different thing
Bit rate is not a measure of 'quality' as such. The higher the bit rate the higher the potential dynamic range that can be recorded or played back. 16 bits is a massive dynamic range, in practice it is far more than is required for playback. By comparison vinyl reaches about 12 bits.
Many amplifiers and DACs are unable to reach 16 bits due to noise and distortion levels. The best possible case is 21 bits before the noise intrinsic in the components dominates. Only a handful of DACs manage to reach 21 bits in practice.
Cheers Martin. I knew they're be a devilishly complex explanation. It's good to hear that the enjoyment of music can't be reduced to bits of data - or maybe you're going to tell me it can!
Cheers Martin. I knew they're be a devilishly complex explanation. It's good to hear that the enjoyment of music can't be reduced to bits of data - or maybe you're going to tell me it can!
No, it's all pretty simple really. There's only frequency and amplitude (and phase but that's not relevant here) in music.
Sampling rate represents the maximum frequency response that can be achieved - half the sampling rate so 44.1 sampling will record or play back frequencies up to 22 Khz, That's beyond human hearing range and around the maximum frequency that most speakers will reach - although there are now speakers that will go up to 30Khz.
Bit rate determines the extent of the volume difference (loudest sound to quietest sound) that can be played back or recorded.i,e the maximum amplitude the signal can reach at any frequency. 16 bits gives 95dB maximum. That's a lot. More than can be used in playback in any practical sense. And most recordings do not have anything close to that level of dynamic range anyway.
Filterlab
21-05-2021, 17:28
Then there's sample rate quantisation too, but that opens up a can of questionable worms - as it really does make one question if digital can do music. :lol:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.