Lossless Files Vs CD's

Jwm - I download all kinds of FLAC files. Then I immediately convert them to .wav. Sounds a LOT better. If you dont hear any difference, its your preamp or your source has jitter too high to hear this. I routinely demonstrate this at RMAF and now at Newport Beach show. Everyone hears the difference.

I know, I know, everyone firmly believes that their system is highly resolving, but get real, it probably isn't. Not unless you have modded every single component including the crossovers in your speakers, used the best cabling and eliminated your active preamp. Then and only then will you maybe be able to easily hear differences in FLAC, .wav and AIFF. I have done all of these.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Audioengr,

What is the reason for the sound difference between FLAC and WAV? Is FLAC a more limited format in some way than WAV?

Is it a format related limitation or something more to do with software for creation or the playback?

In my case, 99% of my files are .wav. I have a few FLACS created via different software. I think I hear a difference in general between the two but have not compared carefully enough to say for sure.

"It still seems to me that Bit-perfect ripping does provide the best case scenario for reliably getting the data off the optical disk as best as possible"

You would be correct, however as stated before here, errors and error correction is not the thing that makes CD playback an inferior method. Its the CD servo and its effect on jitter from the transport. If you have a transport that is CDROM-based and buffers the data at high-speed in memory, then this can be as good as a ripped file, assuming a good hardware design.

"THere is still lots that can go wrong downstream from there in regards to jitter in particular even with a practically bit perfect ripped .wav file. More so in general perhaps in the case of FLAC which is lossless but compressed and requires more processing in the D2A conversion process."

My theory is that its not jitter differences that makes FLAC sound different that .wav. Particularly with the advent of Async USB.

Its the real-time behavior of the FLAC CODEC when running on the computer. Seems to happen on both PC and Mac.

On the other hand, FLAC CODECs in end-point networked devices, such as Squeezebox have been demonstrated to sound identical to .wav.

Only people using a computer for FLAC decoding hear these differences.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

>2.5mm scratches along the disk are very likely causing interpolation of data. Scratches longer than 8.5mm (12000 bits) would result in clicks. I'm not sure how audible is the difference between brand new CD and server, but data stored on the server's hard disk doesn't deteriorate and has no timing.

Server driving DAC directly might be subject to timing variation caused by computer and playback program but when data is delivered in packets without timing (Wireless, Ethernet etc) the only thing that counts is quality of the clock used by remote device (assuming bit perfect transmission like with my Airport Express). When this clock is jittery it might require stand alone reclocker or jitter suppressing DAC.

Another thing I like about server is ease of use. I can find CDs much faster but also search whole database by artist, composer etc. I also created playlist for different uses like "Party Music" or "Dance Music". Backups protect not only in case of hardware failure but also fire theft etc. (wise to keep backup in remote location)

Steve,

Makes sense.

Logitech Media Server and Squeezebox Touch convert .wav files to and from FLAC for higher bandwidth transmission over the network as I recall. It seems to do a good job based on results as best I can tell. Not sure exactly what codec LT media server uses for FLAC or how it might be better or different than others.

I had Roku SOundbridge prior. No conversion was done there. Both Roku and SB sound quality is quite good. Roku definitely had more bandwidth issues resulting in frequent rebuffering. SB TOuch has virtually none. I attribute the SB superiority in this regard to some combo of better/more recent hardware, more efficient code and perhaps more efficient use of network bandwidth.