WAV versus FLAC

To Simontju - as you can see, there are a variety of opinions on this subject. Some don't like FLAC and some find it perfectly fine. It is clear that many in each group went to lengths to compare for themselves.

So we're back to the earlier comment. Experiment for yourself and find out which format you prefer. Then go for it!

Expectation bias isn't necessarily caused by a conscious bias, it could be a subconscious bias. It's not a character flaw, and I don't believe in supermen without any biases. So you have to have some way to rule it out. With computer playback it's easy to do blind testing, so maybe you did that.

I'd like to know a lot more about how the files are being played back and through what equipment. It could be a software issue, or possibly RFI (I'm thinking of direct playback from, for example, a laptop densely packed with electronics).

Assuming you're getting a correct and clean s/pdif stream to feed your DAC and still hear a difference, my guess would be that the different formats are producing different amounts of jitter, and your DAC has poor jitter rejection.

Me, I don't hear a difference, but then I don't expect to. ;)

I know that with the Squeezebox, you can choose to have files decoded to PCM on the server end rather than the player end (the default is to send FLAC across the line and decode on the player end). Some people report better sound
with decoding done on the server end. Supposedly, the extra work of decoding in the player causes jitter in the S/PDIF output. But that's just speculation.

Everyone hears what they hear, and it's stupid to tell people what they do and do not hear. With that being said...

I've tried a bunch of different formats - WAV, FLAC, AIFF, and Apple Lossless. Couldn't hear a conistant difference between any of them. I had no loyalty to any format at the time. When I did hear a difference, I went back and forth a few times to make sure it wasn't imaginary. After doing so, I came to the conclusion that there wasn't any difference. I did this again a week or two ago with a few tracks. Same result.

My take on it is use the most convenient (ie less buggy) ripping, formatting and playing option.

I have 34 year old ears, slightly above average hearing, and a pretty resolving system However, neither is the last word in any of that. I state this because I've been told my hearing is bad and/or my system isn't resolving enough.

Just reporting what I hear. Can't tell you what you'll hear.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/faq and https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=staticpage&pagename=faq#2 read what the experts say. do your research. to me flac is where you won't to be. Wav to flac to Wav to flac and back to Wav again, No change in data. It is the dac that makes the true differance here. Oh and the balance of your system. It aint vinyl but it is aproaching it.

I will not argue with anybodys observations based on what they hear.

I would ask though that when a clear difference is detected, it adds to the argument to also provide an explanation for why the observed results occurred.

"As has been pointed out, WAV does not support metadata"

That would be a stroke in the - column for .wav then.

I use .wav because I believe it to be the most robust current standard overall. Robust meaning that it was the fewest issues doing what it is designed to do in teh most actual user cases.

There is definite value in being able to retain the right metadata along with the audio content though as was pointed out. A factor worth considering, but not one that has anything to so with sound quality.