Convert Flac to Wav - how to & HD space need?

Saffy, thanks for the link :) Interesting paper, I read all of it and it seems to be well researched!

There is no mention of losslessly compressed files in it though. He mentions to stay away from MP3 compression, and that I completely agree with. MP3 is a lossy compressor and will irrevocably destroy the data. Not so with a lossless compression utility, which reproduces data that is 100% identical. So I think you misunderstood his mentioning of MP3, which is an easy mistake to make. :)

I haven't used Nero in years, I changed to Macintosh and haven't looked back. If I remember correctly it's straight-forward enough, just drop your audio files into the program and burn at a slow speed (1X-4X). Make sure your screensaver is turned off so it won't launch in the middle of the burn, that'll cause problems for sure.. Don't use the computer while it's burning either, let it burn in peace and you'll be fine. :) Good luck!

So I know this thread hasn't had any posts lately, but I figured it would be best to post here than start a new thread based on the same ideas.
So I am dealing with the same questions as which format I want to go with, flac or wav. Already I have my collection in flac. What I was wondering is that if I uncompress these flacs to wavs will the wavs be the exact same thing as an original cd ripped to wav or will the so called sonic differences in lossless codecs still be there when I uncompress? Just want to know, cause I could just re-rip directly to wav, or just do a batch conversion flac->wav if thats all I need to do.
tmesselt

tmesselt, from the above posts it looks like the WAVs will be the exact same thing as the FLACs, but take up more space. You don't need to uncompress your FLACs, because your computer does that for you every time you use the FLAC.

Leave the FLACs alone; they have the same bits as the WAVs and they're smaller.

-Dusty

Like Osgorth, I too am a computer programmer/analyst and share his skepticism about "ghosts in the machine." The only difference between a FLAC and a WAV file is that a FLAC is stored using a type of "zip" file compression that reduces physical space. When played back, there is zero difference between how it resolves to the PCM output stream after the FLAC is unzipped.

The ONLY possibility is that the computer the tester was using had difficulty "unzipping" the file because of a slow processor, insufficient memory, a fragmented disk, or bad software. This would be an extreme situation which would likely cause problems elsewhere too. In the end, it's a placebo effect; if you think it's better, then it is better.

If you really want to be thrown for a loop, read this article by SonicFlare's Danny Kaey. According to his tests, ripping to LAME .mp3 and back to CD _IMPROVES_ sonic quality:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue32/lame.htm

At least this one has some merit because the process fundamentally alters the file. And I can see how it might improve some older or overly compressed offerings. Sometime when I have a free week-end I intend to try this myself on a variety of recordings to see what I get.

As for software, my favorite software for batch processing and burning audio CDs is Poikisoft;
http://www.poikosoft.com/

In the end, so long as you are having fun and enjoying the music, that's all that really matters.

There is no difference. One can easily find this by examining the WAV files via their spectrums. There are plenty of software packages for this. In the end, so long as the compression algorithm is doing its job, there is absolutely NO difference.

As for batch processing the standard among OCD folks like myself is dbPoweramp or using FLAC->WAV in Foobar2000.