thedexmonster wrote:

bebu89 wrote:Add option to convert music files and rip CDs to uncompressed FLAC (1411 kbps)

I find it interesting that the creators of FLAC didn't include this option in their own software. I couldn't seem to find anything besides DBPoweramp that offers uncompressed FLAC. I'm still a little confused about how to put a wav file into a flac container but If it's simple enough I vote for adding the capability.

About decompression and performance:
I ran multiple tests recording CPU usage during playback of the same file as WAV, Uncompressed FLAC, and FLAC compression 8. Results consistently showed no differences that couldn't be explained by one of the many random background processes Windows 10 forces onto us. (No more than a couple %)
It is possible a system without 8 CPU cores and 32GB of system RAM might show different results.

On a side note,
If anyone could tell me why I sometimes lose my tag data when I move a flac file to a different hard drive, or at least how to prevent that I would appreciate it!

Be sure tags are Vorbis Comment only. If there are ID3 tags too this causes that behaviour. There are taggin tools that let you delete ID3 tags and preserve the Vorbis Comment ones.

bebu89 wrote:Add option to convert music files and rip CDs to uncompressed FLAC (1411 kbps)

I find it interesting that the creators of FLAC didn't include this option in their own software. I couldn't seem to find anything besides DBPoweramp that offers uncompressed FLAC. I'm still a little confused about how to put a wav file into a flac container but If it's simple enough I vote for adding the capability.

About decompression and performance:
I ran multiple tests recording CPU usage during playback of the same file as WAV, Uncompressed FLAC, and FLAC compression 8. Results consistently showed no differences that couldn't be explained by one of the many random background processes Windows 10 forces onto us. (No more than a couple %)
It is possible a system without 8 CPU cores and 32GB of system RAM might show different results.

On a side note,
If anyone could tell me why I sometimes lose my tag data when I move a flac file to a different hard drive, or at least how to prevent that I would appreciate it!

Ok,
Only difference from WAV and FLAC from my point and testing is due the decoder. here is what I have tested after I ripp single track from CD into WAV and then Compressid it into FLAC for Comparison.


Using AudioCity sound editor:
1. Load FLAC and Save it as WAV1
2. Load RIP WAV and save it as WAV2
3. Used HEX editor to Strip all Metadata and additional non Audio headers from file leaving pure RAW audio Data Byte on Both files
4. Done Byte By Byte compare and they are identical

CONCLUSION: so WAV<->FLAC conversion is lossless

Hearing test:
For My listening I'm using custom build headphone amp and Audiotechnica M50x headphones. As track I choose is Classical Orchestral Tune which I can then use on High volume due the its quiet parts I should be able to hear any differences.

I played both tracks in sync and let my wife change orientation from one to another without me knowing which one is playing.
Simply I could not determine which is which. So I can conclude that both are same.

OK now Decoder test:
As I can play 96/24 thru my soundcard I enabled interpolation of original 44.1/16 -> 96/24 and do same compare test.
I've done same as above, but this time I was able to distinguish one track sound better to me with higher fidelity and dynamics.
That track was FLAC, which surprised me.
The further investigation found that FLAC decoder and FLAC as Format is much better used when passed thru DSP and upscaling to higher bitrates by trying to improve dynamics where WAV is left as is and played exactly the same as 44.1/16 like not DSP is applied.

to conclude this I must say that i give +1 to FLAC especially as it is aprox 1/2 of WAV and not even counting other aspects like tagging.

Since flac is a bit by bit match and the sound produced by digital audio is the result of the bits passed to the audio processor, it must necessarily be a perfect sound by sound reproduction. The only way there could be a difference in sound is if you have a slow processor which struggles to decompress the file fast enough for playback, but any level of flac compression should be trivial for any computer built in the last 6 years. The fix would be to clean up the background processes running on your computer. Maybe uninstall some software or stop some from running on startup.


Just to throw my experience into the hearing debate, I have good equipment and can hear a slight difference between 192kbps mp3 and wav but I couldn't tell you which is which without looking. I can't hear any difference between 256kbps mp3 and wav though.

I read a little more and I believe there is no difference in quality between compressed FLAC and WAV. They both have the exact same audio. However there are claims that on playback the uncompressing may affect playback quality.

As double blind studies have shown that people can't hear audio quality differences above 192kbps MP3s I doubt that there will be many people that have both the high quality equipment and the ears to hear the difference between compressed and uncompressed FLAC.

I don't see an issue why it shouldn't be an option though.

PS. Compression level 8 gets you minimal size savings over level 5, but does require more CPU at compression/decompression. I'd stick with level 5 or 6 if you want to save space.

According to the point in the thread, it's not sound by sound.
In other words, it's only presumed to be sound by sound quality because it is bit by bit.
Level 0 gets you closer to WAV but not quite, as there is still some compression.
I guess the claim is that the upacking/decompressing part of it effects the sound somehow, not that most people would know the difference
anyway.

Personally, I use flac 5. But, I can see a point to both sides (quality vs size). I have audiophiles ears, but I am not an audiophile collector-encoder
per se. I care, but not enough to go to any great lengths. I'm fine with a happy medium.

MMFrLife wrote:

Dan33185 wrote:Why would anyone ever not use FLAC level 8?

What's the rationale? Or, did you mean level 0?

FLAC Level 8 is the same audio quality as level 0 with a much smaller file size. Why would anyone waste HD space just because?

Dan33185 wrote:Why would anyone ever not use FLAC level 8?

What's the rationale? Or, did you mean level 0?

Why would anyone ever not use FLAC level 8?

Lowlander wrote:They are sound by sound copies. Just like you don't loose characters out of a word document when compressing it. It's data compression without data loss, unlike MP3 where the audio is compressed and you loose data.

In the virtual world of code developers FLAC is "bit by bit" but in the real world of music lovers it's not "sound by sound". Simply because a COMPRESSED -8 FLAC doesn´t sound equally, if not worst, than a WAV. Uncompressed 1411kbps FLAC is the closer we can get to WAV, without the problems with tagging. Please reconsider adding support to it.

Thanks.

Lowlander,

The virtue of truly uncompressed flac* is to annul any possibility of audio interference which results from decompressing the data on playback. It's wav with proper tagging support (metaphorically) and is something that all true audiophiles and purists are interested in as data storage is no longer restrictive - in volume or cost.

* Compression level 0 is still compressed and still requires the player to unpack the data prior to playback.

They are sound by sound copies. Just like you don't loose characters out of a word document when compressing it. It's data compression without data loss, unlike MP3 where the audio is compressed and you loose data.

Lowlander wrote:All FLAC are 1411 kbps. Compression works exactly as ZIP or RAR compression, no data is lost. MediaMonkey shows the bitrate as file size divided by time, but the actual bitrate is still as original from CD. So FLAC has the same bitrate as WAV, but at a smaller file size (and better metadata support).

No. Uncompressed FLAC at 1411 kbps has the exact same size of the WAV file. If you rip a CD with options form 0 to 8 all files will be of less size than original WAV. Perhaps these are "bit by bit" copies but never "sound by sound".

All FLAC are 1411 kbps. Compression works exactly as ZIP or RAR compression, no data is lost. MediaMonkey shows the bitrate as file size divided by time, but the actual bitrate is still as original from CD. So FLAC has the same bitrate as WAV, but at a smaller file size (and better metadata support).

Add option to convert music files and rip CDs to uncompressed FLAC (1411 kbps)