CD vs FLAC. Which is better?

[square_wave]

Theoretically they are both lossless. So they can be made to play at the highest fidelity levels possible.

But what you will hear completely depends on the hardware you play it in and the diligence you invested while you created the rip file.

 

[alpha1]

What a troll thread!!!

Its like someone asking whether I should use the original bitmap file or the zipped version of bitmap file.

 

[Santy]

Are we trying to search for a refrigerator to keep stuff at room temperature?

'Uncompressed' FLAC defeats the objective of FLAC

Staxx
FLAC is an audio format which uses FLAC codec, just like MP3 format uses MP3 codec. In video, they can be different like mkv or mp4 are av formats which can use H264 or DivX or XViD or other codecs for compression. They can have different audio codecs also in it, like AAC, AC3, DTS, DD, FLAC etc..

 

[square_wave]

@Alpha and Santy,

When you zip a raw jpg file to a zipped jpg file it remains the same.

When you create a flac from a music cd using a ripper;

Depending upon the quality of the cd drive, the software that is used and settings the result seems slightly different.They sound ever so slightly different. Never tried to dig deep into why it is so. I have a friend who recently ripped all his cds again using a different ripper / protocol because it sounds better in his very revealing system with Jplay. He swears that wav files sound better than flacs too

Dont jump on me asking why should it be and all that. I dont know. All I can say is that it sounds different

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

CD depth is 16 bit, what about 24 bit FLAC?

Hah! Good point

If we view a file format as a container, then FLAC is capable of containing higher-resolution (which many equate to, at least potentially, "better") sound than CD, or files ripped from CD, can.

...In a nutshell, FLAC is exact copy of the source, be it CD, DVD-Audio or any other uncompressed music data. There is no difference and no system is going to reveal it.

Assuming that we are comparing like with like when we play the files.

It sounds reasonable to think that flac will cause more jitter and timing issues to happen as it taxes the CPU more.

Actually, no, I don't think it is reasonable to think that. What happens between the storage medium on your PC abd the device that translates data to audio (or, at least, the device that translates data to a digital audio protocol) is utterly irrelevant.

What a troll thread!!!

No: there is much confusion about the technical questions. People sincerely do not know. Thus one hopes that the question is sincere

Of course, it is a "FAQ" and there is heaps of information (and misinformation) both here and elsewhere.

Are we trying to search for a refrigerator to keep stuff at room temperature?

'Uncompressed' FLAC defeats the objective of FLAC

Nicely put. No doubt you've encountered people who claim that the extra processing work for the CPU in uncompressing the file has an effect. My theory on this is that it might have been true for a 286 machine . What we have now are super computers. Heck, even our phones are capable of uncompressing and playing FLAC files!

Besides, and touching on another controversy, I repeat that it doesn't matter what happens before your data reaches the point of conversion to audio. Thus, such things as reading files into ram are nothing but pastimes. It also does not matter how long it takes for the data to reach the convrsion stage --- and thus, latency has no effect whatsoever when listening to music. It isn't like leaving food in the oven for a few microseconds too long

 

[jls001]

Flac uncompressed has one distinct advantage over .wav - support for metadata. So uncompressed .flac may not be such a dummy idea afterall.

 

[Rupam]

Do you plan to Burn the FLAC Files onto a CD and play them or do you have a DAC for direct Computer playback ?

Why dont you do a little experiment.... Rip any 1 good CD that you have ( Use EAC - Its an Excellent free download ) and then do an A-B listen between the ripped and original.

You will have your answer.

I will be streaming the FLACs via Asus O Play. So there is no analogue interference from the source.

Yes I will do a comparison.

One Question > What is the bit depth of .cda file ? Is it 16 bits? Then It will be fruitless to make 32 bit FLAC from them.

 

[IndianEars]

What is the bit depth of .cda file ? Is it 16 bits? Then It will be fruitless to make 32 bit FLAC from them.

Yes : the bit depth of .cda file Is 16 bits
Yes: Then It will be fruitless to make 32 bit FLAC from them.

 

[IndianEars]

square wave said :

Depending upon the quality of the cd drive, the software that is used and settings the result seems slightly different.They sound ever so slightly different. I have a friend who recently ripped all his cds again using a different ripper / protocol because it sounds better in his very revealing system with Jplay. He swears that wav files sound better than flacs too

Dont jump on me asking why should it be and all that. I dont know. All I can say is that it sounds different

This is a debatable issue amongst Audiophiles. I agree with the opinion that wav DOES sound better, and yes the Software used to Rip and Playback DOES make a difference, in an adequately revealing system.

I believe that WAV ( a Microsoft invention) sounds better because less PC horsepower is needed to run a WAV file compared to a FLAC file.

 

[Rupam]

@Alpha and Santy,

When you zip a raw jpg file to a zipped jpg file it remains the same.

When you create a flac from a music cd using a ripper;

Depending upon the quality of the cd drive, the software that is used and settings the result seems slightly different.They sound ever so slightly different. Never tried to dig deep into why it is so. I have a friend who recently ripped all his cds again using a different ripper / protocol because it sounds better in his very revealing system with Jplay. He swears that wav files sound better than flacs too

Dont jump on me asking why should it be and all that. I dont know. All I can say is that it sounds different

Hi square_wave,
Can you please share the name of the ripper that your friend used?

Thanks

Another Question : Why most of the 24 bits FLAC are ripper from Vinyl? Is Vinyl better than CD?

 

[IndianEars]

No doubt you've encountered people who claim that the extra processing work for the CPU in uncompressing the file has an effect. My theory on this is that it might have been true for a 286 machine . What we have now are super computers. Heck, even our phones are capable of uncompressing and playing FLAC files!

A person can run a 100 meter sprint even with 20 kgs strapped on his back. But there is a difference in the end result ...

 

[hydra]

Flac uncompressed has one distinct advantage over .wav - support for metadata. So uncompressed .flac may not be such a dummy idea afterall.

WAV files ripped using dbPowerAmp 14.xx can be tagged just like FLAC. These WAV files retain and display tags in Foobar and JRMC (I've used just these two, but I think it should the tags should work everywhere), and the files also get indexed in the library properly using the tags, just like FLAC files.

dbPoweramp also has a "secure" CD ripping facility where the CD is read multiple times (to avoid all read errors), with offset correction applied (a la EAC) from an online database. It rips real fast too, unlike EAC.

 

[IndianEars]

The purist approach is to run the computer with Minimal overheads and processor use.

To that extent, JPLAY will prevent even entire Windows from loading, to maximise resorces and divert them for best performance for digital music playback.

The software will even depute one of the Cores of a multicore processor only for Basic Windows house keeping and activities and a separate processor Core only for the Music playback activity.

Whether you will hear a difference in your set up is debatable, and largely a factor on the capability of the reproduction chain, and a discerning ear !

 

[IndianEars]

CD depth is 16 bit, what about 24 bit FLAC?

DVD Audio - A ( Higher resolution, tectnically superior) format compared to the standard (Redbook) CD format uses 24 bit depth and 96 Khz sampling compared to the CD standard of 16 bit and 44 K.

24 Bit Flac can be used to record and transfer 24 bit recordings.

 

[Santy]

I am still trying to understand how FLAC playback can put a stress on the current gen CPU such that it has an impact on its performance. If FLAC can make my i5 to cough, then my PC will boot to the start screen only after a month of powering it up. An average CPU has enough processing power to decode or decompress 100s of FLAC files in the time it takes to play one track. :sad: Music playback is one of the simplest of tasks my PC would carry out I guess. Video is a different ball game altogether and we have 4k now.

 

[gobble]

Hi All

I'd prefer blank CD's to FLAC anyday. hyeah:

--G0bble

 

[IndianEars]

I am still trying to understand how FLAC playback can put a stress on the current gen CPU such that it has an impact on its performance. If FLAC can make my i5 to cough, then my PC will boot to the start screen only after a month of powering it up. An average CPU has enough processing power to decode or decompress 100s of FLAC files in the time it takes to play one track.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating ... Listening...

There are also second order effects like higher RF Switching noise ... both radiated and into the Computer Power Supply .... when the Processors is grinding numbers.

I prefer to be guided by "The proof of the pudding is in the eating ... Listening... "

If you do not hear the impact, you need not bother with it, unless you want to move to a higher level of reproduction....

I guess many of us will remember the 'Scientific Proofs' that the Bumblebee cant possibly fly, or that Kangaroos cant possible keep jumping ... there was just 1 flaw ... their 'reasoning' conflicted with factual evidence. ;-)

 

[koushik]

I am still trying to understand how FLAC playback can put a stress on the current gen CPU such that it has an impact on its performance. If FLAC can make my i5 to cough, then my PC will boot to the start screen only after a month of powering it up. An average CPU has enough processing power to decode or decompress 100s of FLAC files in the time it takes to play one track. :sad: Music playback is one of the simplest of tasks my PC would carry out I guess. Video is a different ball game altogether and we have 4k now.

I 2nd you on that. Music is really a simple thing for CPU. I don't think this would worry the performance of FLAC in any way.

 

[alpha1]

I guess many of us will remember the 'Scientific Proofs' that the Bumblebee cant possibly fly, or that Kangaroos cant possible keep jumping ... there was just 1 flaw ... their 'reasoning' conflicted with factual evidence. ;-)

I would love to see such proofs ... if they were ever put forth.
There is absolutely nothing magical about bumblebee's flying and kangaroo's hopping


On fishing a little bit - I found this about the purported myth about the bumblebee's flight:
Flight of the Bumblebee | Numbers | Science News
Bumblebee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



By the way you have not talked about the third order effects like heat and humidity affecting the propagation of sound waves through the medium (= air)
or the fourth order effects like smells persisting in the listening environment changing the way we perceive sound.

Or is it that you were talking about the battery operated CD players when you mentioned the second order effect CPU noise polluting the sound played from a rectified AC powered PC?

A person can run a 100 meter sprint even with 20 kgs strapped on his back. But there is a difference in the end result ...

We are talking more in terms of "A person can run a 100 meter sprint even with 20 grams strapped on his back. And hence, there is no difference in the end result"

 

[IndianEars]

In the olympics, swimmers even shave the hair from their bodies to maximize performance and minimize drag.

Audiophiles too do their best to Max performance.

I am not trying to provoke inane debates but present a purist view point, in the hope that it will promote thinking by open minds regarding the efforts and measures already being taken world wide by those who want to push the ultimate performance envelope. Some trickle down may be good ....