CD vs FLAC. Which is better?

[koushik]

Kaushik, can you give me time it starts? Want to test my ears/perception on this one

Yes of course. It is starting in between time 00:01 and 00:02 and continuing till the mid time of the track.
In between 00:16-00:17, 00:20-00:21 etc

 

[Rupam]

Thad E Ginathom listen on your speakers pls. Not on headphone. You need to be close to your speakers and turn up the volume by 60%.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

OK, driving myself crazy here ...and I think I'll leave it to the younger ears

1. I can see problems with my system. I'm watching the sound in an analyser, and seeing frequencies above those I'm cutting with a lowpass filter. Perhaps some sort of aliasing. can't hear it anyway.

2. I am picking up sounds like resonance, that is like something rattling. I have a window frame near me that rattles at certain frequencies... that kind of thing. I hear it in the phones, and oddly, I hear it more in the speakers.

3. This could be weird effects of listening to different frequency bands, filtering out higher and lower.

It is odd that I hear more on the speakers, because my headphones are much better than my monitor speakers --- so it could be the speakers.

anyway, if you guys can pick up what I'm hearing, whilst listening to the full frequency band ...wow.

 

[sam9s]

interesting debate ........ Just want to chip in few lines. Initially even i used to thing that FLAC is an exact replica of CD/WAV just compressed (as in zipped file), so technically there should not be any difference.

But when I actually listened to both, in quick succession, I was able to hear the difference. Now which one sounded better is not what I am gonna say, but there was a difference. (CD sounded more low, subtle for the record), Which BTW was not much evident on my simple desktop speakers. This concluded for me that there is a difference, and higher you go with your gear quality more imminent the difference.

Regards
Sammy

 

[sbg]

OK, driving myself crazy here ...and I think I'll leave it to the younger ears

1. I can see problems with my system. I'm watching the sound in an analyser, and seeing frequencies above those I'm cutting with a lowpass filter. Perhaps some sort of aliasing. can't hear it anyway.

2. I am picking up sounds like resonance, that is like something rattling. I have a window frame near me that rattles at certain frequencies... that kind of thing. I hear it in the phones, and oddly, I hear it more in the speakers.

3. This could be weird effects of listening to different frequency bands, filtering out higher and lower.

It is odd that I hear more on the speakers, because my headphones are much better than my monitor speakers --- so it could be the speakers.

anyway, if you guys can pick up what I'm hearing, whilst listening to the full frequency band ...wow.

just joining the thread to share, that most PC based do have Digital Aliasing issue, - so I had to have the BIT-MATCHED options checked to get over this issue.(This is on my PC(s) having Creative SB X-fi sound cards , while Essense STX seems ok - did not check though).
to Test, here is the link , download the file, play to check.
this may not be the same that you had expressed in point 2 and 3, but possible

 

[kvandhi]

Interesting topic on discussion, Let me ask few queries related to FLAC. So far i was using up to 320KBPs MP3 files in my PC (Ituens) -> Bose Companion 3.
Now i would like to listen FLAC files,. So which player i need to choose.
I have downloaded Foobar, but my query is do i need to use any EQ presets to get the effect.

 

[gobble]

Recently I ripped and burned a CD of Tamil songs for FM HifiPal quickly on my Mac without using dBPoweramp or Exact audio. The result was instantly recognizable as inferior. It is actually very easy to discern the difference on revealing speaker drivers like fostex. HiFiPal will vouch for how starkly inferior it sounded.

However I trust Exactaudio to give a more faithful copy as I have used it in past with secure mode.

--G0bble

 

[sbg]

just checked the flac file in Analyzer ( goldwave ) , there is no clipping - the peaks are at 99% at max - but no clipping.The "faint cracking sound" could be possible if ( if I limit myself to source and EVERYONE hears it) the flac file may not be original encoding from the source and possibly the file was Normalized to reduce the clipping.

 

[Rupam]

Interesting topic on discussion, Let me ask few queries related to FLAC. So far i was using up to 320KBPs MP3 files in my PC (Ituens) -> Bose Companion 3.
Now i would like to listen FLAC files,. So which player i need to choose.
I have downloaded Foobar, but my query is do i need to use any EQ presets to get the effect.

FLAC are better than MP3s. Just search FLAC download in google. you will get billions of results. But respect copyright.
:indifferent14:

No you don't need to use eq to get more out of flac, unlike mp3 where we use bass boast to get deep bass.

 

[Rupam]

just checked the flac file in Analyzer ( goldwave ) , there is no clipping - the peaks are at 99% at max - but no clipping.The "faint cracking sound" could be possible if ( if I limit myself to source and EVERYONE hears it) the flac file may not be original encoding from the source and possibly the file was Normalized to reduce the clipping.

Thanks a ton dear, but whats that noise then? I will upload another file which has same problem. This is the only source of the CD that I have. Now its ruined.:sad:


yes sam9s FLAC IS NOT A 100% TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL MATERIAL ( WHATEVER IT IS CD, VINYL,)

 

[sbg]

I just googled , About 175,000,000 results (0.33 seconds) only,
ie.One hundred and seventy-five millions.
one billion is 1,000,000,000 hyeah:

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

to Test, here is the link , download the file, play to check.
this may not be the same that you had expressed in point 2 and 3, but possible

One of my favourite sites hyeah:

Yes, I have experienced some aliasing issues in the past. I'm very much a "PC rationalist," --- but that can make it harder to diagnose PC issues, because, whilst applying what I believe to be the common sense of decades of working with computers, I simply have to accept the limits of my technical knowledge.

Also, seeing stuff way down on the dB scale is one thing, hearing it, even for those with good ears is quite another. On that, see the dynamic-range tests on that same wonderful audiochecks site. However, when something looks wrong, it still bugs, even if it is inaudibly wrong.

Rupam has a mystery which is audibly wrong...

 

[Santy]

Like Thad said, there are some confusions in the discussions and may be in the comparisons too.

Everyone knows that CD is a device to store audio files while FLAC is an audio file stored on a device!

Based on the discussions, it seems that many are comparing CD player vs HTPC or hardware media player (as source) which is totally a different topic and is beaten to death already.

Acc. to me, the comparison should be

between
WAV and FLAC files played on same chain, including the software player since WAV is the format the CD carries.

or between
(i) CD playback on a optical drive of a PC and
(ii) FLAC playback on same PC

 

[sbg]

Like Thad said, there are some confusions in the discussions and may be in the comparisons too.

Everyone knows that CD is a device to store audio files while FLAC is an audio file stored on a device!

Based on the discussions, it seems that many are comparing CD player vs HTPC or hardware media player (as source) which is totally a different topic and is beaten to death already.

Acc. to me, the comparison should be

between
WAV and FLAC files played on same chain, including the software player since WAV is the format the CD carries.

or between
(i) CD playback on a optical drive of a PC and
(ii) FLAC playback on same PC

I agree to some extent.

but,Let me break down and check if I am understanding something alien.

Everyone knows that CD is a device to store audio files while FLAC is an audio file stored on a device!

CD is a device to store audio files

.CDA is the extention on an Audio Compact Disc.
meaning these are also Audio files stored on a device.

FLAC is an audio file stored on a device!

.flac is the extenstion on a CD / HARD drive/Thumb Drive/BD/DVD/Memory card ....
meaning these are also Audio files stored on a device.

-- source links are to wikipedia

Both are a single unit of switch (either ON or OFF ) at the basic level of data representation/interpentation.

Both represent some similar Audiable Signature Wave Form

One may be RAW ( original source ) the other may be compression.

Both are supposed to be used by Some Other Software for its representation of what it means - here in this case "some AUDIO"

the Software used - are either Embedded in an chip ( sound card/CD / DVD / AMps /AVR etc ) or on a Pc as a soft copy.

as long as the audio data is in the digital domain, meaning weather compressed(can be uncompressed to its exact original) or uncompressed they will sound the same - what happens after that is all your Simple and complex Love Stories with Drama or Tragedy or some blissfull happy ending.

you can blame / pat the embeded chip or the software and all subsequent chain to that.
But .Flac or .Cda ( provided the underlined above) should still be the same.

We all do encode a Word/PDF files in a zip/rar format, and you are saying "I like the love Letter reading from a Word document when sent as is(.doc/.pdf) instead of the word document sent in an zip format(.zip/.rar)", which you can read in Word/PDF or open office/Foxit or other readers (wordpad/nitro) which may make the difference.

.... am I right here?

 

[Santy]

.CDA is the extention on an Audio Compact Disc.
meaning these are also Audio files stored on a device.

.CDA is not an audio file. It contains the index for the player to understand the location of tracks. That is why these files are really tiny (<1 kb) and you cannot play them! Files as you see on a PC explorer does not exist on an audio CD. The audio data is burnt continuously on the CD in a spiral fashion. When CD is played, the lazer just picks up the 0s and 1s which is passed on to the DAC. Only while ripping, you create audio 'files' and they can be in .WAV format. FLAC is also an audio format; so if it has to be compared, it must be done so with another format (.WAV in these discussions)

Having said that I am one of the guys here claiming that ideally between .WAV and .FLAC there should not be any discerning difference since FLAC is loseless. But I am not sure if the ripping or compression or decompression 'errors' or 'inaccuracies' may result in quality difference. Seems quite possible.

On a different note, comparing (i) CD playback on a optical drive of a PC and (ii) FLAC playback on same PC also is a valid experiment and it seems any have already concluded that (1) is better.

 

[Rupam]

.CDA is not an audio file. It contains the index for the player to understand the location of tracks. That is why these files are really tiny (<1 kb) and you cannot play them! Files as you see on a PC explorer does not exist on an audio CD. The audio data is burnt continuously on the CD in a spiral fashion. When CD is played, the lazer just picks up the 0s and 1s which is passed on to the DAC. Only while ripping, you create audio 'files' and they can be in .WAV format. FLAC is also an audio format; so if it has to be compared, it must be done so with another format (.WAV in these discussions)

Having said that I am one of the guys here claiming that ideally between .WAV and .FLAC there should not be any discerning difference since FLAC is loseless. But I am not sure if the ripping or compression or decompression 'errors' or 'inaccuracies' may result in quality difference. Seems quite possible.

On a different note, comparing (i) CD playback on a optical drive of a PC and (ii) FLAC playback on same PC also is a valid experiment and it seems any have already concluded that (1) is better.

Thanks Mr. Santy. You are completely right. Actually The comparison between FLAC and CD came into being because of a particular situation, for which you can read my first post.

And about wav vs flac, I personally always found wav files are far better in audio quality than FLAC. There is no confusion.

 

[esanthosh]

1. Rip the file using EAC into WAV in Secure Mode (or dbPowerAmp)
2. Convert WAV into FLAC using the FLAC encoder
3. Play both files using foobar 2000 (WASAPI) using the ABX comparator and see if you can determine WAV file correctly.

Wouldn't this be the best way to A:B WAV and FLAC through the same chain?

 

[manoj.p]

1. Rip the file using EAC into WAV in Secure Mode (or dbPowerAmp)
2. Convert WAV into FLAC using the FLAC encoder
3. Play both files using foobar 2000 (WASAPI) using the ABX comparator and see if you can determine WAV file correctly.

Wouldn't this be the best way to A:B WAV and FLAC through the same chain?

+1.

If still in doubt -

• Create a checksum of .wav file.
• Convert .wav file to flac. Move the .wav file after conversion to some other folder.
• Convert the flac file back to .wav. Save it as original .wav file name.
• Perform verify checksum using the checksum file created in first step with this new .wav file.

If both match up, then the playback processes are different.

 

[Santy]

^^Exactly
If there is a comparison to know if FLAC is good, it should be done with WAV. For people who buy audio CDs and use PC to play, FLAC becomes a matter of convenience and also serves as a backup. The Rs. 1k to 2k worth optical drive is a not a great transport either so FLAC makes all the more sense according to me.

 

[sbg]

.CDA is not an audio file. It contains the index for the player to understand the location of tracks. That is why these files are really tiny (<1 kb) and you cannot play them! Files as you see on a PC explorer does not exist on an audio CD. The audio data is burnt continuously on the CD in a spiral fashion. When CD is played, the lazer just picks up the 0s and 1s which is passed on to the DAC. Only while ripping, you create audio 'files' and they can be in .WAV format. FLAC is also an audio format; so if it has to be compared, it must be done so with another format (.WAV in these discussions)

Having said that I am one of the guys here claiming that ideally between .WAV and .FLAC there should not be any discerning difference since FLAC is loseless. But I am not sure if the ripping or compression or decompression 'errors' or 'inaccuracies' may result in quality difference. Seems quite possible.

On a different note, comparing (i) CD playback on a optical drive of a PC and (ii) FLAC playback on same PC also is a valid experiment and it seems any have already concluded that (1) is better.

Agreed, Agreed !
These are similar to "CUESHEET" when you rip the whole CD to one single LARGE Flac. The CD content is one single flac file but to navigate to particular track you will need to create a cue file for your convience.

and when when we say "rip" here , I perfer an anology similar to extracting all text contents in an Word file(word file containing Text only) to a notepad.


I think, I will not be diluting this thread for the "Quality comparision" between the formats and for those interested in details on CD data structure and Flac can be googled
details here .
for those who want the details on flac is here and for techical minded here