I'd like to know which is the best losless format to store music files on Hardisk.
Someone told me that WAV format represents the best (and only) way to obtain an audiofile quality. However this format takes a lot of space.
Someone else told me that FLAC format is as good as WAV but it allows to save 50% of space compared to WAV. However it has been called to be involved in alteration of the signal when playing.
Which format do you suggest?
Many thanks
Antonio
Someone told me that WAV format represents the best (and only) way to obtain an audiofile quality. However this format takes a lot of space.
Someone else told me that FLAC format is as good as WAV but it allows to save 50% of space compared to WAV. However it has been called to be involved in alteration of the signal when playing.
Which format do you suggest?
Many thanks
Antonio
I found that post interesting. Thankyou Analogue for bringing it to my attention.
Pertinent for me as I am currently re-ripping my music collection into lossless format. I just built a DDDAC, and the difference between mp3 a lossless format is dramatic.
I listened myself to the difference between WAV and WMA lossless, and I could hear (or imagine) a miniscule difference between the formats in favour of WAV. The difference was so small however I put it down to me rather than the formats, sometimes you can just want to hear something too much.
Perhaps when I upgrade my DDDAC with a slave module or two (I'm listening to just one module just now) the difference will be more dramatic.
However the difference being so small and my HD not being infinately large, I opted to go for the WMA route.
I didn't try FLAC, basicly couldn't be bothered, the guides I read made it look complicated. With MCE on my machine, all I do is insert a disk and it automatically loads it to the drive in WMA
Pertinent for me as I am currently re-ripping my music collection into lossless format. I just built a DDDAC, and the difference between mp3 a lossless format is dramatic.
I listened myself to the difference between WAV and WMA lossless, and I could hear (or imagine) a miniscule difference between the formats in favour of WAV. The difference was so small however I put it down to me rather than the formats, sometimes you can just want to hear something too much.
Perhaps when I upgrade my DDDAC with a slave module or two (I'm listening to just one module just now) the difference will be more dramatic.
However the difference being so small and my HD not being infinately large, I opted to go for the WMA route.
I didn't try FLAC, basicly couldn't be bothered, the guides I read made it look complicated. With MCE on my machine, all I do is insert a disk and it automatically loads it to the drive in WMA
FLAC is the way to go. Stores files in about 60% of space of .wav. It supports tags, similar to mp3, but is lossless compression. Nothing complicated at all. DL Flac front-end for windoze- drag and drop .wav files to convert them to flac. Couldn't be much easier.
flac is open source, so it won't ever go away.
Winamp and any other player worth installing plays .flac files. Squeezebox plays them too.
I_F
flac is open source, so it won't ever go away.
Winamp and any other player worth installing plays .flac files. Squeezebox plays them too.
I_F
I have a dddac/usb, using mostly flac and ape. If you are using a pc, either lossless format is fine.
I've also done foobar abx between flac/ape and wav, after reading similar posts to the one referenced above. I could not nail any difference.
That's not to say there isn't a difference -- decoding a lossless file take more PC horsepower than playing a wav, although dave rightly points out that we have plenty of this nowadays. Looking at a CPU usage monitor, my CPU uses about 0 - 2% of its power playing a wav, and maybe 0 - 3% playing a flac (not a scientific measurement, just looking at task manager in WinXP).
Perhaps there is a latency issue with some PCs, or perhaps the difference some people claim to notice is placebo.
I'd go with ape or flac for the moment -- at least you can tag the files (unlike wav, unless you go in for lengthy cue sheet editing). You can always switch back to wav at a later date (or any other lossless format) anyway if needed.
Out of ape and flac, my vote goes for flac -- for the reasons mentioned above (open source etc... although ape has a tiny advantage on compression last time I looked).
I've also done foobar abx between flac/ape and wav, after reading similar posts to the one referenced above. I could not nail any difference.
That's not to say there isn't a difference -- decoding a lossless file take more PC horsepower than playing a wav, although dave rightly points out that we have plenty of this nowadays. Looking at a CPU usage monitor, my CPU uses about 0 - 2% of its power playing a wav, and maybe 0 - 3% playing a flac (not a scientific measurement, just looking at task manager in WinXP).
Perhaps there is a latency issue with some PCs, or perhaps the difference some people claim to notice is placebo.
I'd go with ape or flac for the moment -- at least you can tag the files (unlike wav, unless you go in for lengthy cue sheet editing). You can always switch back to wav at a later date (or any other lossless format) anyway if needed.
Out of ape and flac, my vote goes for flac -- for the reasons mentioned above (open source etc... although ape has a tiny advantage on compression last time I looked).
analog_sa said:
"Another interesting thing I learned was that I had to be very relaxed in order for the differences to be apparent. When I found myself trying to pick out the differences, I couldn't do it. When I felt I couldn't do it I walked away for a while. Upon coming back and relaxing, it was easier.
"
Typical...
I_F
Antonio Tucci said:
If you really want a lossless format, buy two drives, preferably from different manufacturers, and copy the work drive to the backup drive regularly. Disks will crash, it's just a matter of when.
It's your choice whether avoiding having to rip all that music again is worth the price of another drive.
tests, considerations, viewpoints ...
Interesting things, considerations and tests have been reported on this argument in Audioasylum...
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=20837
Interesting things, considerations and tests have been reported on this argument in Audioasylum...
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=20837
It's more a question of which format will be playable after 10 years from now.
Yes ape has slightly better compression and flac has faster decompression and seeks and is open source and maybe neither one will survive. It depens on their maintainers and on the hardware manufacturers.
OTOH in 10 years disc space may no longer be an issue.
Whatever format you choose make sure you have a backup because it's more likely you will loose al your music after a couple of years courtesy of a dead hdd.
Yes ape has slightly better compression and flac has faster decompression and seeks and is open source and maybe neither one will survive. It depens on their maintainers and on the hardware manufacturers.
OTOH in 10 years disc space may no longer be an issue.
Whatever format you choose make sure you have a backup because it's more likely you will loose al your music after a couple of years courtesy of a dead hdd.
danb1974 said:
Storage space will be an issue even in 10 years. It just won't be on rotating media. The first flash memory based HDD replacements are showing up in laptops, but they're still quite expensive even for 32 GB.
http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-6147032.html
A note on APE..
If you DL music from usenet in the lossless audio groups, you'll see files in both .flac and .ape format. It has been my experience (just looking, not DLing
) that the .flac files are usually prepared in a more "professional" style. Usually, tags are populated correctly (including correct spelling), replaygain is often used. EAC logs are posted so you can see the quality of the rip, and album arts scans are often included.
.ape files are more like mp3s pulled from file sharing networks- tags are usually not populated, spelling errors are common in those that are, rip quality is often poor or unknown.
There are exceptions in both categories...
To sum up, on usenet, the amateurs use .ape and the pros use .flac.
I_F
If you DL music from usenet in the lossless audio groups, you'll see files in both .flac and .ape format. It has been my experience (just looking, not DLing
) that the .flac files are usually prepared in a more "professional" style. Usually, tags are populated correctly (including correct spelling), replaygain is often used. EAC logs are posted so you can see the quality of the rip, and album arts scans are often included..ape files are more like mp3s pulled from file sharing networks- tags are usually not populated, spelling errors are common in those that are, rip quality is often poor or unknown.
There are exceptions in both categories...
To sum up, on usenet, the amateurs use .ape and the pros use .flac.
I_F
Hey I_F,
Of course you like the .flac files better.....
I mean...just look.... every post you have made has an ape shaking his head "No" next to it... subliminal message?
You must have stock in the company that supports the .flac format or something.
Sorry, I had to... No disrespect, you are always in complicated threads adding to the sum (positively, including this one).
Regards//Keith
Of course you like the .flac files better.....
I mean...just look.... every post you have made has an ape shaking his head "No" next to it... subliminal message?
You must have stock in the company that supports the .flac format or something.
Sorry, I had to... No disrespect, you are always in complicated threads adding to the sum (positively, including this one).
Regards//Keith
etcetera said:
Not listed in there is the iPod... it doesn't support flac but it certainly supports full rez files in either AIFF or Apple Lossless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless
My iPod has never seen anything but Apple Lossless files
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.