Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: WAV or FLAC (Read 5797 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WAV or FLAC

Hi,

Just a quick question?

If space is no problem is it worth saving files as WAV files or FLAC?

Are WAVs good for archiving or is there no point in using the extra space as a FLAC file is exactly the same as the original WAV.

Thanks,
Ian

WAV or FLAC

Reply #1 –
There is no point in saving WAV... unless you have a huge HD in a very slow computer  (decoding the flac takes some resources)

WAV or FLAC

Reply #2 –
Not having tried it myself, can you tag and replaygain WAV files? If not, that would be a reason to use FLAC (or some other lossless codec) even if space is not a problem.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

WAV or FLAC

Reply #3 –
WAV files have some comment/tag system but I don't think most programs support it.
There is no place for replaygain info though (unless you append ape tags to the wav file which is not a good idea in general and only useful if you use foobar2000).

WAV or FLAC

Reply #4 –
Quote
There is no place for replaygain info though (unless you append ape tags to the wav file which is not a good idea in general and only useful if you use foobar2000).
No, there are even specs how to store replaygain-info in wav-files: http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/file_format_wav.html
But just like wav-tags, most programs will just ignore them.

WAV or FLAC

Reply #5 –
Most? is there a single one that supports it?

WAV or FLAC

Reply #6 –
Quote
Most? is there a single one that supports it?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=226269"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think a better solution would be to save a wav image and create a cue file.  Fb2k will add tags into the cue file (even for replay-gain) and will subsequently read them.

OP: If you're looking for a one-file-per-track solution flac is probably the man for the job because of the ease-of-use features associated with tagging.  On the other hand, if you're looking to create a CD image (one-file-per-CD), then wav plus a cue file (I guess that's 2 files per CD) is not a bad way to go.
------- Rick -------
--------------------

WAV or FLAC

Reply #7 –
I can't say that I have full confidence in FLAC as an archival format. I am having problems getting any compression level above 2 to not introduce any artifacts while encoding one of my 24/96 WAV files.

WAV or FLAC

Reply #8 –
Quote
I can't say that I have full confidence in FLAC as an archival format. I am having problems getting any compression level above 2 to not introduce any artifacts while encoding one of my 24/96 WAV files.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=227010"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Please avoid such statements in other threads while it was still not determined whether FLAC itself is the reason for your problem, or if your computer setup is flawed in some way (e.g. due to a defective hard disk, memory etc.).

WAV or FLAC

Reply #9 –
Wav has no built-in error checking - FLAC does. If your hard drive gets curruptet, you can test your FLAC files for curruption.

WAV or FLAC

Reply #10 –
Quote
I can't say that I have full confidence in FLAC as an archival format. I am having problems getting any compression level above 2 to not introduce any artifacts while encoding one of my 24/96 WAV files.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=227010"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Something must be flawed on your end.  Many, many people have no problem with FLAC at any compression level.
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

WAV or FLAC

Reply #11 –
I use flac at "medium" compression, I dont know if thats "2" to you.  No real problems whatsoever.  You may notice they take a little longer to cue, because some decoding is involved.  You may also notice that encoding to lossy formats takes longer because the flac must be uncompressed first.

I love that I can tag them, and I love the GB's of space saved.  Every CD or Song I buy goes right to flac and I delete the source file.  Flac is the lossless codec of choice for many online music retailers too, it has a good reputation as far as I know.  Ditch wav and it's old school windows heritage!

WAV or FLAC

Reply #12 –
Quote
Quote
I can't say that I have full confidence in FLAC as an archival format. I am having problems getting any compression level above 2 to not introduce any artifacts while encoding one of my 24/96 WAV files.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=227010"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Something must be flawed on your end.  Many, many people have no problem with FLAC at any compression level.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=227043"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



I apologize, as you seem to have ascertained the problem.
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

WAV or FLAC

Reply #13 –
parallax > You may also notice that encoding to lossy formats takes longer because the flac must be uncompressed first

Not necessarily...

OggDropXPd directly transcodes flac to ogg (or at least can decompress/encode small pieces of the flac w/o requiring full file decompression first).

xen-uno
No one can be told what Ogg Vorbis is...you have to hear it for yourself
- Morpheus