WAV vs. FLAC vs. AIFF

AE,

I have been very impressed with sound of both older Soundbridge and newer Logitech Squeezebox Touch as a source mainly ( I do not use built in DACs of either). Definitely better than anything I had prior and competitive in my mind with the better reference digital rigs I have heard at various dealers. The ultimate complement is that I have a large record collection and vinyl is not getting a lot of play time these days.

I am interested to see what devices like these come along down the road, but I must say, as a fairly picky and particular listener, and also as one who has worked in computer systems and software development for almost 30 years now, that I think the SQ Touch hits a nice target in terms of offering a combo of top notch sound (as a source mainly, I have never even tried the built in DAC though I hear it is not bad), features and effective design overall at a very favorable price point. Definitely a device that when used properly changes the playing field of high end audio considerably and serves as a good omen for perhaps even better things down the road.

I have not done extensive comparisons, but .wav and flac seem to be a wash in terms of inherent sound quality due to format alone. The difference is what is done with teh format, ie how well the recording is made and how well delivered during playback. Just like CDE, vinyl or any other format, recording quality will range from very bad to very good.

The main considerations are compatibility with your gear and how you will handle metadata/tagging.

flac is better for flexible metadata and tagging over time, if that is something you really want to spend time doing. Personaly I do not. I mostly use .wav and make sure the metadata is correct before ripping. This approach works well ripping with Windows Media Player (good quality rips possible and is included with most WIndows computers) and using Logitech MEdia Server (formerly Squeezeserver) as the music server for Squeeze or other compatible devices . The caveat is thatyou cannot change metadata tags (artis, album, title, etc.) once ripped with .wav. You have to redo the rip with new metadata to make a change, which is pretty easy assuming you actually have access to the original CDs ripped when needed. I recommend keeping your CDs as archived versions of your music and for reference as needed. Do not rip and then get rid of the CDs. You might regret it later.

You need to pick another program to rip .flac, but once you do, then that format works well for editing tags when needed and also sounds good with the Logitech/Squeeze system.

Beware of any conclusions drawn about sound quality differences between formats based on a limited test sample. any results are possible. In teh end, I believe the format to be essentially a wash in regards to how good it can sound.

I use network players designed to stream audio as the source feed to the dac. That keeps any issues that might be associated with using a general purpose computer as the source out of the picture.

With this approach there is no audible difference.

OTherwise, there are many factors that can come into play that affects sound with any source type for that matter. Power/jitter issues associated with decompression processing can stand in line with all the rest.

But the format itself does not correlate to sound quality in general though. Lots of other crap can go wrong and chances are it does so differently because of different hardware and software processing scenarios for different formats. The devil is all in the details. But not in the source format itself. If processed properly, teh results are the same. That can be a big if though.

Personally, I prefer .wav. Probably lower risk in general but not inherently better or worse otherwise.

Roku, Logitech, .wav, flac. It all sounds essentially the same and quite excellent to the point where if there is a difference it is not an issue at least for me.

FWIW, I can change most anything else in my system and hear a clear difference, including ICs, but none at all with any combo of Roku, Logitech, .wav, FLAC.

It also doesn't matter what kind of computer I use for the server. I've used various notebooks over teh past few years. They all sound the same witht eh network player approach. The only issue is if they have enough memory and CPU speed to stream in real time without rebuffering at the network player occurring and how fast library scans and such take. Squeezeserver on my current 8 Gb Gateway laptop can completely reload its music library from a USB disk drive in about 10 minutes (1700 albums, 18000 tracks, 99% .wav, 1% flac and mp3 downloads so far).

Roku Soundbridge is an older and curently poorly supported platform, so I do not recommend that these days, but otherwise the sound quality through a good DAC is top notch as is Squeezebox Touch through the same DAC (I've used several....DACs make a HUGE sound difference, so worry about that first).

AE,

Exactly!

The network player essentially serves as a "proxy" and effectively isolates the DAC and the rest of the audio system from direct interaction with the computer.

ITs definitely the way to go for those who would fret about how well their computer might play in a high end audio system, assuming your network has sufficient bandwidth.

Most home wireless G networks with moderate to strong connections should work fine under normal circumstances unless others in the house are in heavy competition for bandwidth. Squeezebox Server (now Logitech Media Server) actually converts files to lossless but compressed FLAC to make better use of network bandwidth and this solution works very well. Roku soundbridge does not but also tends to rebuffer more frequently with weaker connections in that data is not compressed before transmission. Roku Soundbridge and Squeezebox Touch both sound essentially identical in my rig.

""Malfunction"? Are you saying that the 16/24 bit data for each sample is incorrect? That the data that comes out of a flac decode is different that the wav data?"

That is exactly the point. There are many reasons why the data in each format might be different even if originating from the same CD. Anything can happen with computers and their programming at any time and often does. But the one thing that is not different is the ability of each format to store the exact same digital representation bit per bit.

That is why the format is not the issue, rather the issues may occur with everything that happens both during the rip and during playing/streaming of the digital data stream at each phase of processing prior to hitting the DAC and being converted to analog.

So the bottom line is that each format may result in different decisions being made in terms of how to minimize the risk of all the gadgets involved in ripping and playing doing more harm than good. Network audio streaming I agree is one of the simplest, least expensive and practical ways to help accomplish this.

Most general purpose computers have no business being connected directly to your high end audio gear! Think of this as a form of isolation, similar to other steps you might take to isolate your rig from potential sources of noise.

Also think of network players as a specialized type of computer that is designed to stream audio effectively to your rig. Although this is still an emerging audio solution, it is one that lends itself well to solving the problems using technology that is readily available and affordable TODAY.

When I first started with integrating computer audio with my audio system, I used an analog stereo to rca Y IC (audioquest) from my old laptop headphone jack to aux input on my preamp at teh time. I recorded several CDs of music with Real player. I since ripped these back to my current music server setup and play via Squeezebox Touch along with the rest. The sound quality after all that is still quite good but there is some noticeable deficiencies mostly in dynamics, compared to other very good recordings. Still "hi fi" I would say and quite listenable (nothing offensive, mostly just a bit of omission). I say its much better than most home cassette recordings I have heard over the years but not current SOTA. So in many cases with computer audio I think the glass is still significantly more than half full even in less than ideal circumstances compared to past options, unless something is flat out just not working properly as designed.

"The amount of processing used to decode a FLAC file is really minimal. I just do not see that minor extra processing having much effect."

I'd say that is a true statement plus the fact that on a general purpose computer for example, there are many processes and threads executing at any particular time, so it is hard for me to tie any adverse effects in general to just that process. Yet another reason to isolate system from general purpose computer as best as possible as an insurance policy at a minimum.

If flac or any format encoded + decoded produces different results than original, assuming same resolution applied throughout then there is either a bug or defect in the system somewhere or a decision was made to sacrifice detail rather than implement a robust design. Like I said, things like bugs and defects can and do happen.

But if it is done correctly format encoding to and from at same resolution should produce the same results. IF not the case, please offer a more specific example of why.

ANother reason to go with devices explicitly designed to retain sound quality in a high end system. Real time compression/decompression, encoding/decoding is easily achieved with readily available modern processors. It is not rocket science to do right. But it still has to be done right......