Why do so many quality DACs sound better with WAV than FLAC, AIFF, and others?

[caesar]

Why do so many DACs sound better playing WAV files than anything else? Playing WAV files, rather than other formats, sounds fuller, richer, and more lifelike than other formats - to my ears and to many others in this hobby.

Some claim it is because it takes less processing power on the part of the DAC to uncompress other formats, resulting in better utilization of DAC resources and processing.

Anyone know what really is going on?

 

[edorr]

Why do so many DACs sound better playing WAV files than anything else? Playing WAV files, rather than other formats, sounds fuller, richer, and more lifelike than other formats - to my ears and to many others in this hobby.

Some claim it is because it takes less processing power on the part of the DAC to uncompress other formats, resulting in better utilization of DAC resources and processing.

Anyone know what really is going on?

The decompression (or more accurately conversion) is not done in the dac, but by the music server. If there is a difference, it would be the conversion on the server adding jitter to the signal feeding the dac.

Maybe it has to do with the ears - I could never tell a difference.

 

[Andre Marc]

Why do so many DACs sound better playing WAV files than anything else? Playing WAV files, rather than other formats, sounds fuller, richer, and more lifelike than other formats - to my ears and to many others in this hobby.

Some claim it is because it takes less processing power on the part of the DAC to uncompress other formats, resulting in better utilization of DAC resources and processing.

Anyone know what really is going on?

Audiophile mythology.

 

[asiufy]

And AIFF is the same as WAV, uncompressed PCM data. There should, and there is (AFAIK), no difference between them. In practical terms, AIFF is superior, as it supports metadata and WAV doesn't.

 

[Alpinist]

Why do so many DACs sound better playing WAV files than anything else? Playing WAV files, rather than other formats, sounds fuller, richer, and more lifelike than other formats - to my ears and to many others in this hobby.

Some claim it is because it takes less processing power on the part of the DAC to uncompress other formats, resulting in better utilization of DAC resources and processing.

Anyone know what really is going on?

I have found that WAV and AIFF files consistently sound better through my system than FLAC and ALAC. The difference is that WAV and AIFF are uncompressed and FLAC and ALAC are compressed. The processing speed of your computer or music server plays a big part, as the compressed file is uncompressed on the fly. If your computer has a very fast processing speed, you should hear less difference between the compressed and uncompressed files than if your computer or music server has a slower processing speed.

Ken

 

[Whatmore]

Do they?

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I realize I may be an odd ball. First, I do not do stereo hardly at all. Multichannel music, discretely recorded is way better to me, and how I normally listen. My normal PC playback scheme involves Mch hi rez DSD files as stored natively, converted the fly to PCM and the application of Dirac Live Room EQ filters, on top of bass management crossovers applied by JRiver. PC utilization is low on my plain vanilla, 1 generation old I7 PC nonetheless. I have even run many multiple simultaneous file ripping tasks while listening, boosting CPU utilization into the 90% range. So, we are talking Mch audio processing, DSD-PCM conversion, Room EQ plus other extraneous tasks all at once.

Have I ever heard a difference? None whatsoever. It sounds phenomenal, even much better than pure DSD to the DAC, which I can do and I have compared.

Not saying that there might be some other inherent advantage of WAV vs. FLAC, neither of which I use much. It does not seem a significant advantage to me. But, unless one is using an extremely resource challenged computer, I doubt that computer resources are an issue.

BTW - discretely recorded multichannel is just sonically way beyond these concerns in stereo.

 

[amirm]

Decoding of FLAC files on a modern PC does not even register as far as load. As I am typing this, I am *encoding* my WMA Lossless files into FLAC using the highest setting and it is running at 250X real-time! Again, it is encoding 250 times faster than real-time speed. Decoding is far less CPU intensive.

 

[Andre Marc]

Decoding of FLAC files on a modern PC does not even register as far as load. As I am typing this, I am *encoding* my WMA Lossless files into FLAC using the highest setting and it is running at 250X real-time! Again, it is encoding 250 times faster than real-time speed. Decoding is far less CPU intensive.

Exactly. A lowly iPod Touch can decode ALAC files in milliseconds.

I have said all along, if one can hear differences between FLAC, ALAC, AIFF, or WAV, there is something very wrong with the system on the host side.

 

[Andre Marc]

I have found that WAV and AIFF files consistently sound better through my system than FLAC and ALAC. The difference is that WAV and AIFF are uncompressed and FLAC and ALAC are compressed. The processing speed of your computer or music server plays a big part, as the compressed file is uncompressed on the fly. If your computer has a very fast processing speed, you should hear less difference between the compressed and uncompressed files than if your computer or music server has a slower processing speed.

Ken

Actually everything is buffered into memory, there is no decoding on the fly. It is your playback software that will do this.

And if you are using a NAS to stream via ethernet there is total isolation between processing and DAC.

There are lots of brainwashed audiophiles out there.

 

[FrantzM]

Actually everything is buffered into memory, there is no decoding on the fly. It is your playback software that will do this.

And if you are using a NAS to stream via ethernet there is total isolation between processing and DAC.

There are lots of brainwashed audiophiles out there.

Exactly. A lowly iPod Touch can decode ALAC files in milliseconds.

I have said all along, if one can hear differences between FLAC, ALAC, AIFF, or WAV, there is something very wrong with the system on the host side.

Decoding of FLAC files on a modern PC does not even register as far as load. As I am typing this, I am *encoding* my WMA Lossless files into FLAC using the highest setting and it is running at 250X real-time! Again, it is encoding 250 times faster than real-time speed. Decoding is far less CPU intensive.

Audiophile mythology.

+ Many


And this will not die any time soon ...

 

[microstrip]

Exactly. A lowly iPod Touch can decode ALAC files in milliseconds.

I have said all along, if one can hear differences between FLAC, ALAC, AIFF, or WAV, there is something very wrong with the system on the host side.

Telling something must be wrong is the easy think. IMHO telling exactly WHAT is wrong and how it can be solved is the real challenge of the OP.

 

[prerich]

Decoding of FLAC files on a modern PC does not even register as far as load. As I am typing this, I am *encoding* my WMA Lossless files into FLAC using the highest setting and it is running at 250X real-time! Again, it is encoding 250 times faster than real-time speed. Decoding is far less CPU intensive.

Agreed!!!! I've actually watched a Blu-ray with smooth video project (SVP4) running while using Red October HQ settings, while searching the web in another window. Not a strain on my FX-6300 at all....and that's video with multichannel audio!!!!

 

[prerich]

Actually everything is buffered into memory, there is no decoding on the fly. It is your playback software that will do this.

And if you are using a NAS to stream via ethernet there is total isolation between processing and DAC.

There are lots of brainwashed audiophiles out there.

Excellent post!!!!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Telling something must be wrong is the easy think. IMHO telling exactly WHAT is wrong and how it can be solved is the real challenge of the OP.

Perhaps, but knowing something is wrong answers the original question.

Tim

 

[edorr]

Agreed!!!! I've actually watched a Blu-ray with smooth video project (SVP4) running while using Red October HQ settings, while searching the web in another window. Not a strain on my FX-6300 at all....and that's video with multichannel audio!!!!

I can top that. Doing the same while also applying Dirac DRC. On audio only I do MCH DSD -> PCM conversion and run Dirac. PC does not break a sweat....

 

[microstrip]

An interesting article on this subject. http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/WAV-FLAC.htm

 

[Andre Marc]

Telling something must be wrong is the easy think. IMHO telling exactly WHAT is wrong and how it can be solved is the real challenge of the OP.

The downside of computer audio is the infinite variables. I would love to help, who wouldn't? But not knowing the micro details of the set up it is virtually impossible.

CA requires a good amount of basic pre knowledge and problem solving skills. That is just a fact. And the fact that the OP got the very premise wrong about DACs and file formats
is curious.

 

[Audioseduction]

I have found that WAV and AIFF files consistently sound better through my system than FLAC and ALAC. The difference is that WAV and AIFF are uncompressed and FLAC and ALAC are compressed. The processing speed of your computer or music server plays a big part, as the compressed file is uncompressed on the fly. If your computer has a very fast processing speed, you should hear less difference between the compressed and uncompressed files than if your computer or music server has a slower processing speed.

Ken

Ken, none of my flac files are compressed and I think they sound equal to wav files.

 

[caesar]

Gentlemen,

I appreciate the feedback and the passion. Most of you guys have heard a lot more DACs than me and understand this a lot better. I have a feeling it applies in some cases, but not all. But let me provide 2 concrete examples:

1. I recently spoke to Brian Zolner of Bricasti. This guy makes a top 10 DAC on the market (and some would argue a top 5 DAC). Stereophile guys love both the sound and measurements of his DAC. And Zolner is more engineer than audiophile - he told straight out that anything other a $3 USB cable from China is bull sh*t. Yet he recommends ripping all files to WAV. Something must be going, but what?

2. Naim digital sounds better in WAV. Heard it on my buddy's system: he played a FLAC file and then got his upnp server to convert it WAV. And it's really obvious - it does sound fuller, more natural, and more musical. ( I was completely sober and un-medicated when I heard the differences ) Furthermore, it's recommended all over the Naim forum. And although Naim doesn't publish the WAV over FLAC recommendation, their product support will tell you to rip everything into WAV. Now Naim has a business of upselling power supplies, DACs, and other components to get people on the upgrade path. So it's possible they somehow engineered their products to sound this way. Yet if it's just simple math processing, what the heck is going on?

Interesting hobby we have, don't we?