Daniel Dopp Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I've been trying to figure this question out. I simply don't understand the math/science/physics behind this. A 24/96 wav file is uncompressed, and thus preferred for pressing vinyl. A FLAC file can also be 24bit but isn't it compressed in some kind of way in order to reduce the file size, and doesn't that mean it's not actually lossless because it technically had to lose something in order to have a smaller file size? Please educate me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadmonkey Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 flac is a compressed version of wav files. it takes more CPU power to read/process flac than it does for a wav file. Computers are fast enough these days where that CPU power consumption difference is very negligible. It's like playing music from a zip version vs the extracted version. edit: more info here: http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/WAV-FLAC.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tardcore Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Think of it like zip compression. If you take a large text file and zip/unzip it, you don't wind up with a text file with missing letters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Dopp Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 So that brings me to my follow on question. If I were to press a record from a FLAC file, would it be inferior to the 24 bit .wav file? Or is the sound difference going to be negligible? I'm planning on pressing a one off record of one of my buddies (Mike Dunn and the Kings of New England), and I have the FLAC files for the album, but I don't have the 24bit masters from him. Based on your opinions, is it going to make any difference in the sound quality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinch Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 24bit flac files are identical (in terms of fidelity) to 24bit wav files. If have the files with lower bit depth, then yes, they'll be inferior. Inaudibly on anything less than a high end setup, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swemoll Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 As long as you are sure the FLAC files are the 24-bit versions, you are good (as everyone else has said). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefoxUSSR Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Truth be told it's very difficult to distinguish between a well mastered 16-bit or 24-bit source, wav or flac. What is really easy to tell is poorly mastered for the medium: vinyl LPs. If the recording has brickwall filtering aka hard limiting (poor sound), no de-essing (sibilance) or a non-monaural bass track (tracking problems), those will cause all sorts of problems sound-wise. Suffice it to say- a 24-bit master optimized for CD will sound worse than a 16-bit master optimized for LP. maybe have a look here for some tips: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/88683-vinyl-mastering-guidelines.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swemoll Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Truth be told, I find it rather easy to tell the difference between almost any 16-bit and 24-bit source, let alone the well-mastered ones. The difference between those two quantization amounts ends up being quite staggering when playing back music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.