Converting FLAC to Lossless WAV
Comments
-
Usually if there is something that I need to do on the computer that doesn't warrant spending money on software or I can't find software that will do what I want it to do I'll write it myself.
Opportunity knocks! If I were you, I'd write some 'on-the-fly' (whatever that means) FLAC decompression code that can be proven to be bulletproof -- and then sell it to all those who don't believe the current stuff works!
One problem -- they might not believe that yours works either... -
Yes, PKzip files are pretty solid but if you look at the PKzip spec it says it's 99.9% accurate in its de-compression, so that leaves a 0.1% chance of an error. Granted it doesn't happen very often but it can and does. Don't tell me you've never ever had a zip file that wouldn't unzip.
Just because errors are theoretically possible does not mean there is no such thing as lossless compression. If PKZip did not restore the original file they would have been out of business years ago. Sorry, lossless compression works.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
Dubious? It's not back alley's that you hear this stuff! It's in the press even. I'm not making this up.
To me this is back to that old "it's digital it's got to be perfect" thing. None of us have time for that...do we?
Yes, I know you're serious about audio and I salute you for that! Seriously. But again I was only making the point that FLAC isn't the only choice out there...far from it. And btw...I'm serious about audio too. Made a living with it for over 30 years and much of that going through computer playback from the earliest genterations. Mpeg2, Apt-X. Soundcards galore. The difference in sync slaving to not. Analog with down to 40db S/N and the bandwidth not much more than a phone line but people wanting it sound good. I've fought with phone company dudes that don't have any idea what headroom is or what it means. I've had to have as many as 4 generational changes with a layer of lossy in between in a system end and end and tried to get quality out of it! I've seen the agony over change and don't want to relive some of those things. So if I don't see an album cover, I'm cool with that. If it's important to others, that's great for them.
Some day it'd be cool to make a list of analog distortions and then make a list of digital distortions. They aren't the same at all! The problem with that is that it's so hard to put into words what you can just sit back and hear! It's more of a beer and easy chair topic than a white paper one. Take one of the flat earthers with the blinders on and you can make it all go away but when you want pure musical enjoyment then the little things all add up and do matter! On that (and Pass products), we agree! Rock on...
Carry on' I'm out.
CJA so called science type proudly says... "I do realize that I would fool myself all the time, about listening conclusions and many other observations, if I did listen before buying. That’s why I don’t, I bought all of my current gear based on technical parameters alone, such as specs and measurements."
More amazing Internet Science Pink Panther wisdom..."My DAC has since been upgraded from Mark Levinson to Topping." -
Just because errors are theoretically possible does not mean there is no such thing as lossless compression. If PKZip did not restore the original file they would have been out of business years ago. Sorry, lossless compression works.
I was just curious, so I checked -- nearly half of web sites are now sending compressed data.
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ce-gzipcompression/all/all -
Wrong again, I've probably read, written and revise engineered more compressor/de-compressor source code than you have ever used. For starters Arc, Zip, Rle, Gif, jpeg, mpeg 1-4, huffman, wave, avi, and on and on.
If that's true then you should know better. BTW show me where PKZIP claims only "99.9% accuracy." Methinks you like to talk out your rear...
RT-12, CS350-LS, PSW-300, Infinity Overture 1, Monoprice RC-65i
Adcom GFA-545II, GFA-6000, Outlaw Audio 990, Netgear NeoTV
Denon DCM-460, DMD-1000, Sony BDP-360, Bravia KDL-40Z4100/S
Monster AVL-300, HTS-2500 MKII -
Wow guys... I didn't know you all were so passionate about your audio formats. Lets keep the discussion back to information not flamming... lots of good information floating around.
So I feel much more confortable using Media Monkey to convert FLAC to WAV....
Original 96/24 FLAC file 77.6mb
Crappy WAV one at 64mb and 85.9mb
Media Monkey WAV conversion 128mb
I feel much much more comfortable with Media Monkeys conversionPioneer SC-25 | Adcom GFA-555 | KEF q900 Front | KEF q600 Center | Polk Monitor 30 Rear | Polk CS2 Rear Surround | Polk DSWPRO 660wi sub -
Wrong, If you look at how a compressor works i.e. removing repetitive and or reproducible patterns of bits & bytes from the source making the output smaller, Technically speaking how can you call it lossless when the compressor is throwing chunks of the original data away even though the de-compressor may or may not be able to reproduce the missing chunks hopefully without errors.
I never said it didn't work. What I'm saying is that there is no such thing as a lossless compressed file. It is technically and mathematically impossible to do.Just because errors are theoretically possible does not mean there is no such thing as lossless compression. If PKZip did not restore the original file they would have been out of business years ago. Sorry, lossless compression works.
I can't seem to find that statement right now but I know I've got it somewhere, It's probably in one of the box's of programming stuff that I haven't unpacked yet after I had to move from last years great water heater incident.If that's true then you should know better. BTW show me where PKZIP claims only "99.9% accuracy." Methinks you like to talk out your rear...
As a matter of fact PKZIP's site doesn't make any claims about it accuracy at all other than to say and I quote "PKZIP uses "lossless" compression so no original data is lost when a file is zipped." which makes me wonder if it was 100% accurate wouldn't it be good advertising to have that plastered all over there site. Now don't get me wrong I'm not knocking them they make a very good and reliable product and one that I use but like all software it's not perfect.
Not to be too much of a **** but what part or parts of my statements don't you understand.
Let me put it to you so even a 6 year old can understand - For example lets say that you have a file that is 100 bytes in size but after you compress it it is only 40 bytes in size, Guess what you've lost 60 bytes of the original file there for the compressed file can not be lossless. And if you can't understand that than I give up.
Final word about compressed music, For a home server why bother with the cost of hard drives these days. I mean you can fit over 1400 uncompressed cds (at 700mb each) on one 1tb drive that would cost a lot less than a decent cd rack that could hold the same number of cds.“The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.” ~ Mark Twain -
Not to be too much of a **** but what part or parts of my statements don't you understand.
Let me put it to you so even a 6 year old can understand - For example lets say that you have a file that is 100 bytes in size but after you compress it it is only 40 bytes in size, Guess what you've lost 60 bytes of the original file there for the compressed file can not be lossless. And if you can't understand that than I give up.
You aren't a ****, but you are an idiot. Of course the compressed file is smaller. That is the entire point of compression. :rolleyes:
When your hypothetical example file of 40 compressed bytes is uncompressed then the resultant file is 100 bytes, and identical bit for bit with the original. That is what is meant by lossless compression.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
Not to be too much of a **** but what part or parts of my statements don't you understand.
Let me put it to you so even a 6 year old can understand - For example lets say that you have a file that is 100 bytes in size but after you compress it it is only 40 bytes in size, Guess what you've lost 60 bytes of the original file there for the compressed file can not be lossless. And if you can't understand that than I give up.
This illustrates why you obviously don't understand how compression software works. Those bytes aren't "gone," they're included in the decompression software's dictionary. Certain patterns are replaced with shorter patterns that are referenced to the longer patterns in the dictionary as the file is decompressed. This is why ZIP doesn't work well for compressing audio while FLAC does and vice versa--the dictionaries are tailored to the type of data that is being compressed.
If I wanted to, I could write a compression program that would compress the entire contents of the Library of Congress in to a file no larger than 1KB. It would take a very large and specific compression dictionary, but it could be done. And once that 1KB file was extracted, it would absolutely contain a 100% accurate copy of the entire contents of the Library of Congress.
PKZIP doesn't need to plaster "100% accurate" all over their page because it is unnecessary. Putting "100% accurate" on there would seem like a desperation measure, IMO. If it's lossless, do they really need to constantly preach about how accurate it is? No, they don't.
Lossless is lossless.
RT-12, CS350-LS, PSW-300, Infinity Overture 1, Monoprice RC-65i
Adcom GFA-545II, GFA-6000, Outlaw Audio 990, Netgear NeoTV
Denon DCM-460, DMD-1000, Sony BDP-360, Bravia KDL-40Z4100/S
Monster AVL-300, HTS-2500 MKII -
Yeah, gimpod, you are 100% wrong here, and I can show it in a very simple way:
Take the following numbers:
1234 1945 1220 1208 1005 1957 1379 1829 1782 1847
I want to compress them. My algorithm is you subtract off n from the digits: this is the first number in a string. You use that n for the next x digits; x is the second number. so the original string becomes:
1000 10 234 945 220 208 5 957 379 829 782 847
Holy COW! That's less space. Can we get our original numbers back?... Yep! Ta da!
That's a totally half-assed algorithm... a better one would recursively find the best n's to get the highest ratios. This is where the setting of compressors matter- you use more CPU when you compress, but the algorithms tend to be very asymmetrical: decompression is quite simple and not recursive.
What you're missing is the difference between INFORMATION and data. Data can be highly inefficient. Information is an abstract idea that is the minimal representation of a set of data. You can theoretically reduce data down to its core information, and the degree to which a compression algorithm does that is its efficiency.Gallo Ref 3.1 : Bryston 4b SST : Musical fidelity CD Pre : VPI HW-19
Gallo Ref AV, Frankengallo Ref 3, LC60i : Bryston 9b SST : Meridian 565
Jordan JX92s : MF X-T100 : Xray v8
Backburner:Krell KAV-300i -
Look, we all know what a pain it is ripping hundreds (if not thousands) of CD's, and putting together your music library; we're simply passing on some info so later down the road you don't have a serious "aw ****" moment. I have compared wav to flac, streaming PCM rather than streaming flac (doing the conversion on the server), flac to CD---all of it sounds exactly the same. Take the info for what it's worth.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2
-
LOL.... I found this and thought it somewhat applicable here:
"....not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." William Bruce Cameron, Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking (1963) -
When a metal spring is compressed, it still retains the same mass.
-
The only possible differences might me found in the device/media (Hard drive vs optical transport), and "how" that data is read (armature/platter vs laser/CD). If differences even exist.
Bottom line: Flac=Wav, but with far more flexible tagging; and uses less storage space.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2 -
You guys are so close to understanding what I'm saying that I'm going to give it one more shot.
What you guys are not getting is the TERMINOLOGY. The term "lossless compressor" is a misnomer even though it is used through out the computer industry that doesn't make it right, Technically it should be "lossless decompressor". When you feed a uncompressed file into a compressor the compressor outputs a compressed file that can contain a reduced subset of the original data and or information that the decompressor can use to rebuild the original data that was in the original uncompressed file. What I'm talking about is the actual compressed file that is produced by the compressor not what is produced by the decompressor.
So once again a compressed file and I say again "a compressed file" by the very nature of what the compressor dose can not be "lossless" and FYI the terms "lossy" and "lossless" in regards to file compression didn't come about until the advent of using compression for digital audio, video and true color images i.e. mpeg and jpeg for the most part, If I recall there were a few early compressors that were tried but didn't workout very well in terms of there ability to maintain acceptable quality and compressibility at the same time.
Mr BlueFox thank you for showing your true colors and immaturity by resorting to public name calling. Let me assure you that even if and I say IF I thought you were an idiot I would never publicly say so or even say it to your face in private as it is an impolite and uncivilized thing to do. BTW Of course I realize the compressed file is smaller and at the same time it is not comparable to the original uncompressed file. That's the point I'm trying to make.You aren't a ****, but you are an idiot. Of course the compressed file is smaller. That is the entire point of compression. :rolleyes:
When your hypothetical example file of 40 compressed bytes is uncompressed then the resultant file is 100 bytes, and identical bit for bit with the original. That is what is meant by lossless compression.“The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.” ~ Mark Twain -
Mr BlueFox thank you for showing your true colors and immaturity by resorting to public name calling. Let me assure you that even if and I say IF I thought you were an idiot I would never publicly say so or even say it to your face in private as it is an impolite and uncivilized thing to do. BTW Of course I realize the compressed file is smaller and at the same time it is not comparable to the original uncompressed file. That's the point I'm trying to make.
I stand by my statement. As you state:Let me put it to you so even a 6 year old can understand
:rolleyes:
Why are you wasting everyone's time on some stupid semantic argument? As has been said, you have no idea what lossless compression means.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
:rolleyes:
I now get what he's saying and it's completely pointless. I just realized I'd heard someone call "lossless compression" an oxymoron before and that guy was able to explain his flawed thought process a lot better.
He's saying it's an oxymoron since the filesize is smaller. Thus, the filesize lost something when the file was compressed. In his terminology, Lossless means the filesize is all there, bit for bit. Compressed means it isn't.
However, the rest of computer industry correctly uses "lossless" to refer to information NOT bits. If the original information can be stored in a format which uses less bits and can be passed through an algorithm which restores the original bits perfectly, it's called "lossless" by everyone (except gimpod).
So to summarize:
Lossless compression exists. It is an algorithm which stores the same information in less bits, and allows those bits to be restored perfectly. Different types of algorithms are made for different types of data. PKZIP was originally tailored for text; FLAC for 16bit wavs; there's even a lossless JPEG format made for pictures. It accomplishes this mostly by taking advantages in the patterns of numbers that represent the information stored. Furthermore, several of my clients use checksums to guarantee file versioning and I have NEVER had one come back wrong as a result of zipping/unzipping. On top of that I've actually done the exercise of converting to flac back to wav, burn, rip and checked against the original file with a 100% match. Lossless is lossless.Gallo Ref 3.1 : Bryston 4b SST : Musical fidelity CD Pre : VPI HW-19
Gallo Ref AV, Frankengallo Ref 3, LC60i : Bryston 9b SST : Meridian 565
Jordan JX92s : MF X-T100 : Xray v8
Backburner:Krell KAV-300i -
In the end, WAV, FLAC, WavPack, APE and all the rest of the "lossless" audio formats whether they are compressed or uncompressed result in an exact copy of the original uncompressed data.
Currently the best overall format IMO is FLAC. It's the most-popular for good reason. I convert all the other formats to FLAC using dbpoweramp. The file size is smaller than WAV and it has better tagging.
I can't imagine why anyone would prefer WAV to FLAC other than it is more native to Microsoft but there are codecs for Media Player that will play FLAC just as easily too so it's really not an issue worth bothering with for no other possible reason other than to have larger file sizes. -
Faasoft's great Audio Converter is probably one of the best commercial choices though. With it, you can easily convert FLAC to WAV without quality loss. I used this tool for about a year and works like a charm.
-
Is this the new "cables don't matter" thread. lol
I guess the premise here is that a compressed file is some how inferior to an uncompressed file. Not sure if their is any truth to that at all on paper, but I've heard both and can say with certainty that I'll be damned if I can pick which is which. If I can't distinguish, then why in the world would I want to waste the added space it takes for a WAV file ?HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
It smells like testosterone in here. But don't fret, most forums are like this. That is what anonymity provides. If we were all in a room together we'd be laughing and drinking it up. You might think badly about someone, but you sure as hell wouldn't throw it out there publicly. This is just chat room "road rage".Pioneer SC-1523-K and VSX-1018AH-K; Polk Monitor 75T Fronts, Pioneer S-HF11C Center, Cerwin Vega VE-5M surrounds and backs; Polk PSW-505 with Mediabridge SW cable; Onkyo SKW-204 with Mediabridge SW cable; Oppo BDP-103; Akai GX-255 Open Reel.
