FLAC also has robust tagging like MP3 built into the format. dBPowerAmp's CD Ripper will put robust
tag information on WAV rips, and Tag&Rename editor can work with them just fine, but apparently some
pro-grade audio programs then claim those WAV files are "corrupted". If I then edit one of those WAV
files in Sony Soundforge, the tag information is lost, so dBPowerAmp must be putting it somewhere
not 100% standard to the WAV format, but something that all players and CD writer software that I
own don't mind (ie they play the files just fine).
The macro-problem with FLAC is that Apple is institutionally hostile to the format so it's not
recognized by any Apple-made software. Since everything costs something in the Mac world, you need
to spend some cash on third-party software to use FLAC widely on the Mac platform. In the Windows
world, you can deal with FLAC widely with no-cost software, and it is recognized by all decent
rippers, taggers, audio editor, players, etc.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Is it time to rethink FLAC ?
> On 5/10/2015 3:05 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>> Having used FLAC files for years, both creating them and purchasing
>> them, I cannot hear any difference from WAV. One of the audiophile
>> magazines, I think Absolute Sound, presented some subjective listening
>> opinions claiming to hear the difference between FLAC and WAV played
>> with one of the non-free playback programs. I cannot hear any difference
>> using Foobar 2000 on Windows XP and Windows 7 platforms, Same for using
>> the Logitech Squeezebox Touch music streamer, digital output going to my
>> Benchmark DAC/preamp. I have most of my CD's ripped to a FLAC archive,
>> mostly listened to across the network, either via the Squeezebox in the
>> main system or streaming to various other devices via ethernet or wifi.
> I can testify also that a .flac file made from a 16-bit original, expanded back into .wav, is
> bit-for-bit identical to the original.I determined this by inverting one of the files, loading the
> original and the .wav-to-.flac-to .wav files into a DAW, and summing them. The result is utter
> digital -- nary a departure from 000000 in the entire file. Haven't tried the experiment with
> 24-bit files, but I'm looking forward to having the free time to do so.
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.