The processing power required to play flac is insignificant for modern cpus - in fact the higher bandwidth of larger files (particularly if accessing that data from $50 dollar mechanical drives) is probably just as system demanding. And wav files do contain/can support metadata.
wav can definitely store metadata, but it's not too easy to find ripper that will write it. I still prefer it, because it's super fast to rip CD's in wav.
I am not an audio engineer or audiophile but a few years ago, my 300 lbs wife sat on a cd and after playing it later, I noticed the sound seemed compressed.
A modern CPU has enormous processing power and can process a flac file effortlessly. Power supply noise is a non-issue unless the electronics are total garbage. In other words, a flac file wil sound identical to a wav file.
In a computer such as a desktop or a SBC, the CPU is always doing something else such as running the OS routines, drivers, etc. So you do get an overhead inducing more power.
@@AxelPironio Buffering exists. It can (and will) process enough to allow music to play, do some other things, and come back when the buffer is close to empty. There is 0 issue running FLAC on any system even slightly modern (last 10 years at least), even with mountains of other processes running.
@@AxelPironio and still it couldn't care less! I can even delete the whole files while they play - not magic, the are completly loaded and decoded BEFORE start to play them out of RAM
Paul, I have to tell you Im 53 and have been an audiophile all my adult life .. and You my friend have taught me so much in the last couple of years. I just think your the best teacher ever. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.
With today's processors, uncompressing FLAC is insignificant compared to background activity of any computer, so increased power consumption is a red herring. Also, storage on mobile is not quite as un-limited as on desktop units. In order to send files back and forth between server and mobile, FLAC makes most sense, IMHO. There are other galvanically isolated DACs such as the HoloAudio May DAC, which I happen to enjoy.
If memory serves, Onkyo had a cd player, I think it was the DX320, that used opticouplers to do the same job. This was back in the nineteen hundred and nineties AD.
Adding metadata to wav files used to be an issue but it has been perfectly possible for quite some time. dB power amp for example can tag wav files in a perfectly compatible manner so that player apps such as Squeeze, MPD, and Roon have no problems reading it.
I know Paul has forgotten more about audio than I will ever know. However, my Intel Core I5 processor can run Jriver, decode flac, upsample everything to 24 bit 174.6kHz and still not go over 3% cpu usage. This may be a theoretical issue but I think it's a unicorn in the real world.
It is now possible for a .wav file to have metadata info. I use my YAMAHA AVENTAGE BD-A1060 BLU-RAY PLAYER. To listen to both wav and flac files. Via a local USB storage device connected to it, and I enjoy it quite a bit.
1. Decoding a FLAC to PCM stream is NOT a real time process. You can have as much buffer as you like to pre-decode the FLAC, even DAC is running asynchronously nowadays, your streaming service also runs asynchronously, as well as inherently the internet protocol in place. A few milliseconds delay from the time you press PLAY, to actually you listen to the music, most people don't care. 2. WAV file can have meta-data, artist information, cover art, etc. 3. Use a seperate computer to play the file and then to connect to a DAC (if you like, use TOSLINK), then, it's galvanically separating the CPU from the DAC, they don't share power supply. Nothing special.
You can have a good second of delay, most people won't care. Playing music is an application where latency doesn't matter, so you can buffer all you want.
@@brunoch95 Correct. FLAC, WAV, they produce exactly the same sound. The controls might be a fraction of a second slower to respond on FLAC, but that's so insignificant you can just ignore it.
In my setup a Dell sff PC with Jriver decompresses and upsamples my Flac files and then sends them through USB to my DAC which only has to convert to analog and send a signal to the amp. It all sounds pretty frickin' good to my ears.
Decoding a FLAC file is insignificant for a modern CPU, almost any other task performed by the OS consumes more CPU... for example: if you use NTFS as filesystem and you have compression enabled even reading a file is more demanding than decoding flac and nobody cares about it!!
With Jriver, you have the option to load the file and uncompress into memory before playback - to be honest I can't notice a difference, skipping tracks just takes a little longer.
On a modern computer you can get around some of the issues of decompressing an audio file by using a program like Foobar or Audirvana. They buffer the audio into memory before they communicate with the audio device and then stream the data to USB. This at least reduces some noise. Then you can use a galvanic isolator on the usb cable or get a cable with no power line in it.
besides that it's normal to decomoress the whole file when you have USB in the chain get a USB soundcard with an optical output and all your problems are solved it's idiotic doing DAC early in the chain
@@vylbird8014 No. If you play a file like mp3, it will only decode frames (blocks) of audio as it plays it back. It doesn't decompress to a raw audio file and then send it to the speaker. I also looked at the source code for FLAC decoding, and it also decompresses the blocks as a stream, meaning it doesn't load the entire thing into memory. If it did, low end computers would really suck at audio playback.
@@Harald_Reindl optical outputs can introduce higher jitter (the shift in time between data packets) and thus degrade the signal. Also they're bandwidth constrained so it's better to use SPDIF or USB as your digital transport. If you don't care about that though, optical is fine though.
@@dudexyt Bullshit! I can delete the whole source file after the first second played and it will be played completly by my music player daemon the decoding library don't matter that much but as audiophile you don't know much about technical facts
Having grown up listening to cassettes, using generic players through really terrible headphones, we are spoiled rotten with modern options. I found a used pair of Infinity Qa (1977) speakers for $15 at a Goodwill, and they are the best sounding speakers I have ever owned. I recently acquired several Rush CDs: 2112, A Farewell To Kings, Hemispheres, Permanent Waves & Moving Pictures - they all sound so lively through this pair, and I am transported to that era. I can only imagine what your Reference Room would sound like.
if this video was 20 years ago I might agree with it. But today - like other posters have said - the processing power necessary to uncomp even the highest resolution audio files is practically insignificant. Even the CPU in a fitbit could do it without breaking a sweat - and without degrading the audio. The risk of proc noise and degradation of SQ because of a "taxed cpu" is nil. In fact - you go on to mention that there are tiny transmitters sending waves over the air .... well - that is far more susceptible to things like RFI impacting the SQ than the CPU would.
I wonder what the lowest spec/power machine possible to decode and play back FLAC vs the same to play back WAV would be. It would make for a very interesting test. Imagine a DAP that consumes a fraction of a fraction of a watt. That would be cool.
don't matter because you decompress the whole FLAC *before* playing the first tone it's called buffering and these days you just buffer the whole track
@Sblackfll Jesus christ after lossless compression and decompression the data are identical - otherwise the whole it technology won't work and there is a bitflip other than in audio usage fatal
Roon does all the processing on my PC and sends the native (RAAT) signal to my Roon end point via a galvanic isolated network. No worries about processing noise.
Uncompressed WAW and the losslessly compressed FLAC are equal, bit-for-bit identical. Like ZIP, RAR. No loss of quality at all. There is also the uncompressed FLAC option: no compression, with metadata.
that video has nothing to do with knowledge - these days the whole FLAC is decompressed before the first tone plays and when your equipment can't stand the laughable process of decompress a simple audiofile it's crap
@@neveryoumind696 he lost me long ago with "it's bit-perfect but the bits have noise" which is probably the dumbest bullshit I heard in the past 43 years while walking on earth
@@TheTruthKiwi I have lol ....people get wound up by the weirdest stuff I was trying to say cheers for the videos really and got hi- jacked by captain decompression
Big fan. I have a question: I am thinking of buying Wharfdale Linton heritage speakers. I have Yamaha RX V677. I am thinking of upgrading to PS Audio Sprout100 or SVS Soundbase. Do you think that I will get a "better" sound presentation over the Yamahas? Also why is PS audio Sprout100 more expensive than Loxjie A30 even though they are outputting same wattage? Thank you in advance.
The processing power needed to play either WAV or FLAC is insignificant for a modern CPU. Just put some WAV and FLAC files in a playlist and watch CPU utilisation and you won't see any meaningful difference. The idea that this makes any difference in sound is pure fantasy.
How can sound representation be most delicate, most accurate when the most delicate spectral spacial waves of reproductions have been mutated? Vinyl or live
that's exactly what happens but don't expect technical basic knowledge from audiophiles when they burn-in speaker cables for thousands of dollars and imagine a difference
You can decode Flac on an ESP8266, a $1 microcontroller. It will use at max 200mA assuming you are also streaming the file over it's wifi connection. If that 200mA is straining the PSU I think you probably have bigger issues :). I could see how the isolation between components might make a difference but most of the noise generated by a CPU would be way out of the audible range. Having said all that I don't build Hi-Fi for a living so would be interested in seeing some of this in real world measurements.
I transfer using 3.5 mm out from an installed sound card (my receiver is pre-2k early DD and my speakers are even older so I equalize separately) so I should be more affected than most here who use better transports but I've compared FLAC to WAV before and not noticed any difference. Maybe it's just a matter of turning up the volume to drown out a floor noise?
Why is "Processing" Time and "Data Transferring" Time along with "Upload/Download/and PING" never discussed in the "SPECS", in these discussions? These issues show up as being detrimental aspects in the area of "Bluetooth and Casting" in Audio/Video Files.. These "LOSS TIMES" show up in the order of Milli-seconds to Seconds in Data /File Transfers.. IT doesn't matter id the Files are Compressed or Uncompressed..
Does the audiophile’s guide make sense when I’ve got a big fat entertainment unit between my speakers? I also can’t pull my speakers out more than maybe a foot. I love the idea of the book but I’m mainly in it for the application.
Not only streaming bandwidth but I would argue that storage is not that inexpensive, especially on portable devices. If you figure a small music library of say 1000 albums where maybe 10% are 2 disc sets, you are looking at around 600 to 700 GB of data. Now if you care about that data, you are storing at least 3 copies in at least 2 physical locations with one being offsite. So if we assume you are using 1TB drives for storage you are now using 3x 1TB drives just to maintain that data. If you think about storing that entire collection on a portable device with an SD/MicroSD card slot you will be paying around $100 to $170 depending on the quality/speed of the card. Now if you store that music in a lossless format you are looking at around 250-350GB of data which would fit well on a drive half the size and still have room to grow or allow your collection to be 2-3X larger for the same amount of space. The other thing to remember is that FLAC and other lossless formats allow for not only metadata but also up to 8 channels of audio (at least for FLAC). The amount of processing to turn FLAC back into an uncompressed audio stream is pretty low these days (especially with ASICs available that can do the decompression in real-time) and should not be putting enough of an additional load on the power supply to make a noticeable difference unless the power supply is a poor design with insufficient isolation, noise suppression, and filtering which is going to cause an issue even when decoding and playing back WAV audio.
Metadata. Metadata. Metadata. If you're anything like me (and you watch Pauls videos, so there's a good chance you are 😆😅) you will start accumulating a lot of audio files. I'm up to 2900 something, and that's only going to get bigger, so being able to use the metadata in the files for searching purposes is absolutely essential if you're to have any chance of making sense of everything you've got. My goal is 10000, and at that point if I can't search by artist / genre etc, it's going to be really difficult to get the best out of all my music. Along with what everybody else has said here, modern audio players of any kind have more than enough bandwidth and horsepower to play something like FLAC absolutely not a problem, so yeah. Compress files however you wish. Get metadata. Get the best out of your music collection 👌
Even lossily compressed audio at a decent bitrate is so close to lossless that no human listener will be able to detect the difference. People just don't trust it because most lossy compression is still using the old MP3 format, twenty-five years old now. The mathematics of audio compression has advanced since then, so a modern Opus file sounds as good as an MP3 at twice the bitrate.
There's even variations within MP3 itself I've dealt with enough MP3 files over the years to know there are a ridiculous amount of factors involved, there used to be some people that used 160 but it seemed as if it was on par with WAV unfathomable to a lot people but it was out there.
@@ryacus MP3 encoders got more sophisticated over the years. Better psychoacoustic models. The early MP3 couldn't even so VBR, because it wasn't designed for storing audio on computers - it was designed for broadcast and streams, where precise adherence to the assigned bitrate was essential. Improving MP3 could only go so far though, and later codecs will wipe the floor with it.
OK, I get it. Don't compress files. But if I use FLAC lossless format with 0% compression (or 100% uncompressed), am I not accomplishing this objective?
You compress a digital file by removing info, when it's uncompressed where do the discarded bits come from? If you unload your wagon to get over the hill, when you reach the other side how do you get the stuff you left behind?
While it is true that data is discarded for lossy compression, it is not with lossless compression. For example, I could write the number 2,147,483,647 as 2^31. They both are equivalent to the same number, yet 2^31 takes up less characters than 2,147,483,647. It is a similar way with lossless compression. Data is algorithmically compressed in a way that can be fully recovered (although probably in a much more complex way than the example.)
@@simonjgriffiths , OK, I get what your saying but it doesn't jive with what I've always been told about compressing files. Not saying right or wrong, I need to do some more research. Time to call my buddy who de-bugs the new windows before they release them.
@@gac2006 , OK, I gotta do more research. I know data is made of 1's & 0's that represent in the real world a switch either open or closed. So your saying it takes X number of open and closes and creates like a code that takes less open and closes but at the other end tells the DA to do more open and closes. I hope my idea came out making sense.
@@bradt.3555 If you're interested in how lossless compression works, at least for flac files, there is a much better description available here: xiph.org/flac/format.html Flac can say "left and right are exactly the same, just store the data once and play it through both channels" or "this sample is exactly the same for 1300 samples, just store the sample once and play it 1300 times instead of storing 1300 separate samples." The documentation shows other more advanced methods that flac has, but these two are the most basic.
Decompressing FLAC doesn't even take CPU out of lowest power state. Sorry, but Paul's answer here is just wrong. When somebody shows me that FLAC makes more noise or even jitter compared to WAV, I'll admit I am wrong, but otherwise this advice is total BS. Also, there are numerous USB galvanic isolation adapters (iFi,...) so its easy to filter that out.
Actually much depends on what you're using to do the work. In most SBC or SOM based devices (which are most of the all-in-ones) it can take a reasonable amount of total resources. However, regardless of what you think, any processing takes power and any power used creates noise and power supply ripples.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio if we use dedicated streamers like Pi2Aes we're already (probably, if device is any good) getting really really low noise. And even on a low-end PC (NUC) or Raspberry Pi, if you take a look at CPU consumption of processes, FLAC decompression baraly noticable, often much below other OS background processes! Its even easy to stress CPU and listen for audible changes, if we want to test this assumption! I still haven't seen any measurements in DACs output in FLAC vs WAV, and (more importantly) still haven't heard difference, in my system, and by many people in ears in trust. Also lets not forget that mid to high end DACs all have galvanic isolation. FLAC compression is so simple that 20y old CPU wouldn't break a sweat. Good old Mp3 is much much more comples ...
I don't care much about measurements, but we could at least maybe see difference in noise, sinad or jitter with slightly higher cpu usage (even tho its still below 1% on modern cpu), or that's at least what Paul is saying
This is only true IF you are playing your music through some kind of a streamer device which has an expensive high-end DAC section but for some reason the skimped on the CPU and put in pretty much the weakest CPU they could find, and then they shared the PSU among these two. Now I don't know how many audiophiles are using such streamers. Also, some people have a discrete DAC hooked up to their streamer, so they should not be affected by this. My personal setup, which I find very logical and I do believe there are many people with similar setups, is a desktop computer which decodes the FLAC with ease, which is hooked up to a standalone DAC that has its own power supply. Pretty sure the CPU does not put any extra strain on the PSU while decoding, and the DAC has it's own PSU as I said......
I wish that it was easier to obtain uncompressed audio files in a physical media form. Not everyone has the proper software on their computers to download and play those kind of tracks to their fullest. Even though I have the equipment. I still struggle with how HDTracks works. It would be nice to go inside a store and buy a small storage device that has everything and the album already on it. So all you have to do is plug and play your media at it's full glory.
@@vylbird8014 No lol It would be nice if an intire album in uncompressed FLAC could fit on a CD. If they were able to make hi res disk. More than likely you would have to purchase another disk player. I was referring to something like a small flash drive that you can plug into any USB port.
@@randomtube8226 I'm not a great believer in 'hi-res' audio. The CD format was fixed at 16-bit 44,100 for a reason: The designers at the time concluded those were the limits of human hearing, so anything higher would be pointless.
@@vylbird8014 hi res is supposed to start a 24-bit 44.khz. I feel bits are more important than sample rate in audio. On a highly resolving system you can actually here the sound of the CD itself. Even though good recordings. Due to the lower bits. You wouldn't think that there is much of a difference between 16 and 24 bits in audio. But for some reason there is. You get the sense of a black background and it's something amazing that you never knew you needed.
@@randomtube8226 You're right that you don't need a higher sample rate. The concept is known as the Nyquist rate and it describes that you only need the twice the sample rate of the maximum frequency in a signal to accurately reproduce reproduce it. Human hearing is about max 20 kHz so 44.1 kHz is enough to accurately produce any frequency that we are capable of hearing. Bit rate is another story and is not something that we can objectively judge to be high enough I believe.
Nonsense. Remember that every video file is compressed and thus goes by the decompression process and still most equipment will remain quite silent. Audio files are so much smaller. If you're using Bluetooth audio will be compressed on the fly with no stress to the CPU.
Hi-fi equipment not having galvanic isolation in 2020 is quite dumbfounding... Given how it's standard in most 100-200 power supplies used for music instruments these days
I bought into this argument when I started. Now my whole collection is WAV without metadata. But I would not do this again. I have well recorded Lessloss clips in flac and wav and cannot tell the difference in playback. No matter how hard I try to hear a difference there is none. I can clearly hear other snake oil impacts like cables, caps, resistor brands, vibration dampening. Flac? no impact. I do have a galvanically isolated FIFO buffer and an isolated SBC. Galvanic isolation still not perfect, but getting there. I can still hear the difference between different linux builds even though they all use the same MPD and Alsa software to supply the bits to FIFO processor that actually supplies the clocked I2S stream to the DAC chip.
Ive been using WAV for numerous year now. Its well used in the DJ world and has been for several years now. AS soon as the 1st early CDJ players that used USB sticks and we started moving over from CD's Flac was used early buy soon got over took by wav. I use Flac on my home Hifi system when streaming still but the majority of my Dance Tracks (Drum & Bass ,House, Techno are wav.
and why? the video is nonsense - there is no justification for wasting space - every modern player decompress the whole file before the first tone plays
bullshit! the whole file is uncompressed at once before you hear the first tone it's a shame that you audiophiles have no technical knowledge and no common sense altogether
Using a PDP-8 to decode FLAC is not recommended. Fortunately, Moore's Law happened in the meantime. Modern processors are so powerful and efficient that a FLAC file can be decompressed with a tiny processor powered by a tiny battery. If the power supply in an audio system is measurably stressed by decoding a FLAC, it's very poorly designed. Just make sure you have a 12 gauge oxygen-free copper power cord to you preamp, and you're good to go.
storage is not cheap if you care about your data! 4x4 TB SSD Drives for redundancy and performance are not cheap backups take the same amount at least 3 times - if all of your backups are in the same building you have no backups at all on my smartphone holding 45000 tracks storage isn't cheap too and if you ever worked with enterprise IT you won't call storage cheap
In 2021, compressing any audio signal is a waste of time. Storing it is just as trivial. Even a 7.2 channel, 64bit, 192 KHz Wave file running at 10MBytes per second is no problem. In truth, Lossless Compression/Decompression has never really existed.
What a load of absolute rubbish. Decoding a FLAC file is virtually effort-free for a modern processor. The idea this could cause power supply noise is laughable.
Wanna gripe about crappy compressed streaming quality? Grab yourself a Sirius\XM subscription, then get back to me ; D But damnit I do like that yaght rock station in all of its 64kbps glory. Im also one of those weirdos who enjoy vinyl rips in FLAC/ALAC/APE/AIFF so I can burn them onto disc and listen via CD.
what NONSENSE! besides that decomoress a FLAC don't need much power if you have some brain you do that at switching the track one and for all - nothing is decompressed while the track plays
Paul , can I return my bhk250 for refund? Srsly.. You're out of your depth here and lost credibility in a bad way.. stop being salty on thev steaming biz you don't understand or maybe do understand and I now see your IRL oil here while pitching new wares, GI etc..
I am not certain why this would make you upset. You don't agree with me that the reason streaming services compress files is to lower bandwidth costs? Or that you don't agree with me that the small amount of extra work the CPU does in a standalone server makes a difference in the power supply noise and grounds? If you're interested in this here's an experiment you can make. Get yourself a small AM radio or if you can't find one of those you can buy a power sniffer at the hardware store. If you get the right one it amplifies the buzz of AC when you put it near the receptacle. This is somewhat the same thing as an AM receiver. Place this inside and near the SBC inside of a standalone server (which is what I was referring to, not a full blown computer). Have the server play a WAV file and then play the same file but FLAC or ALAC encoded. Notice the difference in radiated noise. It is not insignificant. How that increase in noise affects sound quality is something many will debate with me, and that's fair enough, but it's not nothing.
![If you can't hear this then you're not an audiophile [See description for link to followup video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/48PxwspDvrE/mqdefault.jpg)
The processing power required to play flac is insignificant for modern cpus - in fact the higher bandwidth of larger files (particularly if accessing that data from $50 dollar mechanical drives) is probably just as system demanding. And wav files do contain/can support metadata.
It’s only because your losing those special hz without solid gold wiring
@@NguyenNguyen-xv8li gold wiring only makes a difference at the connector because it doesnt corrode
wav can definitely store metadata, but it's not too easy to find ripper that will write it.
I still prefer it, because it's super fast to rip CD's in wav.
I am not an audio engineer or audiophile but a few years ago, my 300 lbs wife sat on a cd and after playing it later, I noticed the sound seemed compressed.
Warped it too I bet.
Do I sense some harmonic distortion + noise between you and your wife?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Lol!
A modern CPU has enormous processing power and can process a flac file effortlessly. Power supply noise is a non-issue unless the electronics are total garbage. In other words, a flac file wil sound identical to a wav file.
In a computer such as a desktop or a SBC, the CPU is always doing something else such as running the OS routines, drivers, etc. So you do get an overhead inducing more power.
Not only that, but most of the newer phones can easily play 5.1 SA-CD ripped flacs. This is a total non-issue nowadays.
@@AxelPironio Buffering exists. It can (and will) process enough to allow music to play, do some other things, and come back when the buffer is close to empty.
There is 0 issue running FLAC on any system even slightly modern (last 10 years at least), even with mountains of other processes running.
@@AxelPironio and still it couldn't care less! I can even delete the whole files while they play - not magic, the are completly loaded and decoded BEFORE start to play them out of RAM
Yes Whole Heartedly
Can I have my ears galvanically isolated ? My brain makes quite a bit of noise too ...
My ears themselves make too much noise as it is. Especially my left ear.
Sorry.... can't hear above the noise in my head.
after seeing your profile pic and fb page - I can assure you it's not your brain that is making noise.
Paul, I have to tell you Im 53 and have been an audiophile all my adult life .. and You my friend have taught me so much in the last couple of years. I just think your the best teacher ever. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.
With today's processors, uncompressing FLAC is insignificant compared to background activity of any computer, so increased power consumption is a red herring. Also, storage on mobile is not quite as un-limited as on desktop units. In order to send files back and forth between server and mobile, FLAC makes most sense, IMHO. There are other galvanically isolated DACs such as the HoloAudio May DAC, which I happen to enjoy.
If memory serves, Onkyo had a cd player, I think it was the DX320, that used opticouplers to do the same job. This was back in the nineteen hundred and nineties AD.
@@InsideOfMyOwnMind Man, those old nineteen hundreds. Thems were the days.
I love my Schiit Bifrost 2. It has galvanically isolated USB.
I wanted to say the same thing. I don't worry about fixed noise levels, I just turn up the volume.
Agreed. I ordered a Holo audio May KTE DAC a few weeks ago. Can't wait to get it into my system.
Adding metadata to wav files used to be an issue but it has been perfectly possible for quite some time. dB power amp for example can tag wav files in a perfectly compatible manner so that player apps such as Squeeze, MPD, and Roon have no problems reading it.
I know Paul has forgotten more about audio than I will ever know. However, my Intel Core I5 processor can run Jriver, decode flac, upsample everything to 24 bit 174.6kHz and still not go over 3% cpu usage. This may be a theoretical issue but I think it's a unicorn in the real world.
Galvanic isolation does address any associated EMI emission coupling so your electronics should also be shielded.
It is now possible for a .wav file to have metadata info. I use my YAMAHA AVENTAGE BD-A1060 BLU-RAY PLAYER. To listen to both wav and flac files. Via a local USB storage device connected to it, and I enjoy it quite a bit.
1. Decoding a FLAC to PCM stream is NOT a real time process. You can have as much buffer as you like to pre-decode the FLAC, even DAC is running asynchronously nowadays, your streaming service also runs asynchronously, as well as inherently the internet protocol in place. A few milliseconds delay from the time you press PLAY, to actually you listen to the music, most people don't care.
2. WAV file can have meta-data, artist information, cover art, etc.
3. Use a seperate computer to play the file and then to connect to a DAC (if you like, use TOSLINK), then, it's galvanically separating the CPU from the DAC, they don't share power supply. Nothing special.
You can have a good second of delay, most people won't care. Playing music is an application where latency doesn't matter, so you can buffer all you want.
This is my set up as well. So you're saying there's no benefit to converting to WAV or AIFF for this scenario?
@@brunoch95 Correct. FLAC, WAV, they produce exactly the same sound. The controls might be a fraction of a second slower to respond on FLAC, but that's so insignificant you can just ignore it.
@@brunoch95 From FLAC to WAV/AIFF, my humble opinion is that it will have no effect on the sound quality.
In my setup a Dell sff PC with Jriver decompresses and upsamples my Flac files and then sends them through USB to my DAC which only has to convert to analog and send a signal to the amp. It all sounds pretty frickin' good to my ears.
As a software engineer, I appreciate the question and thank you for the answer.
Context is key!
Decoding a FLAC file is insignificant for a modern CPU, almost any other task performed by the OS consumes more CPU... for example: if you use NTFS as filesystem and you have compression enabled even reading a file is more demanding than decoding flac and nobody cares about it!!
That's really the problem of modern OS's and NTFS...
With Jriver, you have the option to load the file and uncompress into memory before playback - to be honest I can't notice a difference, skipping tracks just takes a little longer.
On a modern computer you can get around some of the issues of decompressing an audio file by using a program like Foobar or Audirvana. They buffer the audio into memory before they communicate with the audio device and then stream the data to USB. This at least reduces some noise. Then you can use a galvanic isolator on the usb cable or get a cable with no power line in it.
Every audio playback program does that.
besides that it's normal to decomoress the whole file when you have USB in the chain get a USB soundcard with an optical output and all your problems are solved
it's idiotic doing DAC early in the chain
@@vylbird8014 No. If you play a file like mp3, it will only decode frames (blocks) of audio as it plays it back. It doesn't decompress to a raw audio file and then send it to the speaker. I also looked at the source code for FLAC decoding, and it also decompresses the blocks as a stream, meaning it doesn't load the entire thing into memory. If it did, low end computers would really suck at audio playback.
@@Harald_Reindl optical outputs can introduce higher jitter (the shift in time between data packets) and thus degrade the signal. Also they're bandwidth constrained so it's better to use SPDIF or USB as your digital transport. If you don't care about that though, optical is fine though.
@@dudexyt Bullshit! I can delete the whole source file after the first second played and it will be played completly by my music player daemon
the decoding library don't matter that much but as audiophile you don't know much about technical facts
"Even if you get one of our products.... there's no reason for it." Well said, sir.
Bad news for the streaming companies? - then it gets my vote 100%. Just BUY the darn record.
paul you are so incredible my man, just like hey lets get you that book! lets do it! god i appreciate that there's still people like you in audio man
It’s silly that so many audiophiles debate about and search for that 0,1% improvement instead of just enjoying music
Having grown up listening to cassettes, using generic players through really terrible headphones, we are spoiled rotten with modern options. I found a used pair of Infinity Qa (1977) speakers for $15 at a Goodwill, and they are the best sounding speakers I have ever owned. I recently acquired several Rush CDs: 2112, A Farewell To Kings, Hemispheres, Permanent Waves & Moving Pictures - they all sound so lively through this pair, and I am transported to that era. I can only imagine what your Reference Room would sound like.
Apples new high res lossless/spacial audio is RIDICULOUSLY good.
@Paul you can embed metadata and artwork in WAV. I do it on my files. check out to macOS app Metadatics in AppStore. It's excellent.
if this video was 20 years ago I might agree with it. But today - like other posters have said - the processing power necessary to uncomp even the highest resolution audio files is practically insignificant. Even the CPU in a fitbit could do it without breaking a sweat - and without degrading the audio. The risk of proc noise and degradation of SQ because of a "taxed cpu" is nil. In fact - you go on to mention that there are tiny transmitters sending waves over the air .... well - that is far more susceptible to things like RFI impacting the SQ than the CPU would.
I wonder what the lowest spec/power machine possible to decode and play back FLAC vs the same to play back WAV would be. It would make for a very interesting test. Imagine a DAP that consumes a fraction of a fraction of a watt. That would be cool.
don't matter because you decompress the whole FLAC *before* playing the first tone
it's called buffering and these days you just buffer the whole track
@@Harald_Reindl That's true. Heck, some people use RAM Disk to load the entire album in RAM for practically instant load times.
@@CaveyMoth what is a "load time" in days where my system read 1 GB per second? :-)
Hi Paul, Great video as always. But what is that machine you are sitting behind?
Is uncompressed FLAC identical to WAVE?
guess what losless means! is your word document different after compress and decompress it as zio?
@Sblackfll Jesus christ after lossless compression and decompression the data are identical - otherwise the whole it technology won't work and there is a bitflip other than in audio usage fatal
Roon does all the processing on my PC and sends the native (RAAT) signal to my Roon end point via a galvanic isolated network. No worries about processing noise.
Uncompressed WAW and the losslessly compressed FLAC are equal, bit-for-bit identical.
Like ZIP, RAR.
No loss of quality at all.
There is also the uncompressed FLAC option: no compression, with metadata.
Hello from New Zealand, thanks so much for these videos tapping into your knowledge and expertise is so helpful
that video has nothing to do with knowledge - these days the whole FLAC is decompressed before the first tone plays and when your equipment can't stand the laughable process of decompress a simple audiofile it's crap
@@Harald_Reindl it was more of a thank you for the series rather than that specific video but thank for the reply I guess ?
@@neveryoumind696 he lost me long ago with "it's bit-perfect but the bits have noise" which is probably the dumbest bullshit I heard in the past 43 years while walking on earth
@@neveryoumind696 Just ignore Harald, he's obviously going through early onset menopause. :p
@@TheTruthKiwi I have lol ....people get wound up by the weirdest stuff I was trying to say cheers for the videos really and got hi- jacked by captain decompression
Thanks Paul! Do you suggest to convert in AIFF the DSF files too?
Big fan. I have a question: I am thinking of buying Wharfdale Linton heritage speakers. I have Yamaha RX V677. I am thinking of upgrading to PS Audio Sprout100 or SVS Soundbase. Do you think that I will get a "better" sound presentation over the Yamahas? Also why is PS audio Sprout100 more expensive than Loxjie A30 even though they are outputting same wattage? Thank you in advance.
The processing power needed to play either WAV or FLAC is insignificant for a modern CPU. Just put some WAV and FLAC files in a playlist and watch CPU utilisation and you won't see any meaningful difference. The idea that this makes any difference in sound is pure fantasy.
How can sound representation be most delicate, most accurate when the most delicate spectral spacial waves of reproductions have been mutated? Vinyl or live
You said that you are an apple guy. How do you do uncompressed Apple Music to stereo speakers? The sprout 100 does not stream Apple Music.
Why not do the processing beforehand, then play it from memory. RAM is pretty cheap now and phones now have 4 to 5 gigabytes on the lower end now.
that's exactly what happens but don't expect technical basic knowledge from audiophiles when they burn-in speaker cables for thousands of dollars and imagine a difference
Paul is compressed.
This is way too advanced for me. Galvanized isolation sounds better? Ill take your word for it.
You can decode Flac on an ESP8266, a $1 microcontroller. It will use at max 200mA assuming you are also streaming the file over it's wifi connection. If that 200mA is straining the PSU I think you probably have bigger issues :). I could see how the isolation between components might make a difference but most of the noise generated by a CPU would be way out of the audible range. Having said all that I don't build Hi-Fi for a living so would be interested in seeing some of this in real world measurements.
Hi. Which one is umcompressed audio, pcm or raw/bitstream?
I transfer using 3.5 mm out from an installed sound card (my receiver is pre-2k early DD and my speakers are even older so I equalize separately) so I should be more affected than most here who use better transports but I've compared FLAC to WAV before and not noticed any difference. Maybe it's just a matter of turning up the volume to drown out a floor noise?
Why is "Processing" Time and "Data Transferring" Time along with "Upload/Download/and PING" never discussed in the "SPECS", in these discussions? These issues show up as being detrimental aspects in the area of "Bluetooth and Casting" in Audio/Video Files.. These "LOSS TIMES" show up in the order of Milli-seconds to Seconds in Data /File Transfers.. IT doesn't matter id the Files are Compressed or Uncompressed..
Does the audiophile’s guide make sense when I’ve got a big fat entertainment unit between my speakers? I also can’t pull my speakers out more than maybe a foot. I love the idea of the book but I’m mainly in it for the application.
Not only streaming bandwidth but I would argue that storage is not that inexpensive, especially on portable devices. If you figure a small music library of say 1000 albums where maybe 10% are 2 disc sets, you are looking at around 600 to 700 GB of data. Now if you care about that data, you are storing at least 3 copies in at least 2 physical locations with one being offsite.
So if we assume you are using 1TB drives for storage you are now using 3x 1TB drives just to maintain that data. If you think about storing that entire collection on a portable device with an SD/MicroSD card slot you will be paying around $100 to $170 depending on the quality/speed of the card. Now if you store that music in a lossless format you are looking at around 250-350GB of data which would fit well on a drive half the size and still have room to grow or allow your collection to be 2-3X larger for the same amount of space.
The other thing to remember is that FLAC and other lossless formats allow for not only metadata but also up to 8 channels of audio (at least for FLAC). The amount of processing to turn FLAC back into an uncompressed audio stream is pretty low these days (especially with ASICs available that can do the decompression in real-time) and should not be putting enough of an additional load on the power supply to make a noticeable difference unless the power supply is a poor design with insufficient isolation, noise suppression, and filtering which is going to cause an issue even when decoding and playing back WAV audio.
Metadata. Metadata. Metadata. If you're anything like me (and you watch Pauls videos, so there's a good chance you are 😆😅) you will start accumulating a lot of audio files. I'm up to 2900 something, and that's only going to get bigger, so being able to use the metadata in the files for searching purposes is absolutely essential if you're to have any chance of making sense of everything you've got. My goal is 10000, and at that point if I can't search by artist / genre etc, it's going to be really difficult to get the best out of all my music.
Along with what everybody else has said here, modern audio players of any kind have more than enough bandwidth and horsepower to play something like FLAC absolutely not a problem, so yeah. Compress files however you wish. Get metadata. Get the best out of your music collection 👌
Even lossily compressed audio at a decent bitrate is so close to lossless that no human listener will be able to detect the difference. People just don't trust it because most lossy compression is still using the old MP3 format, twenty-five years old now. The mathematics of audio compression has advanced since then, so a modern Opus file sounds as good as an MP3 at twice the bitrate.
Totally agree.
There's even variations within MP3 itself I've dealt with enough MP3 files over the years to know there are a ridiculous amount of factors involved, there used to be some people that used 160 but it seemed as if it was on par with WAV unfathomable to a lot people but it was out there.
@@ryacus MP3 encoders got more sophisticated over the years. Better psychoacoustic models. The early MP3 couldn't even so VBR, because it wasn't designed for storing audio on computers - it was designed for broadcast and streams, where precise adherence to the assigned bitrate was essential. Improving MP3 could only go so far though, and later codecs will wipe the floor with it.
Sorry meant to say 176.4kHz.
OK, I get it. Don't compress files. But if I use FLAC lossless format with 0% compression (or 100% uncompressed), am I not accomplishing this objective?
You compress a digital file by removing info, when it's uncompressed where do the discarded bits come from? If you unload your wagon to get over the hill, when you reach the other side how do you get the stuff you left behind?
While it is true that data is discarded for lossy compression, it is not with lossless compression. For example, I could write the number 2,147,483,647 as 2^31. They both are equivalent to the same number, yet 2^31 takes up less characters than 2,147,483,647. It is a similar way with lossless compression. Data is algorithmically compressed in a way that can be fully recovered (although probably in a much more complex way than the example.)
Wrong analogy. You have ten half loaded wagons and you repack the same contents into 5 wagons. No payload is left behind
@@simonjgriffiths , OK, I get what your saying but it doesn't jive with what I've always been told about compressing files. Not saying right or wrong, I need to do some more research. Time to call my buddy who de-bugs the new windows before they release them.
@@gac2006 , OK, I gotta do more research. I know data is made of 1's & 0's that represent in the real world a switch either open or closed. So your saying it takes X number of open and closes and creates like a code that takes less open and closes but at the other end tells the DA to do more open and closes. I hope my idea came out making sense.
@@bradt.3555 If you're interested in how lossless compression works, at least for flac files, there is a much better description available here: xiph.org/flac/format.html
Flac can say "left and right are exactly the same, just store the data once and play it through both channels" or "this sample is exactly the same for 1300 samples, just store the sample once and play it 1300 times instead of storing 1300 separate samples." The documentation shows other more advanced methods that flac has, but these two are the most basic.
Metadata, why bother, all you need is the file name - same as the name on an LP, no metadata there.
A great channel!
Decompressing FLAC doesn't even take CPU out of lowest power state. Sorry, but Paul's answer here is just wrong. When somebody shows me that FLAC makes more noise or even jitter compared to WAV, I'll admit I am wrong, but otherwise this advice is total BS.
Also, there are numerous USB galvanic isolation adapters (iFi,...) so its easy to filter that out.
Actually much depends on what you're using to do the work. In most SBC or SOM based devices (which are most of the all-in-ones) it can take a reasonable amount of total resources. However, regardless of what you think, any processing takes power and any power used creates noise and power supply ripples.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio if we use dedicated streamers like Pi2Aes we're already (probably, if device is any good) getting really really low noise. And even on a low-end PC (NUC) or Raspberry Pi, if you take a look at CPU consumption of processes, FLAC decompression baraly noticable, often much below other OS background processes! Its even easy to stress CPU and listen for audible changes, if we want to test this assumption!
I still haven't seen any measurements in DACs output in FLAC vs WAV, and (more importantly) still haven't heard difference, in my system, and by many people in ears in trust.
Also lets not forget that mid to high end DACs all have galvanic isolation.
FLAC compression is so simple that 20y old CPU wouldn't break a sweat. Good old Mp3 is much much more comples ...
I don't care much about measurements, but we could at least maybe see difference in noise, sinad or jitter with slightly higher cpu usage (even tho its still below 1% on modern cpu), or that's at least what Paul is saying
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Give me a break. If you can hear audible effects from “power supply ripple” you have superhuman hearing or garbage electronics.
This is only true IF you are playing your music through some kind of a streamer device which has an expensive high-end DAC section but for some reason the skimped on the CPU and put in pretty much the weakest CPU they could find, and then they shared the PSU among these two.
Now I don't know how many audiophiles are using such streamers. Also, some people have a discrete DAC hooked up to their streamer, so they should not be affected by this.
My personal setup, which I find very logical and I do believe there are many people with similar setups, is a desktop computer which decodes the FLAC with ease, which is hooked up to a standalone DAC that has its own power supply. Pretty sure the CPU does not put any extra strain on the PSU while decoding, and the DAC has it's own PSU as I said......
I wish that it was easier to obtain uncompressed audio files in a physical media form. Not everyone has the proper software on their computers to download and play those kind of tracks to their fullest. Even though I have the equipment. I still struggle with how HDTracks works. It would be nice to go inside a store and buy a small storage device that has everything and the album already on it. So all you have to do is plug and play your media at it's full glory.
So, a CD?
@@vylbird8014 No lol It would be nice if an intire album in uncompressed FLAC could fit on a CD. If they were able to make hi res disk. More than likely you would have to purchase another disk player. I was referring to something like a small flash drive that you can plug into any USB port.
@@randomtube8226 I'm not a great believer in 'hi-res' audio. The CD format was fixed at 16-bit 44,100 for a reason: The designers at the time concluded those were the limits of human hearing, so anything higher would be pointless.
@@vylbird8014 hi res is supposed to start a 24-bit 44.khz. I feel bits are more important than sample rate in audio. On a highly resolving system you can actually here the sound of the CD itself. Even though good recordings. Due to the lower bits. You wouldn't think that there is much of a difference between 16 and 24 bits in audio. But for some reason there is. You get the sense of a black background and it's something amazing that you never knew you needed.
@@randomtube8226 You're right that you don't need a higher sample rate. The concept is known as the Nyquist rate and it describes that you only need the twice the sample rate of the maximum frequency in a signal to accurately reproduce reproduce it. Human hearing is about max 20 kHz so 44.1 kHz is enough to accurately produce any frequency that we are capable of hearing. Bit rate is another story and is not something that we can objectively judge to be high enough I believe.
Nonsense. Remember that every video file is compressed and thus goes by the decompression process and still most equipment will remain quite silent. Audio files are so much smaller. If you're using Bluetooth audio will be compressed on the fly with no stress to the CPU.
Hi-fi equipment not having galvanic isolation in 2020 is quite dumbfounding... Given how it's standard in most 100-200 power supplies used for music instruments these days
WAV all DAY
Qobuz makes plenty off me. I buy the full hi res albums. No streaming, No subscription. No compression.
I bought into this argument when I started. Now my whole collection is WAV without metadata. But I would not do this again.
I have well recorded Lessloss clips in flac and wav and cannot tell the difference in playback. No matter how hard I try to hear a difference there is none. I can clearly hear other snake oil impacts like cables, caps, resistor brands, vibration dampening. Flac? no impact.
I do have a galvanically isolated FIFO buffer and an isolated SBC. Galvanic isolation still not perfect, but getting there. I can still hear the difference between different linux builds even though they all use the same MPD and Alsa software to supply the bits to FIFO processor that actually supplies the clocked I2S stream to the DAC chip.
guess what the L in FLAC stands for - free losless audiophile clowns
@@Harald_Reindl thanks for that clarification. I always thought the "L" stood for "lossless" but now I am informed.
Ive been using WAV for numerous year now. Its well used in the DJ world and has been for several years now. AS soon as the 1st early CDJ players that used USB sticks and we started moving over from CD's Flac was used early buy soon got over took by wav. I use Flac on my home Hifi system when streaming still but the majority of my Dance Tracks (Drum & Bass ,House, Techno are wav.
and why? the video is nonsense - there is no justification for wasting space - every modern player decompress the whole file before the first tone plays
@@Harald_Reindl Thats just the way it is. Has been for years. 95% of the DJ's I know are pretty much WAV all the way including myself.
Modern systems require virtually no processing power to uncompress FLAC - this is total nonsense.
trying to process compressed files is like biting on foil and chew bubblegum at the same time
bullshit! the whole file is uncompressed at once before you hear the first tone
it's a shame that you audiophiles have no technical knowledge and no common sense altogether
Using a PDP-8 to decode FLAC is not recommended. Fortunately, Moore's Law happened in the meantime. Modern processors are so powerful and efficient that a FLAC file can be decompressed with a tiny processor powered by a tiny battery. If the power supply in an audio system is measurably stressed by decoding a FLAC, it's very poorly designed. Just make sure you have a 12 gauge oxygen-free copper power cord to you preamp, and you're good to go.
Storage is cheap but data rates are not - explains why physical digital media won't be going away soon.
It will. Data rates are going down, but shopping costs aren't.
storage is not cheap if you care about your data! 4x4 TB SSD Drives for redundancy and performance are not cheap
backups take the same amount at least 3 times - if all of your backups are in the same building you have no backups at all
on my smartphone holding 45000 tracks storage isn't cheap too
and if you ever worked with enterprise IT you won't call storage cheap
In 2021, compressing any audio signal is a waste of time. Storing it is just as trivial. Even a 7.2 channel, 64bit, 192 KHz Wave file running at 10MBytes per second is no problem. In truth, Lossless Compression/Decompression has never really existed.
Do yourselves a favor...Create an album, or CD collection, and you will be happy!
What a load of absolute rubbish. Decoding a FLAC file is virtually effort-free for a modern processor. The idea this could cause power supply noise is laughable.
Wanna gripe about crappy compressed streaming quality? Grab yourself a Sirius\XM subscription, then get back to me ; D But damnit I do like that yaght rock station in all of its 64kbps glory.
Im also one of those weirdos who enjoy vinyl rips in FLAC/ALAC/APE/AIFF so I can burn them onto disc and listen via CD.
what NONSENSE! besides that decomoress a FLAC don't need much power if you have some brain you do that at switching the track one and for all - nothing is decompressed while the track plays
Oy vey.....what planet is this fool on? Yeah, you now can hear the power supplies, give it up!
Paul , can I return my bhk250 for refund? Srsly.. You're out of your depth here and lost credibility in a bad way.. stop being salty on thev steaming biz you don't understand or maybe do understand and I now see your IRL oil here while pitching new wares, GI etc..
I am not certain why this would make you upset. You don't agree with me that the reason streaming services compress files is to lower bandwidth costs? Or that you don't agree with me that the small amount of extra work the CPU does in a standalone server makes a difference in the power supply noise and grounds? If you're interested in this here's an experiment you can make. Get yourself a small AM radio or if you can't find one of those you can buy a power sniffer at the hardware store. If you get the right one it amplifies the buzz of AC when you put it near the receptacle. This is somewhat the same thing as an AM receiver. Place this inside and near the SBC inside of a standalone server (which is what I was referring to, not a full blown computer). Have the server play a WAV file and then play the same file but FLAC or ALAC encoded. Notice the difference in radiated noise. It is not insignificant. How that increase in noise affects sound quality is something many will debate with me, and that's fair enough, but it's not nothing.
Heilo copying.my brother is waiting when I will die.