WAV or FLAC

**mrbakeman** · 2011-12-22, 19:20

Hi,
I'm new to the Squeezbox Touch and was wondering if using WAV files or FLAC files was the prefered? I don't want to use MP3's so i want to rip my cd's to WAV or FLAC, or does it even matter?
Thanks!

**c-eling** · 2011-12-22, 19:57

I think there might be a battle between the 2 from the audiophiles,I use dbpoweramp and use uncompressed flac for mine,easier tagging,Enjoy your new toy your going to love it! Merry Christmas

**garym** · 2011-12-23, 05:53

Originally Posted by mrbakeman

Hi,
I'm new to the Squeezbox Touch and was wondering if using WAV files or FLAC files was the prefered? I don't want to use MP3's so i want to rip my cd's to WAV or FLAC, or does it even matter?
Thanks!

WAV does not have standard tagging scheme, takes a lot more space. For folks that want lossless and aren't tied to apple (apple lossless) I think you'll find FLAC to be the standard. Note that the compression level on FLAC is only about the file size.....any compression level is still lossless. Some (very few actually) believe that the "work" a computer or SB player does to decompress the FLAC file can affect sound. But bottom line, FLAC is the way to go in my opinion.....

**mrbakeman** · 2011-12-23, 07:56

Originally Posted by c-eling

I think there might be a battle between the 2 from the audiophiles,I use dbpoweramp and use uncompressed flac for mine,easier tagging,Enjoy your new toy your going to love it! Merry Christmas

Thanks and Merry Christmas.

**mrbakeman** · 2011-12-23, 07:57

Originally Posted by garym

WAV does not have standard tagging scheme, takes a lot more space. For folks that want lossless and aren't tied to apple (apple lossless) I think you'll find FLAC to be the standard. Note that the compression level on FLAC is only about the file size.....any compression level is still lossless. Some (very few actually) believe that the "work" a computer or SB player does to decompress the FLAC file can affect sound. But bottom line, FLAC is the way to go in my opinion.....

Thanks, i appreciate the input.

**tbag** · 2011-12-23, 08:10

Yeah go FLAC. The inability to tag WAV imo makes it worthwhile to go FLAC

**garym** · 2011-12-23, 08:14

Originally Posted by tbag

Yeah go FLAC. The inability to tag WAV imo makes it worthwhile to go FLAC

and lossless is lossless is lossless ;-)

p.s. I use compression of 5 on my flac files (the default). there have been situations where highly compressed (8) 24/96 files had some problems being decoded on some players. Don't think this is an issue anymore, but the file size difference between 5 and 8 is trivial.

**aubuti** · 2011-12-23, 08:24

Originally Posted by tbag

Yeah go FLAC. The inability to tag WAV imo makes it worthwhile to go FLAC

Strictly speaking, it is possible to tag WAV, and LMS will read the tags. But very few tagging programs support tagging WAV files -- I think Tag&Rename is the only currently-supported program that does.

Not too long ago a particularly combative forum member ranted on about how WAV was the best solution for him, mostly so he could play them in iTunes and on iPods, which don't support FLAC. But I think for most users FLAC is a better solution, and if you need iThing support, a parallel copy of MP3s is easy to create and maintain.

**Tony T** · 2011-12-23, 09:24

Originally Posted by mrbakeman

Hi,
I'm new to the Squeezbox Touch and was wondering if using WAV files or FLAC files was the prefered? I don't want to use MP3's so i want to rip my cd's to WAV or FLAC, or does it even matter?
Thanks!

FLAC. (and you can always extract the WAV from the .flac file if needed)

.

**Soulkeeper** · 2011-12-23, 09:36

Yes, for 99% of the users, FLAC is way better than WAV. (In my opinion.)

Thread: WAV or FLAC

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

WAV or FLAC

Posting Permissions