Home | Audio Reviews |Audiophile Shows | Partner Mags News

 

July 2016
Enjoy the Music.com Review Magazine
HIFICRITIC
Why Do WAV And FLAC Files Sound Different?
Article By Dr. Charles Zeilig And Jay Clawson
Page 2

 

  So, at this point, what can be concluded from these results? We can say with some confidence that the metadata-associated cover art is primarily responsible for the decline in height reproduction and associated sound quality when WAV and FLAC files are interconverted. Without a large enough memory allocation in the playback software, this loss of replay sound quality is observed in both FLAC and WAV files. Whatever this property of the metadata might be, remarkably it is transferable from FLAC to WAV and back again to WAV, and with increasing negative effect with the number of conversions. Moreover, this particular file property cannot be detected as a change in file size or by conventional null testing procedures, yet it can be readily detected by ear and may be quantified by observed changes in vertical height reproduction.

We wondered what effect metadata size itself might play in determining the degree of negative influence on WAV or FLAC reproduction quality. Are there any industry standards for metadata size variations in high resolution downloads? A random survey of many such HD audio files accumulated over several years from various suppliers found large size variations in metadata, with no apparent correlation with the music type, whether pop, classical, or anything in between (see Table 1 in Part 2 of the unabridged article).

To examine this question in more detail we created our own sets of España metadata files, starting with the manufacturer's supplied cover art. Two series of images, comprising either different resolutions or different compression levels, were created using Photoshop tools. Each series produced a range of increasing file sizes, which were then attached to our test music track from which all metadata had been previously removed (at least that which could be discerned by using the Properties file in Windows OS). The results of this experiment are seen in Fig 5.

 

 

To a first approximation, there's an obvious correlation between total metadata size and observed image height, caused by either increasing pixel resolution or by increasing jpg compression settings. In the Photoshop program used to generate each series, the greater file compression (blue line), relates to the smaller the file size; the greater the pixel density or resolution, the greater the file size and thus the poorer the height reproduction (orange line). The different shapes of each height results curve suggest that there may be two different mechanisms involved in the degradation of FLAC quality. Where the two curves intersect gives the point at which an optimisation of metadata compression and resolution should yield the best sound quality and height reproduction.

We put this prediction to the test by conducting the experiment shown in Fig 6. We created our usual WAV-to-FLAC-to-WAV conversion file series but here show the results in bar graph form, ranging from the initial maximum quality WAV and the first and last converted FLAC files.

 

 

We were somewhat surprised by the implications of these results. First, if one looks at the WAV results (solid bars), even with memory playback engaged in JRMC, a statistically significant negative effect related to the size and compression level of the original cover art is observed. This loss is present when it is compared with either no metadata or our optimised home-made metadata. Nevertheless, there is no sensible statistically significant difference between these three files. This result shows that improperly optimised metadata has the potential to reduce even WAV file performance and sound quality to a degree.

Examining the effect of metadata on FLAC files from the beginning (upward hatched bars) to the end of the WAV-to-FLAC-to-WAV conversion sequence (downward hatched bars) under the same playback circumstances, with the original complete metadata supplied by the manufacturer, we see the same declining pattern as shown previously in this article (black hatched bars). Optimising the metadata significantly improves height reproduction (blue hatched bars) but not to the same extent as for both the first and fifth FLAC files.

The greatest improvement in FLAC performance occurred with the removal of the metadata, regardless of its presence or absence (red and green hatched bars). Even with this improvement, no FLAC file reaches statistical equivalence with the WAV file if it contains the original metadata (black bar). These results suggest that there is at least one more factor besides cover art that is involved in stunting the full retrieval of WAV-equivalent performance. Assuming that a recovered WAV file from a previously compressed FLAC file is a bit-perfect replica of the original WAV file, then it seems likely that there is still something in the metadata, which we had no way of accessing, and was interfering with full recovery of audio equality.

Examination of subjective image height measurements for some of the larger FLAC and WAV files (Figs 4 and 5) reveals massive subjective height differences in the range of 50-60ins, and we have struggled to describe the subjective impact.

More intrepid readers could do the following experiment on their own systems: obtain a DXD high resolution download and its matching CD (for example, www.2l.no/hires/ provides WAV format DXD samples recorded at 24-bit/352.4kHz resolution). Using a good quality DAC, compare the sound of the CD replayed on a dedicated disc transport with the sound of the DXD file (played back from a desktop or dedicated computer/server). What you should hear is something that approximates the largest height differences we have observed, and it comes as quite a shock to realise how much sound quality the industry may be losing by using poorly prepared FLAC files. We consider that the sound quality and emotional benefits that may be obtained by optimising music files can be thrilling to say the least.

 

FLAC
Finally, in a previous article (TAS issue 248) we found that FLAC height reproduction and sound quality was also degraded by the degree of FLAC compression. We repeated this experiment for this report and found similar compression-related losses, regardless of the presence or absence of metadata (see Part 2 of the unabridged article available on the HIFICRITIC website), constituting yet another negative variable affecting FLAC performance.

 

Conclusions and Discussion
To summarise, we have found at least five different factors that can explain why the lossless FLAC compression format degrades the sound quality of previously uncompressed WAV files (see Box1). These independently configured factors may act together and can result in a disturbingly large loss of sound quality. While the metadata effect and its audible losses can be minimised or reversed, the FLAC compression and decompression effects appear to be permanent unless replaced by clean metadata that has never been exposed to prior conversions. The mechanism for the sound quality damage of all five factors used for FLAC results from their interaction with computer/server replay processes. The effects of this extra loading on computer operations, although apparently small, must act to degrade the computer-processed data then sent to an external DAC. As discussed by others in the field, these negative contributions are thought to involve several forms of jitter, also power supply fluctuations, and RFI (electronic noise interference) which ultimately compromise the optimal functioning of the digital and analogue sections of the DAC.

On the basis of our results thus far, we can make specific recommendations to the music download industry for issuing improved music files:

• Erase metadata containing historical records of previous repeated WAV-to-FLAC-to-WAV conversions and replace with fresh metadata prior to final distribution.

• Since storage capacity is so cheap these days, unless there are bandwidth or download speed issues, or maintenance of metadata concerns, do not use compression (ie, use WAV or AIFF in place of FLAC or ALAC).

• Use a download manager that can add fresh metadata from internet sources just before writing to the customer's storage device.

• If you must use the FLAC format, supply files created using the dBPA software with the uncompressed 'U' setting, or no less than the 0 setting. (Never follow the dBPA recommendation to use setting 5.)

• Make metadata-associated cover art no larger than 800x800 pixels with maximum or near maximum jpg compression (similar to Photoshop QL0 or QL1). (When ripping your own CD collection, be sure to follow this same advice for best sound quality)

 

Why Lossless FLAC Compression Degrades Uncompressed WAV File Quality
1. Resolution of metadata associated art (MDA).

2. Degree of MDA compression as created in typical photo-editing software.

3. Degree of FLAC compression according to settings in dBPowerAmp.

4. CPU load during decompression and conversion of FLAC files to PCM format.

5. Allocated buffer size in playback software, music server, and/or digital to analog converter.

 

Readers are encouraged to refer to an expanded discussion of additional factors in Part 2 of the unabridged version of this article which is available for download from the HIFICRITIC website.

 

---> Back To First Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     
 

Quick Links


Audiophile Review Magazine
High-End Audio Equipment Reviews

 

Equipment Review Archives
Turntables, Cartridges, Etc
Digital Source
Do It Yourself (DIY)
Preamplifiers
Amplifiers
Cables, Wires, Etc
Loudspeakers/ Monitors
Headphones, IEMs, Tweaks, Etc

 

Superior Audio Archives
Ultra High-End Audio Reviews

 

Videos
Enjoy the Music.TV

 

Columns
Editorials By Tom Lyle
Viewpoint By Roger Skoff
Viewpoint By Steven R. Rochlin
Various Think Pieces
Manufacturer Articles


Show Reports
High End Munich 2019 Show Report
AXPONA 2019 Show Report
Zagreb AV Show 2019
CanJam Singapore 2019 Show Report
Salon Audio Montreal Audio Fest 2019
Florida Audio Expo 2019 Show Report
Warsaw Audio Show 2018
New York Audio Show 2018 Report
Capital Audiofest 2018 Report
Copenhagen HighEnd 2018 Show Report
Australian Hi-Fi & AV Show 2018
Rocky Mountain Audio Fest RMAF 2018
CanJam 2018 Denver RMAF
KL International AV 2018 Show Report
High End Munich 2018 Show Report
AXPONA 2018 Show Report
CanJam SoCal 2018 Show Report
CanJam NYC 2018 Show Report
Click here for previous shows.

 

Other
Audiophile Contests
Cool Free Stuff For You
Tweaks For Your System
Vinyl Logos For LP Lovers
Lust Pages Visual Beauty

 

Resources & Information
Music Definitions
Hi-Fi Definitions

 


Daily Industry News

High-End Audio News & Information

 

Partner Magazines
Australian Hi-Fi Magazine
hi-fi+ Magazine
HIFICRITIC
HiFi Media
Hi-Fi World
NOVO (CANADA HiFi)
STEREO Magazine
Sound Practices
VALVE Magazine

 

For The Press & Industry
About Us
Press Releases
Official Site Graphics

 

Contests & Our Mailing List

Our free newsletter for monthly updates & enter our contests!

 

Social Media & Video
      

 

 

 

       

Home   |   Industry News   |   Equipment Reviews   |   Press Releases   |   About Us   |   Contact Us

 

All contents copyright©  1995 - 2019  Enjoy the Music.com®
May not be copied or reproduced without permission.  All rights reserved.