FLAC or WAV?

This is retarded, they're bit for bit identical, FLAC is like a zip file.

idiot.

File: 1478401053202.jpg (716KB, 1280x907px) Image search: [Google]

716KB, 1280x907px

That's not a valid argument. Do your research on the 2, ask questions if you have any in this thread, I'd love to answer them.

>>72271447
I gues OP implied which is better. Can you answer that, then?

FLAC

FLAC is better.
Because FLAC is better on size while being the exact same quality.

WAV just allocates part of the filesize to parts of hte music with literally nothing happening (like frequency spaces around 40khz) or complete silence.
FLAC only allocates bitrate to actual activity.

FLAC takes up less space.

>>72271262
mp3

File: patrick.png (291KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 512x384px

>>72271534
>he doesn't specifically train his ear to pick out all those good silent snippets

>>72271262
mp3 320

>>72271534
That's not how FLAC works. At all. It's not lossy. Take a WAV file and use Winrar to put it into a compressed RAR archive. That's closer to how FLAC works. What you're describing is more like how Vorbis works, and to a lesser extent MP3, where you actually remove parts of the bitstream in order to reduce file size. Read a fucking wiki before you post.

>>72271330
This isn't true. wav is completely uncompressed

>>72272059
He never said it was lossy.

>>72272074
When uncompressed they are bit for bit identical. When you play a FLAC file in a media player all it's doing is on-the-fly decompression and then playing the bits that come out. That's why FLAC is so CPU intensive and eats batteries in about half the time that lossy formats do.

>>72272135
His description of how the compression works is necessarily lossy. FLAC doesn't "only allocate bitrate to actual activity". In order to do that, it would have to remove bitrate from the silent parts of the original. Removing any part of the original bitstream is lossy. FLAC does not work that way. At all. Not even close.