Maarkr
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 488
- Joined: 2011/12/10 09:35:33
- Location: Maine
- Status: offline
What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
I rendered my latest projects to FLAC since it seems quicker and smaller than WAV. Any reasons NOT to do that? After that, I convert a copy to WAV for mastering. Should there be any difference between the 2 formats other than size?
Maarkr Studio: SPALT Lifetime/BL Cakewalk, Studio One 3.5, UAD, Z3ta+2, IKM, NI, Waves, iZotope, Melda, Reaper i7 3770/Giga Z77 mobo, Win10 Pro-64 w16Gb, MOTU Ultralite MK4, Yamaha HS80M wSub, Live: PX-5S, FA-06, Roland Lucina, Epi Les Paul, Ibanez Bass, Amps, e-drums, Zoom R-16... Latest album release, NEW! Counry Classic at http://genemaarkr.bandcamp.com/
|
Sanderxpander
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3873
- Joined: 2013/09/30 10:08:24
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 13:04:56
(permalink)
I don't think so, WAV is a bit more universal but FLAC is lossless. It takes slightly more CPU to play back a FLAC file as far as I understand it. But the smaller file and quicker export seem to be negated by you having to then create a WAV copy afterwards?
|
ptheisen
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 173
- Joined: 2008/12/15 21:55:03
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 13:45:10
(permalink)
A while ago, I read an article in the "audiophile" magazine The Absolute Sound that showed (statistically) that the very act of playing back (decompressing) a FLAC file introduces a very slight degradation of quality compared to WAV, even though FLAC uses lossless compression. Whether or not most people would ever hear it, I do not know, probably not. I don't subscribe to all of the audiophile beliefs, I just try to enjoy high quality music reproduction on my meager budget. I'm okay using FLAC once everything else is done to store files on a flash or USB drive for later playback. But when it comes to creating files for mastering, though, I think it would be better to not have conversion to FLAC be included in the middle of the process.
|
eikelbijter
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1002
- Joined: 2003/11/13 22:23:52
- Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 14:00:34
(permalink)
ptheisen
A while ago, I read an article in the "audiophile" magazine The Absolute Sound that showed (statistically) that the very act of playing back (decompressing) a FLAC file introduces a very slight degradation of quality compared to WAV, even though FLAC uses lossless compression. Whether or not most people would ever hear it, I do not know, probably not. I don't subscribe to all of the audiophile beliefs, I just try to enjoy high quality music reproduction on my meager budget. I'm okay using FLAC once everything else is done to store files on a flash or USB drive for later playback. But when it comes to creating files for mastering, though, I think it would be better to not have conversion to FLAC be included in the middle of the process.
That's absolute nonsense! Sorry, but LOSSLESS means no loss! What is the world coming to.....
Xeon E3-1231V3, 16GB RAM, 480GB 840EVO SSD, MOTU 2480MK3, 424PCI w/ Sonar PlatinumDell XPS 18, i5, 12GB RAM, 500GB SSD+128GB SSD, Roland VS-100 w/ Sonar Platinum
Dell XPS 13, i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB 840EVO SSD, Zoom UAC-2, Sonar Platinum
http://www.RicoBelled.com/
|
Leadfoot
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2817
- Joined: 2011/04/26 11:08:38
- Location: Indiana
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 14:39:02
(permalink)
I agree with ptheisen. I export a 24/96 WAV master first before I do anything else. Whether it be nonsense or not, it's still data compression, and I would rather make a FLAC file from a WAV master than the other way around.
|
Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16775
- Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 14:47:22
(permalink)
Leadfoot
I agree with ptheisen. I export a 24/96 WAV master first before I do anything else. Whether it be nonsense or not, it's still data compression, and I would rather make a FLAC file from a WAV master than the other way around.
My thoughts exactly. I will ALWAYS consider my 32/44.1 Wav Exports my master for any further translation
CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughoutCustom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
|
Kylotan
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 995
- Joined: 2007/09/10 17:27:35
- Location: Nottingham, UK
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 14:50:32
(permalink)
A FLAC will sound exactly the same as a WAV unless you have a broken FLAC player, it's that simple. Once it hits the sound card and the D/A converters the hardware has no idea what file those bits originally came from so there's no way it could be degraded.
I mostly just export to WAV because either I'm producing a final master (needs to be WAV, typically) or I'm just going to encode it as MP3, in which case there's little point wasting time encoding as FLAC first.
Sonar Platinum (Newburyport) / Win 8.1 64bit / Focusrite Scarlett 6i6 / Absynth / Kontakt / Play / Superior Drummer 2 / ESP LTD guitar / etc Twilight's Embrace - gothic/death metal | Other works - instrumental/soundtracks
|
Maarkr
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 488
- Joined: 2011/12/10 09:35:33
- Location: Maine
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 15:31:39
(permalink)
good info... and after i read the post that talks about WAV masters being 24/96, it got me wondering why I just don't do a higher res WAV master? I just need to dither to lower sample/bit rates, but I read that increasing the sample rate actually reduces latency, (I/O Buffer Size/Sample Rate)*2, so I don't want a glitchy render, but I guess I can bump up the buffer sample size for the render. I'll test it, but my recordings were all at 24/44.1, so I don't think rendering at 24/96 will help me much other than the VST fx? I guess I have always done projects at 24/44.1k since I started in the 90's. I've been mastering this project with T-Racks CS which only takes WAV, AIFF, and CAF for pre-master formats.
post edited by Maarkr - 2016/02/01 16:01:40
Maarkr Studio: SPALT Lifetime/BL Cakewalk, Studio One 3.5, UAD, Z3ta+2, IKM, NI, Waves, iZotope, Melda, Reaper i7 3770/Giga Z77 mobo, Win10 Pro-64 w16Gb, MOTU Ultralite MK4, Yamaha HS80M wSub, Live: PX-5S, FA-06, Roland Lucina, Epi Les Paul, Ibanez Bass, Amps, e-drums, Zoom R-16... Latest album release, NEW! Counry Classic at http://genemaarkr.bandcamp.com/
|
slartabartfast
Max Output Level: -22.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5289
- Joined: 2005/10/30 01:38:34
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 17:06:46
(permalink)
Maarkr
good info... and after i read the post that talks about WAV masters being 24/96, it got me wondering why I just don't do a higher res WAV master? I just need to dither to lower sample/bit rates, but I read that increasing the sample rate actually reduces latency, (I/O Buffer Size/Sample Rate)*2, so I don't want a glitchy render, but I guess I can bump up the buffer sample size for the render. I'll test it, but my recordings were all at 24/44.1, so I don't think rendering at 24/96 will help me much other than the VST fx? I guess I have always done projects at 24/44.1k since I started in the 90's.
I've been mastering this project with T-Racks CS which only takes WAV, AIFF, and CAF for pre-master formats.
I do not understand why simple rendering would be at all affected by any buffer size in the system. It is a not a real time mathematical operation and can simply wait until the data is available. As for the issue of sample rate affecting latency, yes, if the buffer size is defined as X number of samples and the buffer is required to be filled before it empties, then the quicker it fills, the quicker it empties. More samples fill it quicker hence less buffer induced real-time delay. But the reason the buffer exists is to prevent a data from overflowing while it is queuing to be processed. And more data to process usually means it takes longer to process and you will need to use a larger buffer (more samples) in that event to avoid dropouts. Your best performance will be to use the lowest sample rate that encodes the signal accurately and set the buffers to the smallest size that prevents dropouts.
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 18:49:12
(permalink)
Kylotan
A FLAC will sound exactly the same as a WAV unless you have a broken FLAC player, it's that simple. Once it hits the sound card and the D/A converters the hardware has no idea what file those bits originally came from so there's no way it could be degraded. Agreed. The easiest way to think of FLAC is like a zip file. If you compress a Word doc using zip, after being unzipped all the letters and punctuation will be exactly as they were before you compressed to FLAC. That's why it's considered lossless compression. Lossy compression, or more accurately data omission, is like upon unzipping this thread, certain let ers were d leted on the as umption th t you cou d read the w rds anyway.
|
ptheisen
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 173
- Joined: 2008/12/15 21:55:03
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 20:08:16
(permalink)
Neither I nor the magazine article said that decompressing the FLAC file results in any loss of data, so in that sense there should be no harm in creating a WAV file from the FLAC file, but there wouldn't be anything to gain either. The magazine's contention apparently was that the process of decompressing at the same time as the D/A conversion introduces a slight degradation of the audio playback (not the data itself). I tend not to believe the perceptibility of such small details, and I'm not suggesting that anyone else needs to. For those with any further curiosity, the article is in the December 2014 issue of The Absolute Sound.
|
Tané
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 198
- Joined: 2003/11/08 02:48:26
- Location: Forbes, NSW Australia
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 21:02:35
(permalink)
Love your explanation Craig
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 21:11:19
(permalink)
Lots of good points about FLAC, and Craig's explanation is spot on. The input and output of a FLAC encode-decode process are identical.
Just one query: people are saying FLAC renders faster than WAV?
I've not checked, but I can't even see how this could be possible. Indeed, if it were correct, that would suggest a bug in rendering to WAV.
I'm sure this must be an illusion. Rendering to WAV means writing the data. Rendering to FLAC means writing the data *and* compressing it.
http://johntatlockaudio.com/Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 21:13:41
(permalink)
There's a general computer science Hard Problem about compression, which is that compression is slow, while de-compression can be really, really fast. This is why when you upload a file to youtube or soundcloud, it takes hella time to process, but then playback later is more or less instantaneous.
http://johntatlockaudio.com/Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
|
gswitz
Max Output Level: -18.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5694
- Joined: 2007/06/16 07:17:14
- Location: Richmond Virginia USA
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 22:29:06
(permalink)
How much space do you save? I remember saving a bunch of space back in the days of furthurnet.org. Now, it seems to not be such a big difference. Is Windows compressing our wav files? Did the wav standard improve? If anyone cares,I export wav.
post edited by gswitz - 2016/02/01 23:03:30
StudioCat > I use Windows 10 and Sonar Platinum. I have a touch screen. I make some videos. This one shows how to do a physical loopback on the RME UCX to get many more equalizer nodes.
|
arachnaut
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1168
- Joined: 2007/05/05 17:24:33
- Location: Sunnyvale, CA USA
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 22:42:41
(permalink)
I just ripped a song from a CD and saved the WAV file. I used Sound Forge to convert to FLAC and loaded the FLAC and saved back to WAV. The two WAV files are not identical. I summed them with one inverted and there was a very tiny error component as shown below. After about 45 seconds of playback the error dropped below the SPAN threshold. 
- Jim Hurley - SONAR Platinum - x64 - Windows 10 Pro ASUS P8P67 PRO Rev 3.0; Core i7-2600K@4.4GHz; 16 GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X; GeForce GT 740; Saffire Pro14 MixControl 3.7; Axiom 61 64-Bit audio, SR: 48kHz, ASIO 256 samples latency, Rec/Play I/O Buffers 512k, Total Round Trip Latency 13 ms, Pow-r 3 dither
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/01 23:36:02
(permalink)
It would be interesting to see if the FLAC and WAV files null.
|
arachnaut
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1168
- Joined: 2007/05/05 17:24:33
- Location: Sunnyvale, CA USA
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/02 00:50:14
(permalink)
The FLAC compared the same way as the WAV. Error below -100db and then after 48 seconds the error is essentially 0.
I don't know what happens magically at 48 seconds, but the error signal drops out very quickly.
- Jim Hurley - SONAR Platinum - x64 - Windows 10 Pro ASUS P8P67 PRO Rev 3.0; Core i7-2600K@4.4GHz; 16 GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X; GeForce GT 740; Saffire Pro14 MixControl 3.7; Axiom 61 64-Bit audio, SR: 48kHz, ASIO 256 samples latency, Rec/Play I/O Buffers 512k, Total Round Trip Latency 13 ms, Pow-r 3 dither
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/02 01:20:06
(permalink)
John T
people are saying FLAC renders faster than WAV?
I've not checked, but I can't even see how this could be possible.
Sure, it is possible. If the FLAC is substantially smaller, it might require less disk I/O or less network transmission, at the expense of additional CPU processing on the FLAC. Probably not worth fretting over. I am in the camp that says stick with WAV until you are ready to distribute.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
Kalle Rantaaho
Max Output Level: -5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7005
- Joined: 2006/01/09 13:07:59
- Location: Finland
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/02 04:36:48
(permalink)
eikelbijter
That's absolute nonsense! Sorry, but LOSSLESS means no loss!
What is the world coming to.....
But lossles does not mean identical. Whether you hear the difference or not, that's another topic, but the differences could (?) cumulate in some way depending on the path of refinement.
SONAR PE 8.5.3, Asus P5B, 2,4 Ghz Dual Core, 4 Gb RAM, GF 7300, EMU 1820, Bluetube Pre - Kontakt4, Ozone, Addictive Drums, PSP Mixpack2, Melda Creative Pack, Melodyne Plugin etc. The benefit of being a middle aged amateur is the low number of years of frustration ahead of you.
|
Kylotan
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 995
- Joined: 2007/09/10 17:27:35
- Location: Nottingham, UK
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/02 05:54:04
(permalink)
Lossless does mean identical. If it didn't, then information about the original would have been lost, hence a 'loss'.
I am more inclined to believe that there is a problem with Sound Forge or Sonar, or with the way the files are being compared, than to think there is actually any difference between the information in a WAV and the information in a FLAC correctly generated from that WAV.
In fact I'm not convinced the 'invert and sum' is guaranteed to null to zero because digital audio signals are not symmetrical around zero - 16 bit signals go down to -65536 but only up to 65535. A full amplitude sine wave, inverted and summed, would therefore sometimes sum to values of -1 rather than 0 - or any value in between, if you were running the audio engine at a higher bitrate.
So, the noise floor of over 100dB in that screenshot above could easily be attributed to this sort of numerical error, and given that the SNR of 16 bit data is under 100dB anyway, it makes more sense to me that this was introduced somewhere else along the line (eg. upsampling from 16 bit to 24/64/whatever).
Sonar Platinum (Newburyport) / Win 8.1 64bit / Focusrite Scarlett 6i6 / Absynth / Kontakt / Play / Superior Drummer 2 / ESP LTD guitar / etc Twilight's Embrace - gothic/death metal | Other works - instrumental/soundtracks
|
Maarkr
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 488
- Joined: 2011/12/10 09:35:33
- Location: Maine
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/02 11:40:51
(permalink)
someone above asked about the file difference, so i saw this:
song is 4:02 in length
wav size 62,769 bit rate kbps 2116
flac 43,422 1469
and I noticed that all FLAC files were a lower bit rate than wavs, which were all at 2116 kbps.
since bit rate = sample rate x bit depth x channels
2116000/24/2= 44083 sample rate (makes sense, 44.1k)
the same flac 1469000/24/2= 30604 sample rate (30.6k ?) but still showed 24/44.1k in an audio editor.
the flacs render at different bit depths... my album had bit rates of 1409 to 1661, so part of the compression algorithm must affect not only file size but bit depth calculations.
Maarkr Studio: SPALT Lifetime/BL Cakewalk, Studio One 3.5, UAD, Z3ta+2, IKM, NI, Waves, iZotope, Melda, Reaper i7 3770/Giga Z77 mobo, Win10 Pro-64 w16Gb, MOTU Ultralite MK4, Yamaha HS80M wSub, Live: PX-5S, FA-06, Roland Lucina, Epi Les Paul, Ibanez Bass, Amps, e-drums, Zoom R-16... Latest album release, NEW! Counry Classic at http://genemaarkr.bandcamp.com/
|
ampfixer
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5508
- Joined: 2010/12/12 20:11:50
- Location: Ontario
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/02 14:12:56
(permalink)
To me it's more an issue of FLAC files not being read by as many devices as WAV files. If they sound the same then it's more about convenience when sharing projects or individual files. Is FLAC going to become a standard that is useful?
Regards, John I want to make it clear that I am an Eedjit. I have no direct, or indirect, knowledge of business, the music industry, forum threads or the meaning of life. I know about amps. WIN 10 Pro X64, I7-3770k 16 gigs, ASUS Z77 pro, AMD 7950 3 gig, Steinberg UR44, A-Pro 500, Sonar Platinum, KRK Rokit 6
|
arachnaut
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1168
- Joined: 2007/05/05 17:24:33
- Location: Sunnyvale, CA USA
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/02 15:17:15
(permalink)
I made another test.
I downloaded the latest FLAC (version 1.3.1) and converted the ripped WAV file to FLAC using the standard default settings.
The decode window mentioned it was skipping an 'unknown chunk field "LIST"' in the WAV file.
I took that FLAC (1) file and converted it to WAV (1) then I took that WAV (1) and converted to FLAC (2) and then took that FLAC (2) and converted to WAV (2):
WAV -> FLAC (1) -> WAV (1) -> FLAC (2) -> WAV (2)
I compared the WAV (1) and WAV (2) files and they were identical (The SHA-256 checksums were the same).
I could not find any info about the LIST chunk in the WAV or RIFF spec.
I ripped the original file from a CD using Windows Media Player (64-bit), it may have inserted that chunk.
- Jim Hurley - SONAR Platinum - x64 - Windows 10 Pro ASUS P8P67 PRO Rev 3.0; Core i7-2600K@4.4GHz; 16 GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X; GeForce GT 740; Saffire Pro14 MixControl 3.7; Axiom 61 64-Bit audio, SR: 48kHz, ASIO 256 samples latency, Rec/Play I/O Buffers 512k, Total Round Trip Latency 13 ms, Pow-r 3 dither
|
arachnaut
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1168
- Joined: 2007/05/05 17:24:33
- Location: Sunnyvale, CA USA
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/02 16:07:48
(permalink)
I repeated the NULL test, this time using the exact same original WAV file in two track, sent to an AUX track with one inverted.
The results were identical to the WAV/FLAC test - about -100 dB error noise and then after about 48 seconds the error dropped out to non-detectable.
So it looks like there is something in Sonar itself that contributes to this.
I tried changing the dither to OFF and there was no real change.
- Jim Hurley - SONAR Platinum - x64 - Windows 10 Pro ASUS P8P67 PRO Rev 3.0; Core i7-2600K@4.4GHz; 16 GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X; GeForce GT 740; Saffire Pro14 MixControl 3.7; Axiom 61 64-Bit audio, SR: 48kHz, ASIO 256 samples latency, Rec/Play I/O Buffers 512k, Total Round Trip Latency 13 ms, Pow-r 3 dither
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/02 16:12:57
(permalink)
Thanks for pursuing this...seems like a definitive answer.
Regarding Beepster's question...Microsoft has chosen FLAC as the preferred file format for Windows 10, and it's gaining momentum now that memory isn't as expensive as it used to be, and internet bandwidth is faster. MP3's patent is close to expiring, which coincides with it being less necessary, and although Apple will probably try to hold on to AAC, FLAC will continue to gain ground.
I think the main barrier to acceptance is probably "legacy" (fancy word for "old stuff") devices that don't support FLAC. Once a generation of smartphones can handle it, I don't see much future for MP3 except where space is at a premium.
Of all the file compression formats I always thought Windows Media was best at lower bit rates, but now even Microsoft has abandoned it. Also if FLAC gets more traction, it looks like Ogg Vorbis's day in the sun will not arrive.
|
arachnaut
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1168
- Joined: 2007/05/05 17:24:33
- Location: Sunnyvale, CA USA
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/02 21:47:22
(permalink)
I needed to make one more test. This time I used Sound Forge to create a square wave sweep from 20-20,000 Hz in 64 bit floating point at 48 kHz.
In Sonar I am using the 64-bit engine.
I put the WAV file on two tracks, inverted one and summed to a buss. Put Voxengo Span on the buss in the 180 dB range.
This time the null was perfect.
Most likely then, the previous tests I showed with non-nulls had to do with 16-bit conversions from the original CD file. Plus the CD was 44.1 kHz so there were conversions in sample rate as well.
- Jim Hurley - SONAR Platinum - x64 - Windows 10 Pro ASUS P8P67 PRO Rev 3.0; Core i7-2600K@4.4GHz; 16 GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X; GeForce GT 740; Saffire Pro14 MixControl 3.7; Axiom 61 64-Bit audio, SR: 48kHz, ASIO 256 samples latency, Rec/Play I/O Buffers 512k, Total Round Trip Latency 13 ms, Pow-r 3 dither
|
gswitz
Max Output Level: -18.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5694
- Joined: 2007/06/16 07:17:14
- Location: Richmond Virginia USA
- Status: offline
Re: What's your render preference? WAV or FLAC?
2016/02/02 22:09:16
(permalink)
For the test, record a wave, export as flac, import and flip polarity then null test.If anyone says that test isn't perfect, I will have to try it myself to believe it.
StudioCat > I use Windows 10 and Sonar Platinum. I have a touch screen. I make some videos. This one shows how to do a physical loopback on the RME UCX to get many more equalizer nodes.
|