There is no quality difference between FLAC variations - compressed or uncompressed (unless you force a 24-bit audio file into a 16-bit FLAC, but that may not even be possible). The only thing that varies with FLAC is the size of the file. There are many ways to store the same data, some more efficient than others. FLAC ensures that the exact same audio samples will reach your playback device, while merely using less disk space (or network bandwidth) to represent the same data. The whole point of FLAC is that it is lossless.
WAV files allow metadata, too. BWF (Broadcast Wave File) requires even more metadata types than WAV. FLAC can preserve this metadata, but is perhaps not the most efficient way to store some metadata. What sorts of metadata do you need in the audio file? As for uncompressed, all audio file formats except RAW have some amount of overhead. With WAV, the overhead is somewhat fixed, although there can be any amount of extra chunks of data. With FLAC, if you force it to be uncompressed, the overhead is slightly larger due to the block structure. FLAC might be slightly more appropriate for streaming, because the blocks are largely independent, unlike WAV where metadata is not repeated more than once. Bottom line, as Erik has been saying, there is absolutely no reason not to use FLAC compression. There is nothing lost. Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting On Dec 2, 2013, at 01:42, Maciej Mączyński wrote: > I thought that an uncompressed FLAC file provides better sound > quality than > a compressed FLAC file. On Dec 2, 2013, at 00:08, Maciej Mączyński wrote: > File size is not important for me. I need audio data from wav file and > metadata in one file. How to encode a wav file to an uncompressed > flac file? > > Regards, > Maciej > > ----- Original Message ----- >> Maciej Mączyński wrote: >>> Is it possible to encode wav file to uncompressed flac file? >> _______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
