Library Music Themes
General Sharing & Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: nidostar on January 23, 2023, 11:07:21 AM
-
In a recent exchange with @likedeeler we discussed the authenticity of a FLAC download and whether it was a true lossless rip. You can find it here: https://librarymusicthemes.com/index.php?topic=1126.msg38973#msg38973.
In conclusion I questioned whether our desire for FLAC formatted files was a necessity or merely an obsession for perfection which is not always realised. FLAC rips of CDs certainly sound sharper than lossy ones. But there have been occasions where I have gone to replace a lossy file with a lossless one only to find that the lossy file sounds better. Obviously there are many factors that affect the end quality of a FLAC rip just as with a lossy format. In the past I have found that lossy recordings at 320kbps or better still in VBR sounded pretty good. A comparison of a FLAC file and a lossy conversion in VBR (220-260kbps) that I carried out with Spek showed very little difference at the high end frequencies between a FLAC and a VBR MP3. Certainly not enough of a difference that the human ear could detect.
So I wonder whether, in our pursuit for lossless perfection, we risk sacrificing the quality of how the music sounds? I'd be interested in other members thoughts.
-
A lossless compressed file such as FLAC, ALAC, APE, is undoubtedly better than a compressed one for obvious reasons.
The point is that if someone makes a crappy flac rip (with a crappy hardware, with maybe wrong settings) of a vinyl in bad conditions, than a mp3 rip of a good record made correctly could even sound better.
Not to mention fake FLACs such as upscaled MP3s ecc.
It's up to you what to keep if you happen to have both versions.
Generally speaking, a lossless rip is always better than the mp3 one of the same record.
IMHO.
-
I pick and choose which rips to replace or "upgrade" -- like nidostar, I sometimes prefer the sound of the older lossy rip to a newer lossless one, even as low as 192kbps. But as Greta notes, it depends, of course, on the quality of the original rip, the OP's hardware, settings, etc.
As I understand it, the "difference" really lies in whether you listen to music on headphones (as I tend to do) or on large speakers. Also, lossless is best for editing, etc.
-
Lossy formats like MP3 remove data. That is what lossy means, data is removed. Lossless means the data is kept. You don't gain any new data with a lossy format. Also, MP3s are a detriment to archival purposes and they are certainly not what any engineer intended. You should have a lossless master, then make copies from that if you do lossy.
Besides, even if you prefer lossy formats, MP3 is probably the worst format you can use. Ogg Vorbis, while unable to load tag data properly on Windows, is supported on nearly every platform now, and offers better compression, better quality, better file sizes and even supports higher bitrates, than a similar file encoded in MP3. The same can be said for OPUS and heck, even AAC, but those aren't as supported.
-
To make it short: No. FLAC is in the vast majority of the cases, overkill and unneccesary. I am a big fan of lossy encoding, especially in our case here, it is the perfect end-user format: Many LPs being shared here (which is not a very accurate medium), often very old and mastered in mind of it being on a LP (and thus "deforming" the sound to accustom to the medium, not aiming at the perfect reproduction of sound in mind). The mastering is also much better than the loudness wars crap we have to deal with since the start of this Millenium, so the stress on the MP3 encoders are also less (e.g. the clipping issue at hot-mastered 0dB peaking CDs). And there is no reason to change our music afterwards - we listen to it. Period.
MP3s can actually be used for archiving, it's then called "transparency". While other say "archiving" needs to be bit-perfect. But if a LP is worn-out, it is already not "perfect", so you have "bit-perfect" copy of a worn-out and thus imperfect medium. Contradictory and pointless, innit? Who knows how the actual master tape sounded before it went to vinyl pressing facilities? Is the FLAC LP now the "real" version? So archiving your 40year old eBay'd record surely is a noble task I also profit from, but claiming it to be THE "real" version of what the composer and engineer had in mind is basically lying to yourself as each disk is worn out differently - storage, usage, used equipment et cetera have different effects on each disc. (Obviously not a thing with CDs). An example? There was a FLAC share of the PARRY LP with "Contact Breaker" on it (122 - Videopop), a fantastic song. The MP3 version of the BMG website obviously sounded different as it's not a 40-year old LP stored in a potentionally moldy basement/attic at someone's house. So basically the FLAC of an imperfect medium is considered "perfect" for many, whilst the more accurate MP3 from the very library owner accessing the master tapes is called "unsuitable for archiving".........
Anyways, I sent every WAV and FLAC through LAME of my own settings. When I had the opportunity to get the WAVs I took my good time to read whether I want FLAC or not. And I came to the quick conclusion that MP3 (or any lossy format, but I take MP3 as synonyme) is fantastic.
To me, it is overy obvious people parrot anti-MP3 sentiments without actual hearing tests or if they do so, absolutely exaggerate their observations ("MP3 SUCKSS!!" or "DIFFERENCE IS LIKE DAY AND NIGHT"), mostly stemming from the Napster era when MP3 encoders were horrible. In fact, lossy encoding is so efficient it should be applauded for what it does. The second thing I hear is: "They take away data". What these people who say this leave out is: Years of science behind that. Removing masked bands is (almost*) like leaving out infrared images on a BluRay - You just don't need it because you can't* hear it.
Your ears are a factor, then your brain. On top of that is the medium of your choice. I often shake my head when a 256 kBit/s MP3 is frowned upon just for the sake it's an MP3 rip but the record rip is far worse. What's the point? To hear the clicks clearer? Leave alone the equipment you use. If you manage to get perfect hearing, can somehow trick your brain (confirmation bias) and have expensive equipment, then LPs are not the medium of your choice in the first place. Sorry, it's like that. So FLAC rips of *anything* is what I also prefer as base source, but audible difference are almost zero. You can see it on the spectographs - barely, but you listen with your ears, not with your eyes.
* There are frequencies shading the "surrounding" sound, but these are barely audible.
As you see, I use the term "barely" a lot. And that is what MP3 really is about. Saving literally hundreds of kBit/s that have barely any audible relevance. Frequencies are mostly intact at 256 kBit/s. MP3 files are transparent at about 200 kBit/s, the 120 kBit/s that is needed to reach the limit of the standard MP3 is more than sufficient; these bits are literally "luxury" bits so to speak for hi-hats and crash cymbals, usually my files end up having about 275 kBit/s with high frequencies going on (so not just wobbling basses). Freeform MP3 exist and allow for more bitrate by the way. OGG and AAC have almost no difference to MP3s at high bitrate (>200 kBit/s), they only excell MP3 at lower bitrates in the 128 kBit/s area - something you guys and gals don't touch anyways. Everything at 200 kBit/s sound the same. So even that is a non-issue.
*MP3-encoded files are generally considered artifact-free at bitrates at/above 192kbps.
* Vorbis ogg files are supposedly artifact-free at bitrates at/above 160kbps.
* AAC- and Opus-encoded files, depending on the particular encoder implementation, are claimed to be artifact-free at lower bitrates than both Vorbis ogg and MP3.
Re-encoding makes no sense in future - that is what I also hear a lot. "What if in future...". MP3 is roaylty free and thus even more accessible than ever. Saving space is not needed as MP3 is already very compact, the competitors save almost nothing and sounding not much better. And even if so, I can create WAVs out of my VBR0 MP3s - which sound perfectly fine!
The reason why I like FLACs and I also had a few APEs here is that I have control over the encoder. If it's Xing or a poorly set-up FhG (e.g. in the MAGIX programs), the MP3s created are horrible and create the stigma of "MP3s sound bad". So far, everytime I had a weird-sounding hi-hat, it was apparent in the WAV too. I have a few files where the V0 VBR LAME, usually 220-260 kBit/s, is constantly using 320 kBits. The tracks are called "Circledrums" and "Line Feed" from the SONOTON album Sound Force. And I could not hear any difference. When the synthesizer kicks in, it masks the high frequencies and the encoder goes down to 290 kBit/s. If I have those files in WAV, FLAC or MP3 makes no difference, except that the other ones have information stored our brain would ignore anyways. An MP3 with proper psymodel (psycho-accoustic processing) does not need more than 320 kBit/s to sound fantastic, BECAUSE it is using said model. It is the whole point; a MP3 still going to 800 kBit/s would be faulty and does not do what it is supposed to do.
I don't know about you people's equipment, environment (how is your furniture placed? Where are you seated while listening? et cetera), what your chain is (decoder, DACs, soundcards,...), what your hearing is and how well you are trained to find artifacts. But is it still enjoyable if you look for flaws?? Do you go into a gallery just to complain about some oil blebs on an oil painting instead of enjoying said painting?
Hydrogenaudio is very clear about my personal observations too:
Human hearing sensitivity peaks at 1 or 2 KHz, and drops from there. Children and young people under 20 years old can't hear above about 20 KHz at all, and this upper limit decreases with age. Many people can't hear anything above ~18 KHz at all, even test tones. This affords an opportunity to limit the frequencies an MP3 encoder cares about to just those that humans can hear.
The point of lossy formats like MP3 is to achieve transparency while saving space, with sacrifices made in ways that change the audio in ways that are minimally audible. Removing what is likely to be ultrasonic content is an effective way to achieve that goal. If you're not concerned about saving space, or you are determined to erroneously regard any sacrifices to the audio to be a risk to or reduction in quality, then for the peace of mind, you should not be using MP3 at all; rather, you should use a lossless format.
The characteristics of music present further reasons to lowpass the input to an MP3 encoder.
Just as you can't hear a mosquito buzzing when firing a cannon, quiet sounds are masked by louder ones. [...]
Musical instruments produce sound within the range of 40 Hz to about 16 KHz. Generally, each instrument produces a loud, relatively low-frequency fundamental tone, accompanied by numerous quieter overtones at higher frequencies. Although a few instruments (cymbals, trumpets) may produce overtones at higher frequencies, there is so little acoustic energy above 16 KHz, those tones tend to be masked by the much louder sounds at lower frequencies. Consequently, most people can't distinguish music that's missing frequencies above 16 KHz from music that isn't. When the difference is noticeable, it tends to be only in loud transients, such as percussion hits. Accordingly, well-designed MP3 encoders allow high-frequency content through only when it's sufficiently loud or would not be masked.
Again kind of a non-issue again: Either you have very clear very high frequencies which are properly encoded lossy - or it's being masked -> not fully audible anymore -> Less bitrate required for equal reproduction -> 320 kBit/s are sufficient.
About the original post: Yes, MP3s change the sound sometimes to your likings, but that is not quite the "fault" of the encoding, it's just your personal preference, similar to "LPs sound so warm" and "CDs so cold". The wrong sound - even with the mastering for LPs in mind! - of a LPs is prefered to the way more accurate reproduction of a CD. Just like some people like a violin recorded in a perfect studio environment while others want the accoustics of a concert hall/opera house.
-
I appreciate Psyclon's detailed response.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, for what it's worth, I always convert FLACs to MP3s for loading on my various listening devices... For me, lossless is strictly for storage purposes.
-
Lossy formats like MP3 remove data. That is what lossy means, data is removed. Lossless means the data is kept. You don't gain any new data with a lossy format. Also, MP3s are a detriment to archival purposes and they are certainly not what any engineer intended. You should have a lossless master, then make copies from that if you do lossy.
Besides, even if you prefer lossy formats, MP3 is probably the worst format you can use. Ogg Vorbis, while unable to load tag data properly on Windows, is supported on nearly every platform now, and offers better compression, better quality, better file sizes and even supports higher bitrates, than a similar file encoded in MP3. The same can be said for OPUS and heck, even AAC, but those aren't as supported.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
-
The term lossless is a misnomer imo. For vinyl rips it all starts with the quality of AD conversion, specifically the hardware and clocking (jitter-free). My guess is that only a small fraction of rips are recorded properly or near lossless.
-
I've always read from many people, not only on this thread but in the past too, they put in doubt lossless format citing as reason the quality of the vinyl, the AD conversion, the hardware used to listen, ecc ecc.
This has quite nothing to do with the topic we are discussing here. Is mp3, by any chance, coming from a different source than flac? Is, by any chance, mp3 immune to the "problems" coming from the quality of the vinyl, AD conversion ecc?
We're talking here about a comparison between lossy and lossless, obviously coming from the same source.
To me, mp3 is quite like a dinosaur, an obsolete codec that no longer makes sense nowadays.
What is the purpose in using a codec just to save space, when we have all the speed and storage we want/need for considerable lower prices than years ago?
Said codec undoubtedly throw away data, and it's not proven it throws away only the "non-audible" frequencies. Also, it's not proven it works perfectly without sacrificing bits of the necessary data.
Rather, comparing spectrals of a WAV/FLAC with the MP3 ones of the same track taken from the same source, is visible the loss of data even to the lower frequencies.
mp3 was about to be abandoned many years ago, if its inventors hadn't try to save it by launching a device on the market that could only read that format. What a craftiness!
Oh, look at that, a portable player, useful! Yes, useful, but too bad they put ridiculous amounts of memory in it and you can only listen to mp3s...
This is the only reason why mp3 format is still alive today. This is history.
-
Agree with Greta here. If we want to listen to FLAC, let us listen to FLAC. The majority of the forum uses it for good reason and making a thread about if we really need it is kind of disheartening to see. I may not like MP3, but I at least recommend better lossy formats over MP3, like Ogg Vorbis and Opus.
I'm one of the few that can hear an audible difference between lossy and lossless. Whether that's something my brain or ears wants me to think is not my concern. I just know that I enjoy FLAC for what it offers
-
What is the purpose in using a codec just to save space, when we have all the speed and storage we want/need for considerable lower prices than years ago?
I think what you're missing is that demand for streaming media is growing exponentially with the emerging world still coming online. Storing files on a hard drive for personal use is one thing. Streaming it across the worldwide web is another.
Truth is, there hasn't been a replacement for mp3. Or at least getting the industry to adopt a new format. More recently Facebook Research claims to have developed a hypercompression encoder that's 10x more efficient than mp3. Your can read about it here https://ai.facebook.com/blog/ai-powered-audio-compression-technique/
To your question about the sources of mp3s.. that's very hard to know. I think it's a constant process of new quality replacing old quality as technology for home recording gets cheaper. For example, today you can buy a top end audio converter for $500-$1000, which is equivalent to a $4000-$8000 converter from 10 years ago.
I can hear the quality transformation because I have multiple versions of library music that was recorded to digital format starting some time in the late 2000s. There were websites selling hard drives loaded with mp3 vinyl collections for $20-$40. They sounded great then. Now they sound horrible.
-
MP3 is probably the worst format you can use. Ogg Vorbis, while unable to load tag data properly on Windows, is supported on nearly every platform now, and offers better compression, better quality, better file sizes and even supports higher bitrates, than a similar file encoded in MP3. The same can be said for OPUS and heck, even AAC, but those aren't as supported.
I'm not sure why anyone would use Ogg Vorbis, if it's unable to load tag data properly on Windows. And support for AAC is vastly greater than for Ogg Vorbis – due to the size of Apple's ecosystem.
-
for what it's worth, I always convert FLACs to MP3s for loading on my various listening devices... For me, lossless is strictly for storage purposes.
That's what I do, too. Except that I use AAC as my lossy codec, instead of MP3.
FLAC is clearly a much better codec for archival purposes. You don't lock in all of of a lossy codec's psychoacoustic assumptions for future listeners, incl. yourself. From lossless to lossy – is a one-way trip. Why make that trip if you don't have to?
FLAC/lossless is the best format for archiving & production. Lossy is more practical for distribution, because of file size.
In the video biz, they divide codecs into production codecs, and distribution codecs. You use high-bitrate production codecs during the production process, so that you can edit/manipulate the video data with less generation loss.
When production is finished, the high-bitrate files are rendered into lossier distribution versions, which are what Netflix or Amazon stream to you. That's my philosophy for music files: get lossless files, so that I can do any manipulation I prefer (trimming, noise/click reduction, etc.) from the first generation data. When that's done, I "render" that file into a lossy codec that's better for "distribution" to my devices.
-
The answer to this is fairly subjective. I was once quite happy with mp3s at one time, as they were pretty much the standard as far as audio files were concerned from off t'internet. It wasn't really until I started paying more attention, thanks in large to this forum is has to be said, that I noticed that there were certain nuances revealed when listening to lossless rips. FLACS are a compromise, of sorts, in that they retain the quality but reduce the size. Which, for us with limited disk space, always has to be a consideration. WAV files, as we know, are massive as they're, literally, the raw data that comes off a compact disc. Or, as is becoming more prevalent, that which is ripped from vinyl and saved in WAV. FLACs sweeten things a bit, in that respect. For those who don't mind lossy sound, (or aren't that fussed about hearing every little sound), mp3s are sufficient, if they're in a decent enough bitrate. For those who do want to hear every sound, then FLAC is the obvious compromise.
-
MP3 is probably the worst format you can use. Ogg Vorbis, while unable to load tag data properly on Windows, is supported on nearly every platform now, and offers better compression, better quality, better file sizes and even supports higher bitrates, than a similar file encoded in MP3. The same can be said for OPUS and heck, even AAC, but those aren't as supported.
I'm not sure why anyone would use Ogg Vorbis, if it's unable to load tag data properly on Windows. And support for AAC is vastly greater than for Ogg Vorbis – due to the size of Apple's ecosystem.
Well, if Microsoft cared enough to fix it (and it would be a REALLY easy fix), then Ogg Vorbis would be perfect, imo. Still not perfect for Mac devices, but most end users are on Windows.
-
I was going to write a detailed contribution with a few technical explanations to this very interesting topic but I realise that it would be too laborious for me to do at this point. Let me instead state the following:
Lossy compression of music has no place in this world anymore. It is a technique that was developed 35 years ago when we had 16-bit operating systems and dial-up modems, and when very large hard discs for the consumer market had a capacity of 500MB. It made a lot of sense.
Lossy compression of music has lost that sense. We now have 64-bit computers, gigabit around-the-clock connections and standard hard discs that hold ten thousand times as much data.
Preferring an MP3 file over a lossless one today is like going to the record shop (Does anyone remember record shops?) and asking "Got that new Pusha T album on shellac?".
Never mind how shitty deficient your ripping setup, how bad your stereo or how atrocious mediocre the sound of those 24-bit, 96 kHz rips may be. Forget lossy.
-
The answer to this is fairly subjective.
I don’t understand why FLAC would be a “compromise.” It's just a slightly different workflow.
-
Well, if Microsoft cared enough to fix it (and it would be a REALLY easy fix), then Ogg Vorbis would be perfect, imo. Still not perfect for Mac devices, but most end users are on Windows.
If most end users are on Windows, and OV can't handle tags properly, that's a huge problem, no matter whose fault it is. The real problem with OV is that most people just don't use it, and haven't even heard of it. And OVs are useless in Apple's music ecosystem, which is very large portion of the market these days.
-
Well, if Microsoft cared enough to fix it (and it would be a REALLY easy fix), then Ogg Vorbis would be perfect, imo. Still not perfect for Mac devices, but most end users are on Windows.
If most end users are on Windows, and OV can't handle tags properly, that's a huge problem, no matter whose fault it is. The real problem with OV is that most people just don't use it, and haven't even heard of it. And OVs are useless in Apple's music ecosystem, which is very large portion of the market these days.
I have Windows, and there is no problem whatsoever with using Ogg Vorbis. What are you talking about?
(File formats are an irrelevance today. Except if you're hooked on Apple. Hahah! Poor thing. In the 1990s we thought Microsoft were bad. We had no idea.)
-
”File formats are an irrelevance today.”
Try: "File formats are an irrelevance today – for me."
There- fixed it for you!
”Except if you’re hooked on Apple. Hahah! Poor thing.”
The 90s called. They want their slogans back.
-
Would like to thank (mostly) everyone for these thoughtful responses. These answers will be a lot of help to many people curious about file codecs used here, I think!
-
Rant time. My most recent exchange on this forum was something like:
Bronic: Here, link to about 5000 albums of instrumental music
Person: They appear to be all in MP3 format.
Dude. Seriously??
This "FLAC first" mentality is nonsensical if you consider:
Numerous fake FLACS: Bloated files from MP3s hogging disk space from people who can't grasp the concept of what really means to upscale digital information.
FLACS made from vinyl rips: The type of record player itself introduces all kinds of distortion natural due the analog nature of the technology. No rip sounds the same across domestic equipments.
FLACS made from vinyl rips 2: Rips from worn out and dirty vinyls. That pop sounds better at 800 kBits, yeah.
FLACS made from vinyl rips 3: You are inevitably two generations apart from the master tape. Vinyl mastering had specific equalization that actually introduced distortion. Sloppy mastering jobs even misrepresented the original sound.
FLACS made from digital files of the official distributor: Numerous master tapes were lost or damaged over the years so they resort to rip vinyl. They even admit to be doing that in the case of APM's Patchwork recent releases. That's a 4.
FLACs of unremarkable, insignificant music: They are just not needed. That may subjective but it's a reality. And that's the case for the music I shared.
Recently I came across a Capitol sampler that was transferred from reel-to-reel tape to digital on Youtube. I was floored on how good it sounded compared to some tunes I am familiar on my collection and pretty much 90% of what I have. It's an illusion that a vinyl-to-FLAC would sound an inch closer to this kind of quality.
This lossy-driven mindset is just like asking for a 8K television plug a VHS. That's my rant.
-
How about let people enjoy what audio formats they like, and offering options for both when possible? :)
-
How about let people enjoy what audio formats they like, and offering options for both when possible? :)
Agreed. At the same time, there's no harm in occasionally reminding people that FLAC is basically the Switzerland of file formats. It's neutral – and it's the most compact, mainstream format that gets you easily to anything else you might prefer. With no quality loss.
-
I use AIFF when importing cd's. Then I'll convert them to 320kbs AAC and save them on a flash drive so I can play them in the vehicle.
-
I've noticed a couple of FLAC rips not quite sounding right to my ears, at first I thought it was just the fact that maybe someone ripped a dusty record, maybe they didn't clean their stylus or what have you, so I downloaded the same record ripped in .WAV
This is [Bruton] - BRI 02 - Francis Monkman - Tempus Fugit
There's a very noticeable difference in quality with .wav being the superior rip in this case with a fair amount of high frequency content missing in the FLAC rip.
https://pixeldrain.com/u/prftKQSM
FLAC
https://pixeldrain.com/u/JjG6PvjW
WAV
I've done a little more investigating and some of the Wav CAM rips sound better while most of them sound identical to the FLAC rips.
Other rips that I found where the FLAC sounded a bit off was a Canopo release: CNP 1021 - Gian Piero Ricci, Daniela Casa & Remigio Ducros - Lo Sport (1971)
and Southern Library MQ/LP - 9004 Leonhardt And His Orchestra – Soul Of A City - the FLAC rip of this is absolutely terrible.
I am somewhat curious about the disparity in rip quality and wondering if some of the original WAV rips that got lost through the years that now only appear as FLAC are somewhat lacking so I have been doing a double take on some releases, looking for the .wav rip to compare.
Also case in point: I got into records when I started making music and inevitably adopted the whole crate digging for samples ethos spending time in dusty basements inhaling all kinds of debris and potentially shortening the lifespan of my lungs (haha). Im now in a situation where I can't afford to spend the time or money to feed an insatiable habit of record collecting to find that golden sound that would give me a moment of relief and auditory ecstasy where the hairs stand on the back of my neck and goosebumps emerge over my skin as I press record on the MPC to capture that loop or break.
Reissues digitally released in FLAC and the incredible work done by numerous members on this board to supply vinyl rips of insanely rare and obscure records have allowed me an escape into a world of music I could only dream of.
-
The actual cause of the problem is already in your thread title: "Record" and to an extend "Recording".
Just to make things very clear and short: FLAC is a bit-perfect copy of a PCM audio stream (or WAV as it is often called).
To make it easier to understand are the differences between the terms "recording" and "ripping".
A recording is basically taking another device to capture an audio signal while the source medium plays along.
To do so, there are many "joints" in a chain which can be different:
*What is the LP/tape like?
*What is the turntable/tapedeck/reel-to-reel like?
*What cable is being used (I had a humming jack-to-jack cable once adding bass in the lower frequencies)?
*Is any sort of noise reduction turned on?
*Is there an equalizer running?
*Is there any gain used (e.g. MIC-IN or LINE-IN) during recording (check your soundcard / system properties) or in your DAW (the computer programm you use). Just one dB more and people perceive that as "better".
Contrary to "ripping": To rip means that there is NONE of these above problems involved as "ripping" means "extracting" the audio stream 1:1 the way it is, often within the system itself. No EQ is being applied, no cables can cause trouble and the quality of the stylus does not matter. The term stemmed from computer games where the music files have been "ripped" out of the files from the game, often via hacks. By doing so, you have no change of the actual signal, so "rips" are pristine and always the same as the source medium/source file. E.g. ripping a CD is done on your system from CD directly to the file. That's it. Nothing else involved. So you can never "rip" a LP/tape/analogue medium to begin with. If you have a CD ripped and it suddenly has more bass, you should get an exorcist. :)
You have heard of a "CD ripper", you can "rip DVDs" and still "BluRay rips" are a thing. But never a "casette ripper" or "LP ripper", right? If so, I'd be surprised ;)
So as you soon as you "record" something, differences are always happening. The PCM or FLACification at the end just works with the skills of the recording equipment and the guy/gal operating it.
Pretty recently, a bunch of SELECTED SOUND albums have been shared on this forum and I was flabbergasted how great these sounds. Yes, the LPs a private person owned sounded MUCH better and clearer than the WAVs you could get directly from APM. The guys over at APM, while recording (either the master tapes or the LPs) probably added noise reduction or a low-pass filter or whatever. The sharer here, sorry if you read this and I forgot your name!, recorded it absolutely masterful and this made this user's shares an absolute upgrade.
-
In short @stylesforfree the FLAC album is a fake. I checked each FLAC track against the WAV counterpart on a spectrum analyser app. The individual tracks are lossy files which someone has attempted to upgrade by simply converting an MP3 or the like to FLAC. The problem is that in doing so all you do is change the file suffix without changing the quality of recording for the better. Plus you end up with a larger file containing the same poorer quality sounding music. It would be interesting to know where you got it from. The WAV files are the real deal.