The FLAC format is basically a wrapper that holds the PCM data within. Similar to how when you zip a file, you end up with a .zip file, but your original file is contained within. Once unzipped, you will have back your original file, down to the last byte. Nothing will be different. The zipping process does compress your file, but that compression is lossless. The FLAC format compresses the PCM content, and does so losslessly. In addition to the benefit of saving storage space (due to the compression), the FLAC format allows for nearly endless metadata to be tagged to your music file (such as "Artist", "Album", etc, and you can make up any number of custom tags, too). If you do not need the extra tagging that FLAC offers, you can go with the Windows .wav standard. It offers only basic tagging, but it is uncompressed. The PCM data within is identical to the PCM data that is in a FLAC file. So for anyone that is curious about whether or not the additional CPU cycles that are required to uncompress a FLAC during playback, you can convert your FLAC file to a .wav file, and listen for any differences. Unless you are using ancient hardware (or driving a late model Honda), you should not hear any difference between a .wav file and a .flac file. My Honda Accord has massive jitter issues with FLAC files. So I converted my library of FLAC files to .wav files on a USB flash drive, and now they play in my Accord with no issues (except that the stereo kind of sucks). I am not, however, able to search through my .wav files (tagging issue). With FLAC files I was able to search, but the songs had massive jitter. Way to go Honda! They used a Panasonic front-end for the stereo, and Pioneer speakers. The stereo is not worth listening to, anyway. Honda dropped the ball on this.

Your videos very informative love from India 😍

I just received an e-mail debuting your new Aspen speakers. When will you debut them on this channel? They look awesome.

Oh! I never knew how it all worked. Now, I can breathe easier knowing that FLAC and ALAC are not a big compromise.

I like watching these vids, I not a big audiophile but do have interest in sound quality.

With modern internet connections there is no need to deal with lossy codecs for audio streaming. Forget about MP3, MQA and other lossy codecs if you are serious as audiophile. It doesn't take much processing for a modern CPU or SOC to play highest quality lossless audio e.g. 192kHz 24 bits PCM. Digital audio streaming is already top notch today with master quality bit perfect capability but of course if you live in a ghost town in the Nevada desert or on your own island in the Pacific, you will not be able to enjoy it.

Hello Master. Greetings from Colombia.

Something I've learned with these "high res" recordings. a lot of these services will sell you 24-bit versions whether it was recorded that way or not, if you really like an artist or a label. check with that record label to see what is the highest recording format they actually use. Save your money.

Even though FLAC and AlAC deliver PCM losslessly, there is a time variable involved that may cause jitter or a temporary interruption of that stream. So they are the same assuming that there is no interruption during the unpacking or decoding process, which as you say is trivial on most modern computers. However jitter can still be a problem, even when transmitting data from a streamer to say a DAC due to electrical or EMF interference, since that digital data is still being sent through an analogue carrier wave. Caching of that data and verification of that data after each step could mitigate that jitter, so that your DAC doesn’t start decoding a signal and have interruptions or errors in that signal due to electrical interference. I think that’s why HDMI is the best way to send a digital signal to a DAC, followed closely by USB, and then followed by the worst being SPIDIF. This is due to the time variable component and subsequent electrical noise that can interfere with the digital signal. As for DSD being the “best” that’s only true if all of your source material being recorded is acoustical in nature, as in sticking a microphone or microphones in a physical room to capture a live performance. However, this DSD information is then converted into PCM for mixing and mastering purposes and if you are using digital instruments, like synthesizers or drum machines, that are PCM based, then that difference is lost. Not to mention that DSD DACs employ oversampling and filtering as a matter of functional necessity, which may skew the sound from the original source recording, where as an R2R ladder DAC, has the option, and typically works best without any oversampling (at least internally). So DSD is only “better” than PCM in very special use cases, which in today’s world of how recordings are mixed and mastered only rarely give a better result than say a very high resolution…say 768k PCM recording format. An example where DSD might be better than PCM is in recording a live orchestra, where you are capturing all the instruments and the acoustical signature of the recording hall and the entire “mix” happens in the recording itself simultaneously. DSD was originally invented by the same engineers at Sony and Phillips, that also invented the PCM CD format, and DSD due to it’s insane file size, and inability to mix and master it, was designed to be an archival format for super high resolution digital audio. That’s why it’s not very useful in most modern recording studio situations. Not to mention the file sizes…OMG , for example one song of 96KHZ FLAC can be saved in say 70mb, where as the exact same song in 512 DSD would be 900mb! So file sizes, even in the current day of multi-terabyte hard drives are still very much an issue and a hinderance to having all of your music in high resolution DSD format.

Nice video!

unpack the flac, yeah yeah yeah! un pack! the flac!

I’m sure the original questioner meant some format like WAV, or AIFF.

For a second I thought those circles in the background were tortillas

But PCM puts a higher load on the network by simply being larger and is thus more sensitive for network loads. Not very likely to cause issues for those on good connection but as likely as the increased load on the CPU for handling FLAC.

I use Windows Media Audio Lossless. It works.

everyday lecture, thank you sir

I really want to try DSD audio files but I don't know where to get/buy them

I find PCM much more detailed and in-depth than flac of the same track. Maybeby the process of unpacking does something to the sound and make it a little brittle...

Good thing you didn't go to that PCM vs DSD comparison. Contrary to speculation DSD is not a better format and more time than DSD files are converted to PCM for editing (because there isn't enough available software to edit DSD) so if there were any gain it would be lost in the conversion process.

What's the point of different FLAC compressions (ie. uncompressed FLAC)? If it's lossless why bother with the option of a bigger file size?

Paul speaks highly of DSD encoded music. I am streaming music through a PLEX media streamer, and the vast majority of it is "uncompressed" FLAC. It sounds very good to me, so I am assuming "uncompressed" FLAC is essntially identical with the WAV files found on my CDs. Some of the music I stream is high res--from 24/96 to 24/192. My PLEX handles it without problems. So how would I get DSD format tracks? Would PLEX handle them? Wouldmy DAC handle them? I am intrigued by what Paul is saying, but I cannot determine how DSD is relvant to me? Any insights?

I think Paul should invent his own codec "P-CMFLAC"

Whoever uses a high grade audiophile system should not even touch mp3, wma or any other compressed format.

The new speakers look beautiful. I hope I can afford them some day

FLAC. has previously been incompatible with many players such as car players and older mp3 players. This is due to the flac. requires more processor power and then uses more batteries on the mp3 player. win7 and win8.1 win10 I do not think support flac. before installing software or used winamp. all new mp3 players and most mp3 players on ebay now support flac. Do not know with players in newer cars as they are a few generations behind car players you can buy in the store. I only use flac. and you do not save 50% on the file size when you put the flac on the recommended compression. If you want to be 100% sure that everything can play the music then you should use wav but it takes up a lot more storage space. pcm. and flac. has the same sound during playback. here it depends on the software that plays the file and the codec being used. When you need to transfer wav. through a network it requires more capacity since wav is larger files than flac is

FLAC is great, using it for years. However, FLAC CAN be compressed to varying degrees and I've seen compressed songs being streamed.

I use to like this guy until he started pushing expensive power cables.

CAPS 2 C NOT SHOUTING…. PCM VS FLAC, IS JUST 1/2 THE STORY… WHEN I PLAY MUSIC THRU MY APPLE TV I GET PCM, SOUNDS TERRIBLE. WHEN I LISTEN TO AMAZON MUSIC MOST LIKELY FLAC SOUNDS BETTER… BUT ITS NOT THE FLAC , ITS RUNNING THRU MY YAMAHA A6A… BETTER DAC…