The difference between WAV, FLAC, APE
For the same music file, the sound quality of the three music formats WAV, FLAC and APE is exactly the same.
It means that after ripping the CD tracks, the sound quality of WAV, APE and FLAC is exactly the same, but actually it is the same file in different forms. But if it is exactly the same as a CD, except for the problem of ripping operation, it is basically limited by computer technology. (You can’t ask for the technology of the computer equipment to be the same as the professional equipment for recording records, the computer is just a balanced combination of technical equipment.)
Therefore, from the point of view of the collection, all three formats can be the same. However, in terms of playback effect, tens of thousands of professional equipment and neurotic golden ears can hear a little difference. This is mainly due to different decoding speeds due to different encodings between different formats; if it is converted to the same format, there is no difference in normal listening.
So what is the difference between the three formats APE, FLAC and WAV? (These differences do not mean that the quality of the music file itself is good or bad)
1. Different encoding results in WAV>FLAC>APE decoding speed, which directly affects playback smoothness: WAV>FLAC>APE The shape files of
WAV wave are waveform files that can be directly read by audio equipment and many programs, and basically there is no codec problem. Both flac and ape encode WAV, so they can be exchanged for a lower volume, but at the same time, when decoding and playing, the resolution of the playback equipment is very sensitive (or limited by technology), and there will be some jitter jitter ( complex analysis). encoding) and the playback effect is not full and smooth. You can try to solve this by converting to WAV format evenly.
2. The encoding is different, resulting in the size of the space occupied by APE>FLAC>WAV.
Since both flac and ape have encoded WAV with superior technology, they have traded less volume, which is the main reason why these two formats appear. Since both are lossless compression, if you’re looking to collect and your space is limited, it’s definitely the best choice for collecting smaller APEs. As for whether there will be a smaller lossless compression format in the future, but for now, APE is the best option.
3. Different encoding and decoding speeds result in different CPU usage and power consumption.
The more complex the encoding, the more troublesome the decoding, the higher the natural memory usage rate, and the higher the power consumption. Those players who cannot afford to suffer more feel more. The same power, the playback duration of the three formats is from long to short: WAV>FLAC>APE, so if your P5 player is relatively fragile, naturally choose WAV to enjoy longer music.
4. Open source is different, resulting in different bug fix effects.
Get what you need for this! Many flac fans have criticized APE for its anti-correction and fault tolerance. They accuse you of being unable to continue playing once an error is reported, meaning the entire track is invalid. Great). And they think it’s good that flac silences him.
Personally I think if it plays the whole track can’t be played because of an error, which is equivalent to a white shock, it’s really annoying, and the flac mute processing can keep playing the next tracks, which is humane; but from the perspective of the collection, the dumb processing error is Isn’t that a bit misleading and self-deceiving? Fans and collectors are obsessed with subtle differences that the human ear can’t detect. How can they let such a big mistake slip by? Anyway, if there’s a bad track, I definitely don’t want to collect it, and APE just gave me a way to check the quality.
5. Different open source, resulting in an uneven amount of compatible software.
Regarding encoding software support, everyone said that there is more software compatible with flac than ape. It’s okay. But that doesn’t mean that there are fewer player software that support the Ape format.
