That’s true, but it’s a hack by the dbPoweramp people. It was rejected by the FLAC maintainers for being loopy. (Again nothing that the ROCK solution can be reasonably blamed for ignoring. It would be nice if it added basic human-readable folder and file names, tags, and artwork though, I’d agree with that one. On the other hand, guaranteed-unique and machine-convenient folder and file names certainly have large advantages in the kind of appliance that Nucleus/ROCK aims to be)
Worth correcting this, most modern flac encoders can actually embed uncompressed PCM in a FLAC container WITH the advantage of metadata.
It’s called Uncompressed FLAC.
The best of two worlds, only drawback is that the files get bigger that WAV counterparts, due to metadata, covers etc.
Hatfield and McCoys on this subject matter here. 
I believe the only answer is to going to be that we agree to disagree…
–MD
Really? I didn’t know that. What are they?
Mr. @Mikael_Ollars - As @Suedkiez points out, “uncompressed flac” isn’t universally supported. Wav is.
Mr. @Suedkiez - Yes, FLAC does support 32-192. Is that “enough?” Will future audio standards move to ever higher bit depth and sampling rates? I don’t know (and neither do you).
Further, decoding FLAC compression is NOT the same as converting a WAV file. Both end up as PCM, but the extra decompression step required for FLAC does not exist for WAV files.
Is a NUC fast enough to decompress FLAC without audible artifacts? The Absolute Sound magazine claims not. Is TAS correct? I don’t know (and neither do you).
With the undeniable uncertainties of FLAC encoding, I choose to stick with WAV. I have no objection if you choose to use FLAC - just so long as you don’t try to change my mind with unsupported mumbo-jumbo. I’ve stated the facts. You may or may not believe them, but they are (as I’ve stated) what they are. Period.
Wow. Why even come to a forum if that’s the attitude you’re going to take?
As for “profoundly deficient”, I think you fail to make that case. Maybe “could be better,” sure.
You are misunderstanding how big 32 bit is and what the numbers mean.
Yes, what I said. The decompression step is trivial and the resulting PCM is the same.
Which artifacts would there be?
And that’s fine, whatever, but it’s not a very convincing critique of what the ROCK ripper does.
You’re mixing discussions, @Bill_Janssen & @Suedkiez - Roon ripping / Wav vs. Flac? I have no objections if anyone else wants to use Roon ripping - it just isn’t for me for the reasons I stated. I did get excited when I read that the new Roon version supported direct ripping, and was then disappointed with the limitations of the tool. You are right - “profoundly deficient” was overly harsh. I should have said “profoundly deficient for my uses.”
Also @Suedkiez - it’s apparent that we’ll never agree on wav vs. flac. I respect your choices and ask that you respect mine.
1 Like
I already did that, and Roon does. You started this thread with quite a rant about how poor the Rock ripper is. It just isn’t for you, that’s all.
2 Likes
Roon Labs seems to think it is. Why would anyone use ROCK who didn’t trust Roon’s evaluation of these things? That makes this argument moot, I think.
Sure. But can you incontrovertibly prove that there are no undeniable uncertainties in WAV encoding? Maybe there’s no good format.
Every music digital-encoding format has artifacts. The wav format has been around the longest and has the benefit of DAC decoders being engineered to minimize its artifacts. Newer encoding formats may have specific advantages over wav, but from what I’ve read, none yet has surpassed wav for playback quality. There are some arguments that MQA (despite being a lossy format) can sound better than wav but only on specific tracks that have been encoded / decoded on similar equipment. Will a CODEC come along that can surpass wav? I’m sure that eventually, that will happen. But for now, I think that all the competitors to wav have too many limitations. And as always, I could be wrong…
Speeds got nothing to do with it unless you’re in a hurry to consume the results. Deterministic algorithms produce predictable and consistent results.They can’t be “rushed” into mistakes and FLAC decompression is deterministic
Relativity is a wonderful thing. From where I’m sitting it doesn’t feel as though you’re in want of “unsupported mumbo-,jumbo”.
1 Like
What “unsupported mumbo jumbo” have I stated, @killdozer - List one statement that I’ve made about flac (statement - not opinion) that is less than factual.
I said flac is lossless - it is.
I said flac can handle more metadata than wav - it can.
I said flac uses less storage space than wav - it does.
I said flac had more limits on bit depth and sampling rate than does wav - it does.
I said flac is a newer CODEC than wav - it is.
Unless you’re putting words in my mouth, none of this is “unsupported mumbo jumbo.”
Why do these discussions always end in a pissing match?
Glenn, just do your thing and be happy 
1 Like
End with one?
Well, the claim on NUC decoding and audible artifacts I quoted. Much of the FUD you throw up around audible differences in lossless codecs is also unsupported. I’d consider it supported with reproducible examples and/or verified controlled test results. In real world tests most folk struggle to distinguish high quality MP3s from red book.
It’s interesting that Roon went with FLAC rips when SQ is one of their value propositions. They don’t care about file metadata so it’s not that. Did they prioritise storage efficiency over SQ?
FWIW I keep all of my original rips as single large WAVs for a little format redundancy. Roon’s not the ripping tool for me.
1 Like
Yes if this carries on going down the swanny as it is doing now!
I suggest everyone stand back and take a deep breath…omm…omm
1 Like
That’s a real can of worms 
I duck because
- I have no WAV files to compare
- I am 72 , my Golden Ears are long gone , if I ever had them so I wouldn’t spot the difference
- I listen music for fun not analysis
- Finally why resurrect a subject that’s been inconclusively done to death previously
2 Likes
I have heard Paul McGowan suggest in the past that Wav sounds better than FLAC/ALAC, but I always felt he was generally talking about noise created by under powered chips that struggled to decompress the wav file’s.
I have only done minimum testing as I only have a small number of WAV files but I heard no difference, but it’s good to have the options for all the file types.
Personally I prefer the metadata handling of FLAC, but I like an inclusive community not one that forces everyone down the same direction (the exception is folder browsing 
).
1 Like
Rather than continue here, browse the collective wisdom as already laid down…
120 entries
A mere 32
45 entries
Why keep it just to flac, a blockbusting 600+
Or ALAC 200+
2 Likes