Issues with changing track numbers when editing ID Tags

[centurymantra]

Re: Issues with changing track numbers when editing ID Tags

agree. Ease of tagging/standard tagging method read by all players, etc. is the key benefit of FLAC. But the OP should keep in mind a valuable aspect of FLAC vs WAV that is often overlooked. FLAC files contain self checking data within the file that allows one to, for example, copy all your files to a backup drive, and then run [TEST CONVERSION] in dbpa, or "verify integrity" in foobar2000, or even a command line flac program to automatically test all your files to make sure there has been no corruption in any of the files. WAV files do not have this built in ability.

Thanks for the info. In fact I was next going to ask for some concrete technical benefits to FLAC over WAV - outside of the tagging issues. I am considering switching over to FLAC for the rest of my collection, but I am still looking for issues like this one you point out to really sway me. I guess I have a hard time shaking the conceptual notion and desire to archive a copy of exactly what is on the CD, as misguided as this may ultimately be. I have noticed that there are small, very vocal contingents on the various forums that tend to lash out at and berate the "fools" and "stupid people" using WAV files -even when the audio quality debates are not present - which typically derails most of the threads, so finding good "nuts & bolts" info is a little difficult.

Given that I understand the two files will be indistinguishable on playback, the two main benefits that are pointed out are usually that they take up less storage space and are easier to work with in regards to tagging, metadata, etc. I consider the issue of storage to be meaningless at this point with 3 and 4 TB drives becoming the norm. Also, using dbPoweramp I am able to ID tag my WAV files with everything I need. Yes, adding ID tags has some issues but provided I use dbPoweramp for my ripping, the ID tag thing becomes (almost) a non-issue for me as well. Given this, I would like information on some other compelling benefits for using FLAC - points like the issue described above by garym.

I have read that FLAC takes up less CPU and network space for playback so this could be a benefit. I also have read that WAV files don't store the tags in the file, and I don't quite understand this, but could present problems when transferring/copying the data in the future?

At any rate, I am just looking to become more technically informed on the subject.

[mville]

Re: Issues with changing track numbers when editing ID Tags

Yes, adding ID tags has some issues but provided I use dbPoweramp for my ripping, the ID tag thing becomes (almost) a non-issue for me as well.

... until you want to organize your music library or playback these wav files.

When it comes to reading tags, todays media players are more compatible with flac files than with wav files.

Tagging flacs is standardized using vorbis comments, whereas any attempts to implement a standard for tagging wav files has been a bit of a mess, in my experience.

[BrodyBoy]

Re: Issues with changing track numbers when editing ID Tags

I also have read that WAV files don't store the tags in the file, and I don't quite understand this, but could present problems when transferring/copying the data in the future?

It definitely goes to why .wav has tagging issues. It might be helpful to browse through the Wikipedia article on .wav....then you can decide for yourself whether its technical limitations & inconveniences might become an issue for you, now or in possible future uses.

The important point is that .wav is not actually synonymous with Redbook CD audio, in that it's just the file format originally developed by Microsoft for storing audio files on PCs. While both are indeed LPCM audio data (as is Apple's AIFF), .wav was never meant to be a storage format for digital music libraries....its design didn't anticipate a need for extensive metadata. It's the subsequent, makeshift backward-engineering of the INFO data chunk that has lead to perpetual issues with tagging and player compatibility. A digital music library is essentially a massive database of audio files, and like any other database, its functionality is entirely dependent upon how effectively its organizational information is structured and accessible to users. This is .wav's Achilles' Heel.

I realize that you're wary of the audiophile debate, but I don't think anyone here is trying to criticize your feelings about that or argue with you about it. I will say outright that I do believe lossless = lossless....bits are bits, and if they're all there, it's exactly the same digital information. And IMHO, most serious music listeners (I guess this is where my snobbish bias may rear its head a bit :D) do demand lossless digital music. So the choice of lossless codec then comes down to compatibility (with the user's playback software & devices) and usability. It's on these fronts that .wav will always have limitations, because of its design origins, that the other lossless codecs do not.

Tagging flacs is standardized using vorbis comments, whereas any attempts to implement a standard for tagging wav files has been a bit of a mess, in my experience.

Exactly.