I have come across more opinions of Flac and Wav sounding the same, as they are both lossless, than the latter sounding better than the former.
I even came across a post saying that Flac sounds better than WAV (Linn streamer). As nearly all my CDs are ripped to Flac I decided to convert some to WAV and make comparisons. My conclusion was that there is a difference, WAV sounding better although the improvement is subtle. Why this is I don't know. It could be that the DAC and perhaps even the mscaler has an easier job processing a signal which is not folded to make more space.
This brings me on to the second part of this post.
There is a big difference in the dynamic range of the CDs I bought before the start of the loudness wars and those after, the extra head room requiring the volume controls to be several notches higher. The mastering of these CDs from over thirty years ago is not up to the high resolution standards of today and they can come over a bit bass light, especially transferred 70s recordings intended for the constraints of vinyl.
It is swings and roundabouts and to my ears the increased DR out weighs what might be lacking in the mastering. Instruments sound more like they should and more faithful to what was picked up in the recording studio. There is also a sense of less clutter in the mix with everything having more space to breathe. Guitar solos have more impact. I am sure that not everyone would agree with bog standard 16Bit 44kHz (upscaled to 705kHz) sounding better than high res 24 Bit 192kHz, but that is how it is to these ears in most cases. In short A to B comparisons modern high resolution remasters do sound more impressive, but this is misleading.
Different people hear different things and DR might well be less important to some. The system could also have a part to play with complex speaker designs squashing DR, or is it designers having the compressed music of today as their blue print? I feel that my system is ealising more of its full potential the greater the DR.
I bought a lot of CDs prior to the loudness wars so I could play my new toy
and they were far from cheap in those days. The expense has been justified over thirty years on. I bought less CDs in the 90s and put this down to a decline in the rock music scene. Now I am beginning to think that CDs not sounding so good had something to do with it. My old vinyl gained more apeal. Although the system I had did not compare with what I have now the speakers, Heybrook HB1s, were not lacking in dynamics. This is what appealed to me when auditioned against competitors forty years ago.
There is a big second hand record store in Cardiff Market. I thought I might be able to track down some CDs to my liking mastered before the loudness wars. I had no luck but will visit again next time I am in town.
Compression has been compromising recordings for thirty years now and it is likely that few people under fifty would be aware of what is taken away. It is something we take for granted and live with, the mass market majority oblivious to it. Whilst a lot of forum space is taken up by what amounts to hair splitting, something as major as restricted DR receives little attention. In a Genesis thread on the massiveh Steve Hoffman I made reference to the bands CDs I bought in the 80s sounding particularly good because of the lack of compression. I received no reaction.
The situation seems to have got worse on recent releases by the bands I like and the DR site confirms what my ears tell me. They might sound impressive on my bluetooth speaker but I would much rather it if they did on the hifi systems and headphones.