Audio format comparison
WAV vs FLAC
WAV stores audio as uncompressed PCM — the format you'd get if you sampled the audio and wrote every value to disk. FLAC compresses that same data losslessly (every bit is recoverable). For pure quality both are identical; FLAC just saves storage. WAV has wider hardware support; FLAC has better software support. Neither is right for YouTube downloads — YouTube's source audio is already lossy AAC, so neither format adds quality.
Side-by-side
| Feature | WAV | FLAC | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Audio quality | Lossless (uncompressed) | Lossless (compressed) | Tied |
| File size (1 hour stereo 44.1 kHz) | ~600 MB | ~300-400 MB | FLAC |
| Hardware support | Universal | Modern hardware only | WAV |
| Metadata / tags | Limited | Full ID3 support | FLAC |
| CPU overhead | None | Decompression (negligible) | WAV |
| Studio / professional | Standard format | Increasingly accepted | WAV |
| For YouTube source | Pointless (lossy source) | Pointless (lossy source) | Tied |
WAV wins on
- Universal hardware support — every audio device made plays it.
- No decode CPU overhead (just play the bytes).
- Studio-standard format for raw recording.
- Simple format — no compression to corrupt.
FLAC wins on
- ~50% smaller files than WAV for same quality.
- Royalty-free, open format.
- Metadata support (tags, album art).
- Universal software support on computers.
Verdict
For studio recording / mastering: WAV. For lossless music libraries: FLAC. For YouTube downloads: neither — YouTube's source is already lossy AAC, so save as m4a (the source format) or MP3 (broad compatibility). Wrapping lossy AAC in WAV or FLAC doesn't make it lossless; it just makes the file bigger.