# FLAC vs WAV for Mastering

> Both are lossless, so the audio quality question isn't really the deciding factor. Here's what actually differs and which one to use when.

[All guides](/blog)

# FLAC vs WAV for Mastering

Published 15 September 2026, 00:00 UTC · updated 31 August 2026, 13:05 UTC · by Loopin

FLAC and WAV are both lossless formats, meaning there's no audio quality difference between them when done correctly. The actual differences are in file size, compatibility, and metadata handling — not sound.

## Why there's no quality difference

FLAC compresses audio losslessly, meaning the decompressed file is bit-for-bit identical to the original — unlike MP3 or AAC, which discard information permanently to reduce file size. A WAV file and a FLAC of the same source, once decoded, contain exactly the same audio data.

This means choosing between them for mastering purposes is not a sound-quality decision at all, despite how it's sometimes discussed.

## Where WAV has the edge

WAV is more universally supported across DAWs, mastering plugins, and distributor upload systems — it's the safer default when you're not certain every step in your pipeline handles FLAC cleanly. Most distributor submission requirements are specified as WAV, not FLAC.

For final delivery to a distributor or streaming platform, WAV remains the more conventional and safely accepted choice in the large majority of cases.

## Where FLAC has the edge

FLAC files are meaningfully smaller than WAV for the same audio content, which matters for storage or transfer when working with large sessions or archiving many masters over time. It also supports embedded metadata more robustly than standard WAV, useful for tagging and organization.

If you're archiving finished masters for your own long-term storage rather than submitting directly to a distributor, FLAC's smaller size with no quality tradeoff is a reasonable choice.

## Check your specific distributor's requirements

Some distributors and platforms accept FLAC directly; many still specifically request WAV. Rather than assuming either is universally fine, check your specific target's current technical requirements before final export, since this is more about compatibility than a general rule.

When in doubt, WAV remains the safer default for final delivery specifically because of its broader, more consistent acceptance across the distribution ecosystem.

## The practical recommendation

Master and work in WAV throughout your session for maximum compatibility with plugins and tools, and deliver in whatever format your distributor specifically requests. Use FLAC for your own archival storage if file size matters to you, since it costs nothing in quality to do so.

This isn't a decision that affects how your master actually sounds — it's purely a practical, compatibility-driven choice.

## Frequently asked questions

### Does FLAC sound worse than WAV?

No. Both are lossless formats -- a FLAC file decompresses to be bit-for-bit identical to the original audio. There is no quality difference between them when both are used correctly.

### Which format should I submit to a music distributor?

WAV is the more conventional, widely accepted choice for most distributor submissions. Some platforms accept FLAC, but check your specific distributor's current technical requirements before assuming either works.

### Should I archive my finished masters as WAV or FLAC?

FLAC is a reasonable choice for personal archival storage, since it's meaningfully smaller than WAV with no quality tradeoff and supports metadata tagging more robustly.

## Related reads

- [Master your track free](/mastering)
- [Bit depth explained: 16-bit vs 24-bit](/blog/bit-depth-explained-16-vs-24)
- [AIFF vs WAV: does it matter?](/blog/aiff-vs-wav-explained)

---

Source: https://onloopin.com/blog/flac-vs-wav-for-mastering