Convert FLAC to WAV
Convert a FLAC into a WAV with no loss whatsoever. This is one of very few conversions on this site where nothing is given up: FLAC compresses losslessly, so decoding it produces exactly the samples that were encoded, and a WAV stores exactly those samples. The audio in the file you get is bit-for-bit identical to the audio in the file you had.
Use this without the search next time. Prathom Workbench puts Prathom's tools in your toolbar.
Add to Chrome — freeDrop your FLAC file here, or click to browse
Up to 50 MB. Deleted automatically after 30 minutes.
What it does
- Bit-for-bit identical audio, nothing discarded
- Roughly twice the size of the FLAC
- For editors and tools that cannot read FLAC
- No watermark and no sign-up
How to use FLAC to WAV
- 1
Add the FLAC
Drop the file in or choose it from your computer, up to 50 MB, no account needed.
- 2
Convert
The FLAC is decoded to PCM samples — exactly reversing its compression — and written as a WAV.
- 3
Use it in anything
The WAV opens in every audio editor and tool, including those that have never supported FLAC.
The conversion that costs nothing
Almost everything on this site involves a trade. Formats hold different things, encoders discard what they judge unnecessary, and a conversion is usually a decision about what you are prepared to lose.
FLAC to WAV is not. FLAC compresses losslessly — it finds a more efficient way to describe the same samples, and decoding reverses that description exactly. WAV then stores those samples raw. The audio that comes out is identical to the audio that went in, and this can be checked rather than taken on faith: convert a WAV to FLAC and back, compare the two, and they match sample for sample.
That property is the entire reason FLAC exists. It is what makes it suitable as an archive format, and what separates it from MP3, AAC and every other format that compresses by throwing things away.
How it works
The FLAC is decoded to PCM samples and written into a WAV container. No encoder runs on the output — WAV writes the samples as they are, which is why it is the safe interchange format and why every piece of audio software reads it.
The file roughly doubles in size. That is FLAC's compression being undone, not anything being added.
Why keep both
FLAC is the better file to store, and WAV is often the better file to use.
An archive wants FLAC: half the size, exactly recoverable, with proper support for tags and metadata that WAV handles poorly. A working session may want WAV, because older editors, broadcast systems, analysis tools and CD burning software frequently read uncompressed PCM and nothing else.
Converting from the FLAC each time is free in quality terms, so there is no reason to treat the WAV as precious. Make it when you need it and delete it afterwards.
Where WAV is genuinely weaker
Metadata. FLAC has a clean, well-supported system for artist, album, track number and artwork. WAV's equivalents are an afterthought bolted onto a 1991 format, and software disagrees about how to read them.
A WAV made from a tagged FLAC will very often arrive with none of that information, which matters if you are converting a library rather than a single file. That alone is a reason to keep the FLAC as the copy of record.
Examples
A lossless track for an editor that will not open FLAC
Some older editors and a good deal of broadcast and scientific software read WAV only. The audio arrives intact, which is the point of having kept FLAC.
Preparing a track to burn to CD
Audio CDs store uncompressed PCM. Going from a lossless master gives a burn that is genuinely identical to the source.
Frequently asked questions
Is this really lossless?
Yes, genuinely and verifiably. FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec, and its compression is mathematically reversible in the way a zip file is: decoding returns exactly the bytes that were encoded. WAV then stores those samples uncompressed. You can convert a WAV to FLAC and back and compare the two files sample by sample; they match.
Then why is the WAV so much bigger?
Because FLAC was doing real work. It compresses audio by roughly half — not by discarding anything, but by describing the samples more efficiently, in the way a zip describes a text file more efficiently than the file itself. WAV does none of that; it writes every sample out at full size. The audio is the same, the storage is not.
Why not just keep the FLAC?
Keep it — it is the better file to store. Convert when something you need to use cannot read it. Older audio editors, broadcast systems, some scientific and analysis software, certain game engines and CD burning software all want uncompressed PCM. In every one of those cases the WAV is a working copy, not a replacement for the archive.
Does this differ from converting an MP3 to WAV?
Fundamentally. An MP3 has already discarded information permanently, so decoding it to WAV gives you a large file containing the reduced audio — nothing is recovered. A FLAC has discarded nothing, so decoding gives you the original audio at its original quality. Same operation, entirely different outcome, and it is the difference between lossy and lossless.
Further reading
- Lossless Audio Costs 40% of the Original and People Still Avoid ItLossless audio has a reputation as the choice you make when storage is no object. The measured ratio suggests otherwise: the same recording that took 5.3 MB as an uncompressed WAV took 2.1 MB as FLAC, bit for bit identical. That is a better result than lossless image compression usually achieves, and on difficult material rather than easy.
- What Each MP3 Bitrate Actually Costs, in BytesAudio bitrate is one of the few compression settings where the size is completely predictable — unlike image quality settings, where the same number produces wildly different files depending on the picture. Here is the same recording at six bitrates plus lossless, and what the predictability means for choosing one.
- A Lossless Conversion Changed Every Pixel in the ImageConvert a 16-bit PNG to lossless WebP, convert it back, and compare the two files pixel by pixel. Every single pixel is different. Nothing malfunctioned and the encoder did exactly what it advertises — because the word lossless makes a narrower promise than almost everybody assumes it does.