On 7/19/05, m1abrams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am sorry but you have to be kidding me right, is this a troll? Cause > it is a good one if it is. > > Bits are Bits, either they make it or they dont. You would have to > have some serious amount of noise coming from that expensive equipment > of yours to cause the bits to be scambled, yet your equipment can still > sync on it AMAZING. I am not defending SB right now, just plain old > common sense. FLAC is a lossless compresion format and a very good one > at that. The author and community take great pride in making sure the > codecs for it are up to snuff. Lossless is just that NO LOSS, what > goes in comes out the same. It is just plain silly and wasteful to use > WAV when a solution like FLAC is available regardless of how much money > you can spend on gear.
In his defense, I will admit that there is a remote possibility that there could be an audible difference between client-side FLAC decode and server-side FLAC decode. Higher CPU usage on the SB2 -> higher power draw -> higher noise -> jitter? Not saying I think it's the case, just that it's concievable. But you're right, it is flat-out IMPOSSIBLE for how the data is stored on the hard drive to make a difference in the sound. - Jacob _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
