You can't tell the difference between FLAC and WAV (which to date nobody has been able to do using blind testing), so you settle on WAV as your format of choice?
I think the biggest hassle you're going to have with WAV is the lack of tagging. Disk space is cheap, so FLAC's main selling points (for me) are no loss of audio data and tagging. The space saved is just gravy..
On 2/27/06, hifisteve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Hi Folks.
Well I've just joined the exciting world of SB3 after a friend lent me
a spare one which he'd bought for his bedroom. As I told him through
gritted teeth "The only way you're getting this back is by prising it
from my cold dead hand...."
Anyway, I'd read all that people have said about format, quality, easy
of use, not shackling yourself to an 'Apple only' file format (have an
MP3 player in my car) and had opted for using Easy CD-DA to rip
everything to FLAC.
Out of curiosity, I decided to try comparing an untouched WAV file
ripped using iTunes (ripped very fast, about x30) with the same track
as a FLAC file produced by Easy CD-DA.
I have to say that despite being a hardened hifi nut of many years , I
couldn't reliably separate the WAV, FLAC and original CD through a £3k
CD player.
As a result I've decided to save my sanity and do the lot as
uncompressed WAV files and invest a bit of money in some HD space.
Has anyone else done this comparison?
--
hifisteve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
hifisteve's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4227
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=21545
_______________________________________________
audiophiles mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
