hifisteve 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?
As has been said many, many, many times on the forum, there is no difference between WAV and FLAC. FLAC is a LOSSLESS format with the same exact information as the original WAV. The only reason I could see for using WAV is too save a wee bit of encoding time. There are many more advantages to using FLAC. But, hey, whatever floats your boot (as the Canadians would say!) -- ezkcdude ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=21545 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
