marco1;153728 Wrote: > All, > > Thanks for the replies - very enlightening - I was surprised to learn > that 'CD quality' was so high at 1440Khz >
without wishing to be picky, you should say 1440 (or actually 1411) kbit/s (which is a bit rate) rather than kHz (which sounds like a sample rate). Also, to make a fair comparison, it would be better to compare the bitrate of a losslessly compressed format such as FLAC: the full CD WAV bit rate has no compression at all and is therefore inherently inefficient. So comparable numbers would be around 800kbit/s for lossless vs. 128/192/whatever for the lossy formats. > > However, if it is true, why should SB3 be able to 'punch above its > weight' with audophile CD players - is it for example that reading from > a CD is a harder job than reading a digital file on a computer?? > Lots of discussions about this around here and not a lot of agreement! Among the offers are: - a CD player will typically guess when it has trouble reading the bits, whereas a good ripper will take as long as it needs to be sure it has all the bits off a CD - with no moving parts in a squeezebox, slim can dedicate more of their component cost $$ to good quality output electronics - and others I won't bother to repeat! HTH Ceejay -- ceejay ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ceejay's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=148 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29416 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
