Robin Bowes;181560 Wrote: > > .... that your statement "WMA lossless ... as good as FLAC" does not > tell > the whole story.
In the context of the thread starters original question it does since he never ever said that he was going to use his ripped music files solely in a world where only FLAC is played natively. Neither you nor I know what they will be used to and with that in mind and the Forum section bening Audophiles they are as good, at lease from a sound quality perspective. Robin Bowes;181560 Wrote: > Whether or not either format is "as good as" the other depends on other > factors. To a point I agree, it depends on other factors too. Note that it goes both ways. Robin Bowes;181560 Wrote: > > For use with the Squeezebox or Transporter FLAC would seem to have the > upper-hand since it is decoded natively on the client device which > means: > > 1. No transcoding on the server > 2. FF/REW work Who really cares if there is trancoding going on at the server as long as it plays your songs properly? I was quite suprised that FF/REW didn't work with WMA lossless, that is a weakness in SB3 and Transporter and I can't really understand why. Nor do I think that should dictate ones decision on which file format to use. But if that FF/REW is very high and your priority list and you only intend to use your files for SB/Tp than that is of importance. Robin Bowes;181560 Wrote: > 3. Reduced bandwidth usage (assuming WMA lossless is decoded to .wav) Yes, but why when the server can transcode to FLAC? -- johann ------------------------------------------------------------------------ johann's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10177 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32871 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
