On 25/01/11 16:56, diego wrote: > > chill;605186 Wrote: >> Ok, so let's accept that you think this additional 0.2% network traffic >> makes a difference to the sound quality. How much effect do you think >> the extra ~100% network traffic (from streaming WAV rather than FLAC) >> is going to have? >> >> Edit: Obviously I'm not trying to open up the argument about WAV vs >> FLAC streaming, just trying to put a bit of perspective into the issue >> of network traffic. > > Gosh... you measurement value believers are tough...! Well, if what you > see (or hear) makes you happy, there is no point in trying to convince > you that there is more you could hear, if you only wanted to open the > ears (noooo please don't answer seriously, its not meant seriously > either ;-) )
The point that has been made is nothing to do with "measurement value". It is also not commenting on the relative merits of wired vs. wireless networking. It is pointing out the fallacy of your previous argument where you suggest that wireless networking requiring more Touch CPU than wired networking is a reason why wired sounds better than wireless. Can I suggest that, as well as your ears, you start to use: 1. your eyes ( to read what has been written accurately) 2. your brain (to process what your eyes are reading effectively) By following these simple tips I think you'll find that you will enjoy the discussion immeasurably more. R. -- "Feed that ego and you starve the soul" - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
