Mnyb wrote: > In this actual case there is facts , no needs to use poor analogies. > > Fact . There is no difference in sound between FLAC and WAV . > There is not even a plausible mechanism for it . > > Other forum members likearchimago have even measure the the transporter > in this regard. > The electrical signal that comes out are identical . > > That'd age no other explanation than what's going on in the mind . > Given the complexity of a mind vs some tech... > > You actually have your imagined cake and eat it to . > transcode FLAC to PCM at the server ( any old nas might not have the CPU > for it ). > > I don't get where the poor analogies fit OP is limiting himself to poor > metadata support etc , because he believes WAV sound better > if he stopped doing that he whole collection of music would be easier to > manage. > And enjoyment would increase :) > > In fact this tread is about solving the wrong problem , the answer is > don't use WAV .
i don't use WAV or FLAC, my comments were about the audibility of compressed vs. non-compressed audio generally. in the case of ALAC and AIF, and using the transporter, I can hear the difference. I might speculate this is becasue the transporter will decode AIF natively, while ALAC must be transcoded on the server, but that's just speculation. and you're assuming that because two files are identical, they must sound identical to different users. you're not accounting for the key variable, the hearing of the listener. until you can measure that, you can't say with authority they sound the same, no matter how the file looks from a data perspective. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
