Julf wrote: > In that case, I nominate all of Computer Audiophool. One of my favorite posts over there is '_this_one_by_Cookie_Marenco_' (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/sound-better-uncompressed-downloaded-files-6158/#post70764), in which she claims that sound quality of music files degrades when sent by email, and that different file formats have different susceptibility to this "problem". :D
> We tested the customer experience by emailing the audio.. both the FLAC > (at its least damaging compression) and the full sized 96 24 file (in > uncompressed Zip) of the same music. We then opened them up, > reconstituted and played back through several listening and playback > configurations. We compared against the original 96 24 audio the files > that the audio files were made from. Roch posted my results. FLAC was > close, but not close enough. > > At the time, I was more curious if emailing audio and broadband would > destroy bits of information. We decided that the uncompressed 96 zip was > the least damaging (though almost not existent, there is a slight > degradation, not as much as FLAC). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ andy_c's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3128 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=101564 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
