> -----Original Message----- > > Sean Adams wrote: > > > > > On Mar 30, 2005, at 7:36 AM, Daryle A. Tilroe wrote: > > > >> Daryle A. Tilroe wrote: > >> > >>> Daryle A. Tilroe wrote: > >>> > >>> Quick followup: Does this also then mean that track based FLACs > >>> will support FF/REW within the track whereas the transcoded > >>> CUE sheet based ones won't? > >> > >> > >> Vidur? Sean? > > > > I'm not ignoring the FLAC questions - I'm waiting for Vidur to wake up. > :) > > > > One thought on this: if we find that CUEd FLACs are inherently just a > > pain in the butt with no advantage in terms of gaplessness, would you > > accept as a solution a script to unCUE them? > > > > I think you have me confused with a CUE sheet fanatic. I'm a track man! > ;-) I was just trying to confirm that since FLAC was native with the SB2 > (ie. no transcoding) you could now FF/REW within a streaming FLAC track > file. I just wanted one more <Nelson>HA!HA!</Nelson> to rub in the faces > of the CUE sheet fanboys. :P :D >
I am a CUEd FLAC fan, allthough not a fanatic... My understanding is that currently CUEd FLACs are transcoded to stand-alone FLAC tracks by the server. To me, it therefore looks like the client won't see any difference between CUEd and single-track FLAC files. Assuming FF/REW etc. are done in the client, there should be no difference between CUEd and single-track FLACs with respect to this type of functionality. Am I right? Steinar _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
