On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 09:50:20AM -0800, gi...@thaumas.net wrote: > I wouldn't worry about it though. It's unfortunate the dbPowerAmp > developers want to take advantage of the subset of customer who don't > understand what 'lossless' means.
I read some of the articles on www.audiostream.com earlier, and some of those linked from it. I can't understand the "uncompressed is better than lossless" notion either. At least with CD playback, a CD-R copy is going to be more prone to jitter (and added gaps from poorly configured rip/burn software) which does affect the sound, but comparing FLAC and WAV on exactly the same hardware should yield no difference in audio. On systems where the I/O is the bottleneck (for example, a smartphone app or hardware player with slow storage) there can be a higher risk of buffer underruns with uncompressed source material. And with a low powered CPU, there should be more of a risk of underruns with tighter compression ratios. This could explain why some audiophiles have heard better results with looser FLAC compression on the same device. But on modern (and reasonably powered) hardware, there should be no practical difference at all. -- -Dec. --- "Mosaic is going to be on every computer in the world." - Marc Andreessen, 1994 _______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
