On 3/10/2012 at 11:18 PM [email protected] wrote: |FLAC uncompressed is just rather a dumb idea (IMHO) because all you end |up wityh is a file that is rather large and will be larger then the |original WAV because of the FLAC container and metadata. Why would you |want FLAC uncompressed when compressed FLAC will not sound any different |because it isn't different. It's exactly the same bits. So why not just go |for FLAC level 8 and be done with it? =============
There are two things that need to be understood. You mention one of them - the bits in a FLAC file are identical, i.e., it is a lossless compression mechanism. The other thing has little to do with the FLAC file directly, but rather the processing of the FLAC file. Some people feel that the extra CPU power required to de-compress a FLAC file causes the timing issues in the audio samples going to the DAC. Some DACs will reclock the incoming audio stream, but many do not. So when the timing between the samples varies due to CPU loading, it may produce audible differences. I suspect this is why some "audiophiles" have their knickers in a twist. They don't hear the FLAC file, but rather the inability of the computer to properly process the FLAC file in the time domain. As a result, the FLAC format is being blamed for weakness inherent in their computer hardware, and possibly software as well. Just my two cents.... _______________________________________________ Flac mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
