PasTim wrote: > > There is also a school of thought that suggests that when using the > Touch (especially with EDO and 24/192 tracks), sending PCM reduces the > CPU load on the Touch and might produce a better result. However, I > don't want this thread to be hijacked into a discussion into the sanity > or otherwise of audiophiles. There a load of other threads on that > topic :). It would surprise me if PCM causes less load than FLAC. I don't have the means to test on a Touch, but on other platforms, the opposite is true.
FLAC can be decoded very efficiently. On the platforms I know, the overhead of decoding FLAC to PCM is less than the overhead from dealing with the larger file size of PCM or WAV. Keep in mind that volatile as well as non-volatile storage are frequently bottlenecks on modern microcomputers. That's why with volatile storage, you devote considerable resources towards caches and buffers (as well as techniques that minimize cache misses and such). That's also why you frequently see considerable speed gains when switching to better non-volatile storage (such as going from HDD to SSD). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ poing's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63617 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102639 _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/ripping
