Fizbin wrote:
I'm one of those 'weirdo's that can hear the difference between WAV and
FLAC on the SBT. I have two units and I have confirmed it on both. I've
had a friend come over a few times and randomly play a WAV file and the
FLAC counterpart. For the first half hour I could tell him
Julf wrote:
That is indeed an interesting result. What I would do is to try to
reproduce the results under even stricter conditions - have your friend
put together a playlist with a random combination of the FLAC and WAV
versions, and preferably try with a file that has been compressed with
Mnyb wrote:
Either it s a high res file then you get the bogus presentation of
bitrate or hi is simply disabling native flac so that he gets pcm(wav)
to the player .
Is PCM/WAV the fallback fromat?
Or some really wierd convert.conf fiddling or soem strange combinationof
file types
pablolie wrote:
as a rule, either format ought to result in bit-perfect PCM out of the
Touch. so just curious about what components and setup are around it.
Indeed and easy enough to check by recording the output on PC, making
sure they're aligned and then doing a bit compare. If they're not
probedb wrote:
Indeed and easy enough to check by recording the output on PC, making
sure they're aligned and then doing a bit compare. If they're not
identical then something is wrong.
Thats actually not contested , people in this tread claim that the
diffrences are for other reasons the
My guess is there is a problem with the software/hardware somewhere. The
fact that FLAC's suddenly sounded normal to me when I switched Native
to Disabled is odd. Particularly when my mind wasn't expecting to be any
different. The funny thing is I've had WAV's set up all wrong the entire
time. I
Fizbin wrote:
My guess is there is a problem with the software/hardware somewhere. The
fact that FLAC's suddenly sounded normal to me when I switched Native
to Disabled is odd. Particularly when my mind wasn't expecting to be any
different. The funny thing is I've had WAV's set up all wrong
this topic made me go check my own settings in LMS, and has me wondering
about them.
if a SB3 or Duet or Touch support FLACs natively (which it does), then
why the settings for stream format and decoder? why would i want to
decode at all? it seems -for example- the FLAC file format can be
Fizbin wrote:
My guess is there is a problem with the software/hardware somewhere.
I suggest re-read the thread as there have been lots of testing and
analysis work already done on this topic for example see
pablolie wrote:
this topic made me go check my own settings in LMS, and has me wondering
about them.
if a SB3 or Duet or Touch support FLACs natively (which it does), then
why the settings for stream format and decoder? why would i want to
decode at all? it seems -for example- the FLAC
Mnyb wrote:
I do believe that you percieve a difference . I dont beleive that there
-is- a diffrence . This is diffrent if you understand me ?
I still think it would be fair for us to try to see if there is a
rational explanation for why there might be an actual difference in this
particular
Mnyb wrote:
Thats actually not contested , people in this tread claim that the
diffrences are for other reasons the streams are bit perfect
Fair enough then. We're going into the realms of psychology so I'll duck
out.
'last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/probedb)
Julf wrote:
I still think it would be fair for us to try to see if there is a
rational explanation for why there might be an actual difference in this
particular case. Fizbin, could you post your convert.conf file
(preferably both versions)?
Aha missed that fizzbin has an edited version ?
Dusting off this old thread...
I'm one of those 'weirdo's that can hear the difference between WAV and
FLAC on the SBT. I have two units and I have confirmed it on both. I've
had a friend come over a few times and randomly play a WAV file and the
FLAC counterpart. For the first half hour I could
what is the rest of your setup like?
as a rule, either format ought to result in bit-perfect PCM out of the
Touch. so just curious about what components and setup are around it.
the config you talk about, is it standard or you modified it? i let
everything go in native format to the Touch.
My setup is pretty basic. I'm running a crossover network cable form my
SBT to my Windows 7/64 PC. (No router). My SBT analogs plug to my
receiver. Awhile ago I was using TinySBS with SD Cards... I could also
tell the difference between FLAC and WAV with that setup as well.
The result should be that wav and flac sound identical for the obvius
reason that the electrical signal coming out of the Touch is exactly the
same .
It's not weird to -hear- a difference it's rather inevitable when using
some testing methods with humans involved . So your quite normal not
weird
I have a little bit of time this weekend, I'm going to try and come up
with a method so that wav and flac show up exactly the same on the
screen.
I like the concept of a playlist pointing at the two files, it makes it
simple.
John S.
--
JohnSwenson
JohnSwenson;573932 Wrote:
I have a little bit of time this weekend, I'm going to try and come up
with a method so that wav and flac show up exactly the same on the
screen.
I like the concept of a playlist pointing at the two files, it makes it
simple.
John S.
That's great John. Can
OK I've updated the testing method. Hydrogenaudio testing involves
this method: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ABX
This is each trial has 3 tracks. 2 of the tracks are known to be pcm
and flac (A B). Track X is unknown and one needs to decide whether X
is the same as A or B.
KFal;572374 Wrote:
Hi John,
I have not read the entire thread so apologies if there are any
repetitions in my post.
What you want to do is a so-called ABX test where the crucial factors
are the randomness and the double-blindness of the setup combined with
a strict methodology of
JohnSwenson;572357 Wrote:
This came about because I (and others) say we can hear the difference
between PCM and FLAC decoding on the Touch. Others emphatically state
this is theoretically impossible and any claim that it is possible to
hear is purely psychological caused by foreknowledge of
andynormancx;572443 Wrote:
I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that it is impossible that
FLAC and PCM might sound different when decoded on a Touch.
The black and white statements that have been made are:
- FLAC decodes to exactly the same bits as the WAVE
- a difference between
Phil Leigh;572455 Wrote:
Has anyone actually measured the Touch CPU load for PCM vs FLAC? I
can't believe it's very different...
Of course, if it really does sound different, the difference might not
from from noise from the CPU load. What if the noise was coming from
the bus between the
JohnSwenson;572357 Wrote:
Where did this come from?... I (and others) say we can hear the
difference between PCM and FLAC decoding on the Touch. Others
emphatically state this is theoretically impossible... What I was after
was ... test if it is even possible to hear a difference... How wide
lrossouw;572171 Wrote:
Thanks, agree generally, but specifically:
- Different songs are not required, but may be preferred. Independence
is provided by random pairs of songs that are the same format or
different formats, even if all the pairs are the same song.
- It should be one tailed as
NewBuyer;57 Wrote:
and thus could not at all support the research hypothesis stating that
the -general- audience can distinguish a difference on -general- songs
Where did this come from? It was never what I was attempting. This came
about because I (and others) say we can hear the
Hi John,
I have not read the entire thread so apologies if there are any
repetitions in my post.
What you want to do is a so-called ABX test where the crucial factors
are the randomness and the double-blindness of the setup combined with
a strict methodology of statistical evaluation. There is
JohnSwenson;572357 Wrote:
I'm leaning towards the playlist with pairs of the same song, which may
or may not be the same format. As long as we can find a way to make
them display identically it seems like its easy to implement. The
remaining questions I have are: should song 1 and 2 be
lrossouw;571916 Wrote:
...
FORMAT 3
N pairs of songs. Each is a pair of the same track. But different
pairs can be different tracks. Here we simply randomly flip pairs such
that they are the same (both pcm or both flac) or different (1 pcm and 1
flac). You just identify which pairs
JohnSwenson;571850 Wrote:
Lets make sure I understand this: we have a wav and flac of the same
song. We have a playlist with a random distribution of those two songs.
The person performing the test can listen to the playlist as many times
as desired, skip forward, back etc.
Quite so.
Phil Leigh;571614 Wrote:
Heisenberg was talking about the Quantum level - where all bets are
basically off!
Some people are more uncertain than others.
Phil Leigh;571614 Wrote:
We are a long way from that in this discussion.
In an audiophile discussion, you are never far from someone's
NewBuyer;572018 Wrote:
I think you are certainly doing better now, with this last proposal. No
longer is there a subjective better involved in the research
hypothesis, but rather a more realistic test of a detected
difference. Also using different songs for different trial pairs
will in
I would never have guessed I'd find such an animated discussion of
research methodology on this forum! Coco Love Alcorn would have so
much fun over here!
(see my recent post in the Music forum)
Ron
--
RonM
RonM's
earwaxer9;571531 Wrote:
I think John has put his finger on an important point here! -
It reminds me of college physics. Specifically the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle. Sometimes when you try to observe/measure
something you cant help but change what it is you are trying to
Mnyb;571592 Wrote:
And the digital out, are people still suggesting that the digital
output is affected ?
Yes, if something in the Touch changes the jitter of the clock going to
the DAC chip it will also change the jitter of the clock used for S/PDIF
(its the same clock in the Touch),
Phil Leigh;571614 Wrote:
We are in the material world, where the effect of jitter on a DAC can
only appear as deviations in frequency/amplitude in the analogue audio
signal.
Phil,
I think you ignored time scale, what about phase response?
--
michael123
Fortunately the test between flac and PCM stream decode is very easy to
do. It can be be done remotely, in another room and there is no
indication on the Touch itself what the state is.
A predetermined random sequence can be devised (computer or real coin
flip or whatever). The tester sends an
As I mentioned before.
It is not about flac vs. wav.
It is about different (non-linear) load conditions caused by the
realtime decoding.
@John: You might have seen that Gordon Rankin avoids strictly to use
the
term jitter in a discussions like this. Since quite some time he
is
referring to
JohnSwenson;571631 Wrote:
Fortunately the test between flac and PCM stream decode is very easy to
do. It can be be done remotely, in another room and there is no
indication on the Touch itself what the state is.
A predetermined random sequence can be devised (computer or real coin
flip
lrossouw;571645 Wrote:
We are trying to get whether the two processes result in different sound
to a user. This test would allow us to reject the hypotheis that method
1 (stream pcm) is not better than method 2 (stream flac) with a
probability of error of x%. The smaller you want x% to be
Variables have not been talked about in recent posts about testing.
A) Which stereo equipment will be used?
Cant you hear it now, of course you didnt hear a difference Charlie,
your gear isnt revealing enough.
B) Do you need a stock or modified Touch to be able to hear the
differences?
JohnSwenson;571631 Wrote:
A predetermined random sequence can be devised (computer or real coin
flip or whatever). The tester sends an email to the changer person
who looks up the next state on the list and changes the setting in the
server. After sending the email the tester waits one
JohnSwenson;571631 Wrote:
Then the big question is how many tests to run. When others have done
other tests and only done 8 or 10 tests they have been beaten up by
some people saying that is way too small a number of tests, you need to
do several hundred to be scientifically valid. Whats
soundcheck;571632 Wrote:
As I mentioned before.
It is not about flac vs. wav.
It is about different (non-linear) load conditions caused by the
realtime decoding.
@John: You might have seen that Gordon Rankin strictly avoids to use
the
term jitter in a discussion like this. Since
michael123;571627 Wrote:
Phil,
I think you ignored time scale, what about phase response?
Timescale is fixed by the DAC clock, which is supposed to be a constant
for the duration of a replay event.
Almost no DAC's take their clock directly from the s/pdif stream any
more - they almost all
NewBuyer;571683 Wrote:
Some (possibly incorrect) observations here: If you wish to use the
binomial sign test, then you should probably not use the same piece of
music for separate trial iterations (as this could possibly violate the
independence of trials requirement). If your research
CharlieG;571708 Wrote:
Variables have not been talked about in recent posts about testing.
A) Which stereo equipment will be used?
Cant you hear it now, of course you didnt hear a difference Charlie,
your gear isnt revealing enough.
B) Do you need a stock or modified Touch to be
cliveb;571716 Wrote:
Just take a track you say exhibits an audible difference between FLAC
and PCM, and store it on the SB Server in both FLAC and PCM formats.
Then get someone to build a playlist containing these two versions at
random. (Flipping a coin to decide each item is probably the
I still like phils idea about measuring it better .
If it can be measured we don't need an elaborate dbt test.
Dbt is great for weeding out if there is a difference if we have many
unknown to fight with .
The output is not an unknown it is an electrical signal and it can be
measured.
If it
Hey we have thoose very low level test signals that MSWlogo used in his
dac resolution test .
Why not play for example the -108dB 3500Hz tone crank up the volume sit
with the ear next to the speaker and listen .
This is ofcourse totally unatural to how you use your stereo normally
but if the WAV
lrossouw;571794 Wrote:
Well the tests need to be done with whoever believes it to be different.
E.g. someone who says I can hear the difference on system XYZ.
The equipment shouldn't make a difference unless there is something
that artificially changes the sound depending on what type of
Mnyb;571802 Wrote:
I still like phils idea about measuring it better .
If it can be measured we don't need an elaborate dbt test.
Dbt is great for weeding out if there is a difference if we have many
unknown to fight with .
The output is not an unknown it is an electrical signal and
Mnyb;571926 Wrote:
re Music:
Why not use music the test perssons is familiar with.
Or in case of some agreed upon 24/96 tunes let them have it an week in
advance.
Would this increase chances of detection, it would not give you a
general case but thats not needed, if someone can here it
lrossouw;571929 Wrote:
Agreed. I was suggesting that the person who is doing the tests chose
the music they think there is a difference in. It would be great if we
can limit it to normal 16/44 CD quality music as this is what most
people listen to most of the time.
Agreed on settings
JohnSwenson;571006 Wrote:
I've already posted my thoughts on this subject back towards the
beginning of this thread but I'll restate them here.
It seems to me there are two parts to this debate: 1, can people hear
it. 2, is there a measurable mechanism that can account for it.
In
JohnSwenson;571006 Wrote:
I CAN hear a definite difference between decoding FLAC and PCM on the
Touch through its analog outs. I HAVE done blind tests and can still
detect the difference. Some people have chimed up and said that these
are scientifically useless tests and are thus
Ideally, of course, you'd want the helper to also be blind as to which
session was WAV or FLAC. Double-blind, the way to go. Very important to
control for volume.
You'd think we were testing pharmaceuticals, or psychological
procedures. Hmm. I guess it really IS the latter!
Suggestion and
How about one of the ITU or EBU recommendations that address this exact
area
e.g. ITU-R BS.1116,
www.ebu.ch/trev_274-hoeg.pdf
http://www.madebydelta.com/delta/Business_units/TC/Services+by+technology/Sensory+Evaluation/slo_ITU-R_BS.1116-1.page
or this Masters Thesis
RonM;571588 Wrote:
Ideally, of course, you'd want the helper to also be blind as to which
session was WAV or FLAC. Double-blind, the way to go.
Also, controlling for volume would be critical.
You'd think we were testing pharmaceuticals, or psychological
procedures. Hmm. I guess it
John,
The jitter in the soundcard used with ADM should not matter (provided
it is not excessive). Why? - because, as you know, jitter in the source
DAC can only audibly manifest itself as amplitude or frequency effects
that distort the analogue signal.
Modern soundcards (24/96 and up) are
I've already posted my thoughts on this subject back towards the
beginning of this thread but I'll restate them here.
It seems to me there are two parts to this debate: 1, can people hear
it. 2, is there a measurable mechanism that can account for it.
In regards to 1:
I CAN hear a definite
Phil Leigh;570306 Wrote:
For what it's worth, I haven't tested your claims/tweaks on the
analogue outputs (as I don't use them at all). For me they had no
effect on the digital output - I am not speaking for anyone else here.
It took you a while to come up with this feedback. ;)
Anyhow.
earwaxer9;570470 Wrote:
What has been very interesting to me is that, the deficiencies in my
system have been mostly solved by some very inexpensive methods. Where
I thought I needed more power (I'm not saying that I wont revisit
that one), for example, I have largely solved through data
audiomuze;570576 Wrote:
thik we should rename this the Seinfeld thread...the thread about
nothing, that we keep revisiting.
But - where do YOU stand?
:-)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Touch(wired/XP) -
Phil Leigh;570594 Wrote:
But - where do YOU stand?
:-)
Lossless = WAV = Lossless...if there's something about decoding
lossless at the player side my Transporter and ATCs can't resolve it or
I'm too old to hear it.
--
audiomuze
'*puddletag: A tag editor for Linux (that happens to run on
audiomuze;570634 Wrote:
Lossless = WAV = Lossless...if there's something about decoding lossless
at the player side my Transporter and ATCs can't resolve it or I'm too
old to hear it.
Cool - I'm with you.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
phil leigh;570635 Wrote:
cool - i'm with you.
--
ralphpnj
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter -
Transporter 2
'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)
ralphpnj's Profile:
--
Mnyb
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 and assorted amps
SiriuS, Classe' Primare and Dynadio speakers, Contour 4 Contour Center,
and Contour 1.3SE for the rear ch. Rel Stadium 3 sub.
Bedroom/Office:
audiomuze;570576 Wrote:
thik we should rename this the Seinfeld thread...the thread about
nothing, that we keep revisiting.
Love it. But I laugh even harder when I change the font of my
webbrowser.
--
garym
garym's
What many fail to recognize , is that the many treads articles post etc
claiming this is WAVFLAC is never backed up by real fact's .
it could be but who knows ? even if 100 Audiophiles claims this, in
so many beautiful words in some fora, it does not prove a thing the
information content is
Mnyb;570682 Wrote:
...(it once was a respectable hobby)...
And you know who I blame for this? - retailers, manufacturers and
reviewers. A cosy, self-serving relationship.
Not all of them. But enough - and they know who they are.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it
Phil Leigh;570093 Wrote:
Chris - the benefit is that the DAC will shift its anti-alias filter
well away from the audible frequency range. It's not about extra info -
as you say there isn't any. It's a trick - but a good one.
And one which pretty much all DACs (except for those off-the-wall
Hi Folks,
Just reviewed this whole thread and I think it could benefit from some
Paraphrasing.
It started of by someone (Louis) saying that he converted his book
(16/48), to a digital format, WORD (wav) doc but then if he emailed
them as pdf (flac), they didnt read the same, he prefered the
Funny, but a flawed analogy. A PDF of a Word document is not lossless in
the same way a FLAC is compared to the original WAVE data. A Word doc
contains all sorts of data that doesn't make it into the PDF version.
--
andynormancx
Yes, it will. Yes, all of them. Yes, SoftSqueeze as well. What ?
andynormancx;570196 Wrote:
Funny, but a flawed analogy. A PDF of a Word document is not lossless in
the same way a FLAC is compared to the original WAVE data. A Word doc
contains all sorts of data that doesn't make it into the PDF version.
Exactly but they tell the same story, using the same
Stratmangler;570081 Wrote:
There are two things you'd need to set up - resample to, and bit depth.
Why you'd want to is beyond me - all you're going to do is add lots of
noughts.
You can't just magic information out of thin air if it doesn't exist
already.
Agreed, but as Phil says, it
c3p0;570198 Wrote:
Exactly but they tell the same story, using the same words, neither more
nor less, same Paragraphs, chapters.Same number of sentances, words per
sentance, letters within words. There is no additional Storyline or
less Dialog. The plot isnt enhanced or edited.
Would be
Better analogy with the zip file. But still waiting a paraphrased
conclusion to 34 pages of comments.
--
c3p0
c3p0's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20721
View this thread:
cliveb;570182 Wrote:
And one which pretty much all DACs (except for those off-the-wall NOS
jobbies) have been doing since the late 1980s.
If you want the benefit of moving the reconstruction filter out of
harm's way, simple oversampling does the trick (and as I said above,
happens inside
c3p0;570267 Wrote:
Better analogy with the zip file. But still waiting a paraphrased
conclusion to 34 pages of comments.
OK...
Some people think they can hear a difference when sending PCM to an SB
vs a FLAC file... and others don't. No known measurement system has yet
produced any
Phil Leigh;570271 Wrote:
OK...
Some people think they can hear a difference when sending PCM to an SB
vs a FLAC file... and others don't. No known measurement system has yet
produced any reliable evidence that they produce audibly different
results (in fact quite the opposite), yet
More and more people reporting they saw Aliens.
--
Wombat
Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 -
self-made speakers
Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113
View
Just to summarize the whole thing I'd say the whole discussion should
not be about flac vs. wav. The data is the same.
It is about reducing load on the audio client.
So that would suggest that only analog outputs would be affected but
not the spdif/tos to an external DAC. Or does it affect the
c3p0;570297 Wrote:
Just to summarize the whole thing I'd say the whole discussion should
not be about flac vs. wav. The data is the same.
It is about reducing load on the audio client.
So that would suggest that only analog outputs would be affected but
not the spdif/tos to an external
earwaxer9;569921 Wrote:
I have some high res. flac downloads that sound great. I havent really
compared CD res. sound to flac. What I have done is rip some CD's to
24/96 with dbpoweramp. I transfer them over ethernet. I will say that
they clearly sound better than the rips at native res. I
firedog;569980 Wrote:
dbpoweramp can rip wav files to flac at any bitrate and resolution you
want. It's one of the DSP options (not in the free version, you need at
least the PowerPack version).
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/db-versions.htm
Lots of listeners think 96k files sound better, even
earwaxer9;570049 Wrote:
Interesting - I will have to play around with dbpoweramp some more! I
have the full version. What DSP option would I use?
thanks
There are two things you'd need to set up - resample to, and bit
depth.
Why you'd want to is beyond me - all you're going to do is add
Louishlomador;569164 Wrote:
I personally will not use Flac as i still can tell differences bewteen
Flac and wave. There isn't even a camparism between Flac and Wave, on
the official flac website. I just find that a bit strange. link below.
Wavepack is not the same as wave. on the same
Louishlomador;569164 Wrote:
I havent tried it in flac, dont see the need as storage mediums are
becoming bigger and bigger.
How about a standard tag support? WAV format has no standard tag
support.
Also bandwidth savings of FLAC.
As people have already jumped on you about the fact that
I have some high res. flac downloads that sound great. I havent really
compared CD res. sound to flac. What I have done is rip some CD's to
24/96 with dbpoweramp. I transfer them over ethernet. I will say that
they clearly sound better than the rips at native res. I thought
about ripping to flac
earwaxer9;569921 Wrote:
I thought about ripping to flac but I cant control the resolution in the
same way as with a wave file.
It was always my understanding that you can convert pretty much any wav
to flac. So you could have 24/96 flac by just converting your 24/96
wav.
--
lrossouw
On 08/17/2010 06:49 PM, earwaxer9 wrote:
I thought about ripping to flac but I cant control the resolution in the
same way
as with a wave file.
This makes no sense. The resolution of a flac file is exactly the same
as the input wave/pcm file. Flac is lossless. You can uncompress the
flac
Louishlomador;569164 Wrote:
I personally will not use Flac as i still can tell differences bewteen
Flac and wave. There isn't even a camparism between Flac and Wave, on
the official flac website. I just find that a bit strange. link below.
Wavepack is not the same as wave. on the same
Finally it seems squeezebox version 7.5 and 7.5.1 works perfectly with
squeezebox classic. There is certainly a big massive improvement on the
sound quality between other versions. 7.5 or 7.5.1 is the best i have
ever heard my squeezbox play music in wave format though. I havent
tried it in flac,
TheRooster2000;559387 Wrote:
Thanks very much! I think it's very helpful because it's against
Argentinia today!
I have to go watching now. Kick-off soon! :)
Bye,
Christian
A bit OOT, of course, but congrats for Germany. Nice football. :)
--
Themis
SBT - North Star dac 192 - Croft
Phil Leigh;558899 Wrote:
Server-side FLAC-PCM also doesn't handle 24/96.
Some hacking of the custom_convert.conf file is required.
Has anyone got this working?
It works for me on the 7.5.1 (required for Touch) without customizing
the convert.conf
--
Themis
SBT - North Star dac 192 - Croft
when you say PCM, is it same as WAV? Header-less WAVE?
If I customize SOX to send uncompressed WAV, is it equivalent to PCM?
--
michael123
michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745
View
Themis;559339 Wrote:
It works for me on the 7.5.1 (required for Touch) without customizing
the convert.conf
Interesting...
You are correct! - I had a corrupted convert.conf file (doh!)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call
michael123;559347 Wrote:
when you say PCM, is it same as WAV? Header-less WAVE?
If I customize SOX to send uncompressed WAV, is it equivalent to PCM?
Yes - In audio data terms, PCM and WAV are equivalent. Slight
differences in physical format.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path
1 - 100 of 403 matches
Mail list logo
