ModelCitizen Wrote: > Having read this thread and become so tired of the constant reiteration > and the fact that all the info required exists elsewhere > (www.hydrogenaudio.org) and is easy to find if the trouble were taken, > I was tempted to say.. look, it's Microsoft. They want your money. The > guy who wrote Flac (Josh Coleson... Hi Josh!) doesn't (he just wants > something he can use that is truly lossless). > The bottom line is that they are both lossless and so the result is > (supposed to be) exactly the same. You can trust Josh. You can't f***** > trust Microsoft! They have changed the file somewhere... replay gain or > not. > > But I admit I have a short fuse: This will do: > > The tags bit should be enough really. Encode it to what you want (who > gives a s***) then think about something else. C'mon. > MC
I have been participating in this thread on the understanding that its thrust is helping steelee find the cause of the audible volume and quality differences he is hearing between his FLAC and WMA Lossless files. steelee Wrote: > I am sitting here at my pc and have just ripped Simply Red (the best of > ) twice, once to raw Wav and then compressed to Flac level 5, and one > to Lossless WMA, am now doing a comparison and there is no question the > WMA file DO sound better, treble is brighter and bass more controlled I > dont understand why this is the case but it is a fact no question. > > Ps the bitrate is set to no limit. -- abdomen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ abdomen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1205 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22457 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
