P Floding Wrote: > If you are going to be a sceptic, then at the very least learn to read > carefully and apply logic. "no-one can claim the situations are fully > equivalent" is all I said.
Nice backpedal. Of course "situations cannot be fully equivalent" - but that's a meaningless statement it is tantamount to saying, "they are not the same because they are different." Wow, such a philosophical breakthough! Do I smell a Nobel Prize? Well duh, of course the situations are not full equivalent. On the most shallow level, one is named "FLAC" and the other "WAV" so right off you've violated mathematical laws of equivalence! I raised skepticism on the contention WAV sounds better than FLAC for the SB3. Your "short answer": > FLAC needs more processing in the SB, so no-one can claim the situations > are fully equivalent Well this is "processing difference" is by no means unique to the SB3, FLAC is after all a compressed format. On any scientific site if someone contended WAV sounded better than FLAC on their computer due to the "processing differences" he/she'd be laughed out of the house. I don't know if you're aware but FLAC is one of the only lossless formats to have a myriad of test suites designed to PROVE output equivalence to the original signal. Come on now, if you are going to be a sceptic, then at the very least learn to read carefully and apply logic. -- CFP ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CFP's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6915 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
