CFP Wrote: > 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": > > > > Well this "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.
I can't recall ever having said that it would be unique. -- P Floding ------------------------------------------------------------------------ P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 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
