ralphpnj;277930 Wrote: > If you take the time to read/scan through the thread you'll see that JA > takes all these things very seriously and does respond to forum posts. > As for the lack of comparison testing I can only guess that since JA > and Stereophile take the position that files made with lossy > compression are do not offer true high end sound quality, then why > bother to run all those tests. And while I completely agree that in > this day and age of cheap storage there is no reason to use a lossy > codec, it would still be nice to know which lossy codec to use in the > event that one has a need for it (think iPod).I'd tend to agree with this > observation. I think that the starting point (which is rather similar to my own position at home) is that since you can have lossless, why bother with anything else? As for the rest, it looks like he was having fun playing with graphs. However, there is one point no-one has mentioned that I would take issue with: > Something I have rarely seen discussed is the fact is that because all > compressed file formats, both lossless and lossy, effectively have zero > data redundancy, they are much more vulnerable than uncompressed files > to bit errors in transmission.As I understand it (please correct me if I'm > wrong) SB uses TCP/IP to stream, which means that it is error free. The only problem you can run into is that if your bandwidth is so terrible that your buffer runs out, but this would be more likely to happen with an uncompressed format (although unlikely even then). So, long live FLAC!
-- smc2911 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ smc2911's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4388 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
