firedog;427845 Wrote: > Phil- > Why do you feel compelled to be so argumentative and > absolutist/bordering on nasty in your posts? Did it ever occur to you > that others don't have the same personal preferences as you? That > doesn't make them "wrong". > > As regards to the detail of your posts: > > 1)It actually can't be measured that they sound the same. There are > wildly varying results on research about how much jitter people can > hear. Some investigations put it a very low amounts. It can only be > measured that the final output is the same. > I know that the files are mathematically the same, but that still > doesn't preclude the possibility that the algorithmic decompression of > flac and its conversion involves additional jitter - jitter can be > introduced in the stream that is converted to analogue from sources > other than the bits in the file itself. If you don't know about this > then you don't know what jitter is. > > If you have "proof" of the opposite - where is it? And BTW, read what I > actually wrote, and don't send me "proof" that the two types of files > are mathematically identical. > > 2)Never said WAV was superior. > > 3) Never said flac couldn't be edited > > 4)"waste of disk space and bandwidth" - whose? How does my use of Wav > affect you? Why do you feel it is even necessary to make such a > comment? > > By the way, among all my friends and aquaintances I'm the only one who > uses FLAC. Most of them don't even have a software player/hardware > player with a plugin for it. If you actually engaged the world outside > of your head you might realize how limited the use of flac is. Not > everyone is an audio/computer hobbyist. Some people just want to listen > to music and don't want to bother with any technical issues. > > So sometimes I find it inconvenient to have everything encoded in a > format that no one I interact with uses. Conversions from FLAC also take > longer that conversions directly from WAV to other formats. > > I'm sorry if my reasons, "make no case" for discussing WAV - TO YOU. > Why, just b/c I propose doing something YOU think makes no sense do you > feel the need to attack? > > But the way you feel compelled to respond shows more about you than > anything you write convinces about the supposedly "factual" case you > make. Get a life - or some counseling.
Firedog - it wasn't an "attack" on you or anybody in particular. I was commenting generally on WAV as a format in the context of SC. That is why I mention several disadvantages of WAV beyond anything mentioned in your post(s). Obviously I should have worded my remarks differently, as you seem to have taken it as a personal insult against you, which it was not intended to be. I don't believe I have ever intentionally offended anyone on this forum. AudioDiffmaker tests confirm that there is no measurable difference in the analogue output when replaying WAV vs FLAC on an SB3 (ie streaming WAV from SC vs streaming FLAC from SC). There is a long thread on the Audiophile forum about this. This has nothing to do with the maths as I stated in my post. I'm purely talking about the audio/audible side of things. These are my facts. Does anyone have any facts to the contrary? Please don't tell me to "get a life". I spend a lot of time on here trying to help people. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... SB3 (wired) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables Outdoors: Boom ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57922 _______________________________________________ beta mailing list beta@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/beta
