JJZolx;362778 Wrote: > > The other reason is debatable, but I'll mention it, and hope the thread > doesn't go off on a tangent. Some audiophiles claim that WAV sounds > better than Flac (and some claim Flac sounds better than WAV, so it > goes both ways). This shouldn't be the case, as Flac is lossless and > will decode to exactly the same bits and bytes. Theories on why this > might be the case generally speculate that the greater CPU activity > needed to decode the Flac stream has a negative audible effect. > Conversely, speculation as to why Flac might sound better than WAV is > that the CPU and network electronics actually do less work handling the > lower network traffic. > > They sound exactly the same to me. > I notice that on Settings | Advanced | File Types | Apple Lossless, the dropdown selection box for FLAC offers "alac/flac" whereas the dropdown for WAV offers "alac".
Does this mean that when Apple Lossless is transcoded to FLAC it goes through first an ALAC processor and then a FLAC processor? Whereas when it is transcoded to WAV it only goes through the ALAC processor? If so, then I would naturally assume that the simpler solution (via WAV) would be better. Any comments?? Also what happens at the player end? Is WAV transcoded to FLAC or vice versa? I may be a bit simple in the head (or I perhaps I am just an audiophile) but I would imagine that whichever end-to-end path has the fewer overall transcoding steps, would ultimately be the one that sounds better?? -- AndrewFG Regards, AndrewFG ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AndrewFG's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15838 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=55442 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
