hifisteve Wrote: > Me again. > > Out of curiosity, I decided to try comparing an untouched WAV file > ripped using iTunes (ripped very fast, about x30) with the same track > as a FLAC file produced by Easy CD-DA. > > I have to say that despite being a hardened hifi nut of many years , I > couldn't reliably separate the WAV, FLAC and original CD through a £3k > CD player. > > As a result I've decided to save my sanity and do the lot as > uncompressed WAV files and invest a bit of money in some HD space. > > Has anyone else done this comparison?
I have done the same comparison and I didn't hear any difference between flac and wav - my CD was little better though... As other people say, youy want flac because of the tags. Wav files don't support metadata (ie. tags) and that means you can't move files elsewhere without losing the tags. itunes and similar programs store the tags for wav files in their own database. -- tomsi42 SqueezeBox2, Rotel RC-1070/RB-1070, dynaBel Exact. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ tomsi42's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2477 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=21544 _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
