Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: WAV better than FLAC accoring to Absolute Sound..

Posted by Dawnrazor on January 8, 2012 at 00:39:17:
I agree in part and use .wav exclusively. I can see where the extra processing could affect the sound via the changed electrical environment.

Though I have a very hard time with their assertion that changing from .wav to .flac to .wav to .flac degrades the file.

Personally I think all this kind of "testing" is far to complex. There are tons of variables. For instance did they take into account the placement of these files? Were the .flacs in one directory or drive and the .wavs in another?? Was there data degradation or where the files identical?

Anyhow you should do a comparison and see what you hear or what you dont. Who cares what Tas concludes if you hear differently?