In Reply to: RE: WAV better than FLAC accoring to Absolute Sound.. posted by Dawnrazor on January 8, 2012 at 00:39:17:
You got it!
They are likely noticing effects that are secondary effects of the computer - not the files themselves.
A file encoded with FLAC will take more processing power to reconstruct than WAV. If you were to take several computers with different amounts of processing power, I'd bed you'd notice more jitter induced sound degradation in the less powerful ones.
Having said that, USB is a very poor spec for high quality sound reproduction - and it has been all the work to try to reduce jitter with the USB "asynchronous" modes that has made it into the best performer to date. I cannot help thinking that if all computers weren't fitted with USB's, how important that standard would be to the audiophile world. (My personal favortie is Firewire, even though I don't have any firewire based audio - because the specification allows you to allocate bandwidth to a task, and it cannot be interrupted by anything else - which is why it is used by pro audio pretty often.)
====
"You are precisely as big as what you love and precisely as small as what you allow to annoy you." ~ R A Wilson
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- You got it! [RE: WAV better than FLAC accoring to Absolute Sound.. - Bromo33333 07:56:49 01/08/12 (7)
- RE: You got it! [RE: WAV better than FLAC accoring to Absolute Sound.. - Thorsten 09:19:21 01/08/12 (6)
- How many sources use USB out besides computers? - Dynobot 10:37:04 01/08/12 (5)
- RE: How many sources use USB out besides computers? - Thorsten 11:44:11 01/08/12 (4)
- RE: How many sources use USB out besides computers? - Dynobot 13:36:07 01/08/12 (1)
- RE: How many sources use USB out besides computers? - Thorsten 15:03:38 01/08/12 (0)
- Interesting...Thanks for the info[nt] - Dynobot 11:55:41 01/08/12 (1)
- RE: Interesting...Thanks for the info[nt]-He - fmak 01:23:25 01/12/12 (0)