In Reply to: WAV better than FLAC accoring to Absolute Sound.. posted by samoore on January 7, 2012 at 20:54:24:
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?
Cut to razor sounding violins
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: WAV better than FLAC accoring to Absolute Sound.. - Dawnrazor 00:39:17 01/08/12 (8)
- 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)