WAV versus FLAC

Let me add that MP3, AAC, FLAC, WMA, and Apple Lossless are all compression methods, but when *de*compressed, FLAC, WMA and Apple Lossless end up being the same bit rate as an *un*compressed WAV file... Hence "uncompressed is lossless is uncompressed"... Hence they *should* result in an identical sound (and do to my ears, at least).

Alex, btw, sorry I couldn't come by that evening for a listen. I want to hear that DAC!!!

Sure, we can arrange something. We went for late night listening after dinner, sorry you couldn't make it! I am sure you'd have fallen in love. :-)

Best,
Alex Peychev

Ballwho, sorry, brain fart. Of course MP3 is compressed. i read it wrong that you were saying all lossless is uncompressed, which it isn't. FLAC and others exist as losslees and compressed. Nuff said.

I realize you can;t explain it; I haven't heard a good explanation other than some malady with decompression, which still seems to be an innocuously small amount of processing to produce sonic differences with the same ulitmate data.. But very many of us hear the differences. There have been mounds of forum responses about it. It's not a new debate.

It seems to be it should be easy to do blind testing in this case. Just load up some music in WAV and FLAC format and hit shuffle play. Make a note of your impressions, and only check the playlist when you're done.

I think people are just imagining these differences. That's only an insult if you take your subjective impressions of sound way too seriously.

Ted,

Pardon my smart-A, "...they are, in fact, compression methods..." response.

I need to get a slew of various formats lined up and just run through them and *really* listen, even if just for the pure heck of it; I'm curious to see if I can discern, or if my system, for that matter, can discern/resolve any difference, whatsoever... In the end, though, I doubting anything will surface. We shall see.

Cheers.