In Reply to: Well said posted by kgiessler on May 28, 2007 at 15:37:24:
At least on my laptop, WMAL files don't sound as good as a WAV version. However if converted from WMAL to WAV, they sound the same. So, while no data is lost, recovering the data in real time may introduce artifacts on some machines. Perhaps it would be wise to verify that one's computer is able to deliver the goods before taking the plunge.
Rick
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- But that doesn't mean they always sound as good... - rick_m 05/28/0716:45:20 05/28/07 (16)
- RE: But that doesn't mean they always sound as good... - maabx 05:50:38 05/29/07 (5)
- RE: But that doesn't mean they always sound as good... - Dawnrazor 06:44:09 05/29/07 (4)
- Lossless should sound a lot bettern than uncompressed - Scrith 13:00:02 05/29/07 (2)
- Testing between WAV and FLAC - John Swenson 15:26:46 05/30/07 (1)
- RE: Testing between WAV and FLAC - Scrith 14:34:57 06/1/07 (0)
- RE: But that doesn't mean they always sound as good... - maabx 07:09:53 05/29/07 (0)
- RE: But that doesn't mean they always sound as good... - kgiessler 17:53:29 05/28/07 (9)
- Precisely.. - rick_m 20:22:10 05/28/07 (8)
- RE: Precisely.. - kgiessler 20:34:56 05/28/07 (7)
- RE: Precisely.. - JimOfOakCreek 08:38:02 05/29/07 (6)
- RE: Precisely.. - Dawnrazor 08:16:55 05/31/07 (5)
- Take the LAME recommendations with a grain of salt. - rick_m 22:38:29 05/31/07 (4)
- RE: LAME 320.... - alan m. kafton 02:42:43 06/1/07 (3)
- RE: LAME 320 sounds awfully good. - rick_m 08:56:40 06/1/07 (2)
- FYI - to eliminate sw issues, the tracks were copied onto CDR... - danny kaey 10:02:11 06/1/07 (1)
- Even then software issues lurk. - rick_m 10:45:22 06/1/07 (0)