Jump to content

Fuga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fuga

  1. Daughter and hubby have both an English Lab (Red) and regular ol' Lab (Black). Spent WAY too much money but got 2 very smart and easily trained dogs. Excellent whether hunting or letting their 1-yr old abuse them.

    Both the same size within a pound or two and in hight. Lots of exercise. Not neutered. English lab seems more lean/slim.

    Hope this helps.

  2. 1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Understood -- you're still referring to a lossless format, even though the files are smaller.  I agree.

    Do you know if FLAC can be converted to WAV?  I guess it should be theoretically possible.

    Most definitely can go back. Same with AIFF (Apple version of WAV). Lossless is simple data compression. FLAC, ALAC, APE do it in their own ways but the data is the same. Lossy MP3, AAC, etc. are conversion schemes that take away some (a lot) of the data in their attempts to retain the sound in the data they keep. Since they take away data and and the data that results is not the same (not the same bits) you can't recreate the original, nor can you go to more or less bitrates. The latter is the second reason for archiving as lossless. At any given moment you may find yourself wanting a lossy version, say to load up your phone/player for a a trip where you will not be able to stream. Say you decide you had done smaller/larger files (lower or higher bitrates). Using lossless as the original file your golden. But if your archive is only whatever bitrate you originally encoded to you're screwed. This is why I cringe whenever someone brags about ripping their entire collection to 320 or whatever.

    Sorry, most of that wasn't directly related to your question. Just killing time.

  3. 6 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

    What?  What "stress"?  If he has the memory to store all those files, then the decision to rip to WAV is pretty obvious, assuming you're talking about mp3 or similar as an alternative.

    I was referring to processor speed and RAM. Larger the file the more of a hit. Specifically I was comparing WAV/AIFF to FLAC or other lossless. There simply is no reason to have a file so much bigger. They sound the same. Assuming a perfect rip (which takes the same amount of time WAV/AIFF as lossless) FLAC, ALAC, APE are bit perfect. And, yes, transcoding, on the fly, the lossless file for playback does take some resources. The real issue is drive space. Archiving as WAV/AIFF is incredibly rare.

  4. Gonna die before I get rid of my 2000+ CDs and 1000+ LPs. But then it might be the wife killing me coz of them. Much/most have been ripped to ALAC (AppleLossless) for playback over network.

    Never rip to lossy, even though I can't hear the difference. You can always transcode lossless to lossy but once something is lossy you really do not want to reencode to another bitrate.

×
×
  • Create New...