audionoob

If the audio stream degrades as more job is required to produce the audio stream, also uncompressed file should be affected because, although it's quickier, it requires cpu/hd/.. activity anyway. I'm wondering how many of those who would say "yes" listen to uncompressed file formats with computers with no internet connection, no unnecessary external peripherals, no other programs running besides the music player and a barebone OS to reduce interferences with audio palyback. Even in this situation it isn't assured that the playback would be perfect because there is cpu/hd/... activity. Lossless playback maybe have been discontinuos...15 years ago.

If we should be so unconfident in music players with lossless files, why should we trust them with wav files? If for example I use Foobar2000 bit-compare on a couple of correpsondant lossless/wav file, and it tells me that the lossless and the wav file are identical. Unless the bit-compare is bugged (which is not the case), I assume that: 1) the audio data are identical and 2) the decoder works fine So after decoding we have the same thing and therefore the same audio output, unless there is a different audio signal processing based on the provenience of the audio stream @Gag Halfrunt thanks for your reply, it shows more sense and less craziness than many others

Sorry Gag Halfrunt, I should have been more precise, I was referring to the (perceived) audio data of a lossless file. Obviously a WAV file and a FLAC file are physically different! But since the decoded data are identical, I'm wondering why they could be heard differently

Hi everybody, i'm new here, I read this discussion and I'm a bit confused. Could someone explain me where does lossless actually start to be different from WAV/AIFF? During the decoding of the file or during the trasmission of data to soundcard? Since I do care about filesize this is bugging me...