Flac

[BWLover]

How good is flac?

[Industrial]

How good is flac?

Its bit perfect. Sounds the same as the original CD.

[SPACEMANRICK]

What is the best program to download a song or CD to a Flac format file and what is the best way to play a Flac file on your stereo system?

I am looking into a Logitech Squeezebox Touch, can you just stream this wirelessly from your computer hardrive with a router to your Squeezebox Touch that is attached by a RCA cable to your pre amp?

[iiaudio]

I use dBpoweramp to rip my CDs to FLAC. The Squeezebox will stream FLAC over a wireless network.

[BWLover]

I used dbpower amp as well to convert .flac to .wav and itunes to burn to cd at 8x. the cd sounds great!

[bigburner]

How good is flac?

Same as CD quality.

Nigel.

[Kal Rubinson]

What is the best program to download a song or CD to a Flac format file and what is the best way to play a Flac file on your stereo system?

See below.

I am looking into a Logitech Squeezebox Touch, can you just stream this wirelessly from your computer hardrive with a router to your Squeezebox Touch that is attached by a RCA cable to your pre amp?

Yes. http://www.stereophile.com/mediaserv...yer/index.html

[grit]

Ditto on dpPoweramp.

As for an interface... I tried Logitech's Squeezebox stuff. I even tried the Logitech Transporter. I just didn't get what I'm looking for out of it.

What I ultimately did was go with a Sonos controller and music station. Where I to re-do that decision today, I would go with the Sonos music station and download the free app to control it via my Android phone. They also have an app for your favorite iPod/iPhone/iPad too. Sonos passed the WAF with FLYING colors, and its easy enough for friends and family to just pick it up and start using it with no tutorial whatsoever.

As for quality... they are all mass-market devices and sound pretty bland. Even the DACs on the Transporter were nothing impressive (to me). So, I went with an outboard DAC and WOW! What a difference! I personally LOVE the Bryston BDA-1 DAC, but pick one that suits your taste and budget.

That's my $.02: get a Sonos, use the free app, and plug it into a DAC.

[dmccombs]

Flac sound good, but in a resolving system, Aiff will sound a little better (and Aiff is taggable). WAV generally sounds better yet, but is hard to tag, so may settle on Aiff.

Darrell

https://www.mach2music.com

[Kal Rubinson]

As for quality... they are all mass-market devices and sound pretty bland. Even the DACs on the Transporter were nothing impressive (to me).

The DACs in the Touch are superior to those in the Transporter but I, too, prefer, an external DAC.

[mrciave]

Hi Kal,

I've got an Esoteric SA-50 which has an USB input (even though limited to 48kHz). Just guessing, do you think the Touch with USB output to the Esoteric would beat the SA-50 inner mechanics in reading a CD?

Anyway I'd try that for hi-rez like B&W Society of Sound music and something else like playlists for when friends visit home and so on.

Andrea

[Skyblue]

Flac sound good, but in a resolving system, Aiff will sound a little better (and Aiff is taggable). WAV generally sounds better yet, but is hard to tag, so may settle on Aiff.

Darrell
www.mach2music.com

I cant really tell the difference. I think it depends on your dac and computer. Mine have no problems at all unpacking flac on the fly, and the async usb probably handles whatever minor inconsistencies the unpacking could cause.

Note however, that regardless of what format is used, the data needs to share usb or pci bus time with other data streams, as well as share cpu and graphics interupts and usage with all the other services and programs that modern operating systems seem to spawn at an ever increasing rate.

I rather doubt there is any measurable difference between the formats.

[Kal Rubinson]

Hi Kal,

I've got an Esoteric SA-50 which has an USB input (even though limited to 48kHz). Just guessing, do you think the Touch with USB output to the Esoteric would beat the SA-50 inner mechanics in reading a CD?

Obviously, I do not know but I would not expect a difference.

[dmccombs]

I cant really tell the difference. I think it depends on your dac and computer. Mine have no problems at all unpacking flac on the fly, and the async usb probably handles whatever minor inconsistencies the unpacking could cause.

Note however, that regardless of what format is used, the data needs to share usb or pci bus time with other data streams, as well as share cpu and graphics interupts and usage with all the other services and programs that modern operating systems seem to spawn at an ever increasing rate.

I rather doubt there is any measurable difference between the formats.

With the FLAC file you have extra processing due to the compression. It can depend on the resolution of your system, the noise floor present in your computer and various other factors.

We heard a slight smearing with FLAC compared to AIFF and WAV. The crispness of cymbals and tightness in the bass was just a little off.

If you give the FLAC a good listen and aren't hearing these things, then you can use FLAC and get more files on your disk. :T

Darrell

https://www.mach2music.com

[dmccombs]

I cant really tell the difference. I think it depends on your dac and computer. Mine have no problems at all unpacking flac on the fly, and the async usb probably handles whatever minor inconsistencies the unpacking could cause.

Note however, that regardless of what format is used, the data needs to share usb or pci bus time with other data streams, as well as share cpu and graphics interupts and usage with all the other services and programs that modern operating systems seem to spawn at an ever increasing rate.

I rather doubt there is any measurable difference between the formats.

Sky,

We've done A/B testing between the formats and we make it a point to keep the music on one bus (firewire) and the dac on another (usb). These things all matter.

Give it a good test. I think you will hear a difference. It beats speculating. :B

Darrell

https://www.mach2music.com

[Freddie40]

Sky,

We've done A/B testing between the formats and we make it a point to keep the music on one bus (firewire) and the dac on another (usb). These things all matter.

Give it a good test. I think you will hear a difference. It beats speculating. :B

Darrell
www.mach2music.com

On my Mac mini I use a Firewire 800 Drive for the music and a USB DAC (Ayre QB9). I do not have a keyboard, mouse or monitor (i.e. as clean of a machine as possible). Other recommendations are a SSD drive and 8GB of RAM. 8GB of RAM cost me $79, the SSD was $120. The sound gets much better doing these things.

My player of choice is Fidelia.

To control the mini I use an iPad (Fidelia remote) and Apple Remote Desktop from an iMac in a different room.

Make sure you back up your music.

With the cost of drive ($200 for a Quad interface 2TB drive) there is no reason to use compressed files such as FLAC or ALAC. On the Mac Mini I use AIFF.

Dave

Happy Listening

[olilugo]

On a similar note, I also would say that flac is as good as CD quality. which is 16 bit/ 44.1Khz.
I was able to download a demo song that was encoded in 24 bit/96Khz in flac format. when when I tried to play it on my AVR(pioneer elite SC-07) it didn't recognized it.

I wounder how this file was created?, does a computer dvd/cd player can play and therefore rip SACD, or DVD-A? or do you need a specific version of a falc ripper to be able to rip 24bit/96Khz or higher?

[Freddie40]

On a similar note, I also would say that flac is as good as CD quality. which is 16 bit/ 44.1Khz.
I was able to download a demo song that was encoded in 24 bit/96Khz in flac format. when when I tried to play it on my AVR(pioneer elite SC-07) it didn't recognized it.

I wounder how this file was created?, does a computer dvd/cd player can play and therefore rip SACD, or DVD-A? or do you need a specific version of a falc ripper to be able to rip 24bit/96Khz or higher?

You cannot rip SACD. Some people play the SACD and then capture the analogue signal. There are other who use an Oppo player and can capture the digital signal.

On the other hand DVD-A is very easy to rip using a program call DVD-Audio extractor.

Blu-Rays can also be ripped, but it is more difficult.

The easiest way to get Hi-Res is though on-line sites such as HDTracks.com

Dave

[Hammie]

FLAC is the preferred lossless format. AIFF and WAV files are uncompressed (read LARGE FILES).

FLAC can sound better than CD since they can offer hi-res files. I purchase 24/88.2 and 24/96kHz files from HDTracks.com and B&W Society of Sound.

I currently use a Mac Mini and run an optical cable to my processor. Unfortunately, the Apple Core Audio will only output a single sample rate and will up sample or down sample any files that do not meet that sample rate. Therefore, I set mine to 24/96kHz which is the highest it will allow.

Therefore, I am in search of a digital media player that supports hi-res files. My budget is up to $5K. the PS Audio PerfectWave DAC with Bridge is leading the pack right now and can use my existing NAS for its music storage. Another option that looks promising is the Bryston BDP-1 and BDA-1 combo. It requires a USB HDD, but can use samba to connect to a network for file management. Other companies I am considering are Naim, Linn, and Olive.

I have been doing a ton of research because I do not want any regrets or remorse with this purchase. Especially since my wife things I am nuts for $5K on this. It will be the single most expensive thing in my setup. Maybe not total purchase output, but single unit price, it may be the most...

[dmccombs]

FLAC is the preferred lossless format. AIFF and WAV files are uncompressed (read LARGE FILES).

FLAC can sound better than CD since they can offer hi-res files. I purchase 24/88.2 and 24/96kHz files from HDTracks.com and B&W Society of Sound.

I currently use a Mac Mini and run an optical cable to my processor. Unfortunately, the Apple Core Audio will only output a single sample rate and will up sample or down sample any files that do not meet that sample rate. Therefore, I set mine to 24/96kHz which is the highest it will allow.

Therefore, I am in search of a digital media player that supports hi-res files. My budget is up to $5K. the PS Audio PerfectWave DAC with Bridge is leading the pack right now and can use my existing NAS for its music storage. Another option that looks promising is the Bryston BDP-1 and BDA-1 combo. It requires a USB HDD, but can use samba to connect to a network for file management. Other companies I am considering are Naim, Linn, and Olive.

I have been doing a ton of research because I do not want any regrets or remorse with this purchase. Especially since my wife things I am nuts for $5K on this. It will be the single most expensive thing in my setup. Maybe not total purchase output, but single unit price, it may be the most...

With the price of hard drives, you are choosing your file format based on size, not quality? :huh:

FLAC sounds alright, but I bet a bigger hard drive is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of your system.

But if you are enjoying the FLAC, thats terrific. To each thier own. I just wouldn't call it the "preferred lossless format".

[mjb]

I currently use a Mac Mini and run an optical cable to my processor. Unfortunately, the Apple Core Audio will only output a single sample rate and will up sample or down sample any files that do not meet that sample rate. Therefore, I set mine to 24/96kHz which is the highest it will allow.

This is not totally correct. You're limited to 24/96Khz because of the optical interface, not the Mac Mini per se. You can either get an external USB DAC, or use the Mini's HDMI port (if you have a newer Mini) into a processor, such as a Classé SSP-800. The Mini's HDMI port supports up to 24/192Khz (and 8 channels).

Secondly, iTunes does not support "on the fly" sample rate changes; you have to quit iTunes, visit the "Audio MIDI Setup" program, and then re-launch iTunes. Either Amarra or PureAudio are iTunes add ons which will automate this process and give you "on the fly" rate switching. But, unfortunately they're both rather expensive (over priced IMO). Therefore iTunes is left to up sample any lower bit rate material to the previously set bit rate, which seems to work just as well... set and forget!

iTunes doesn't support FLAC out of the box either, so perhaps you're using something else entirely. Audirvana (http://code.google.com/p/audirvana/) is my favorite Mac music player outside of iTunes. It supports most formats.

Therefore, I am in search of a digital media player that supports hi-res files. My budget is up to $5K.

A second-hand Classé SSP-800?

[Skyblue]

FLAC is the preferred lossless format. AIFF and WAV files are uncompressed (read LARGE FILES).

FLAC can sound better than CD since they can offer hi-res files. I purchase 24/88.2 and 24/96kHz files from HDTracks.com and B&W Society of Sound.

I currently use a Mac Mini and run an optical cable to my processor. Unfortunately, the Apple Core Audio will only output a single sample rate and will up sample or down sample any files that do not meet that sample rate. Therefore, I set mine to 24/96kHz which is the highest it will allow.

Therefore, I am in search of a digital media player that supports hi-res files. My budget is up to $5K. the PS Audio PerfectWave DAC with Bridge is leading the pack right now and can use my existing NAS for its music storage. Another option that looks promising is the Bryston BDP-1 and BDA-1 combo. It requires a USB HDD, but can use samba to connect to a network for file management. Other companies I am considering are Naim, Linn, and Olive.

I have been doing a ton of research because I do not want any regrets or remorse with this purchase. Especially since my wife things I am nuts for $5K on this. It will be the single most expensive thing in my setup. Maybe not total purchase output, but single unit price, it may be the most...

Consider visiting computeraudiophile.com. That is a site devoted almost entirely to this sort of issues.

I agree with the rest that the 96kHz limit is purely a limit of your interface. The mac can easely play 192kHz. That is, if you can find any. Theres almost nothing out there in in 24/192, except a couple of vinyl rips. And then you migth as well just get a turntable..

As for dac's, I have the Ayre QB9 and it is great. Computeraudiophile have a long list of recommended dacs. I dont think you can go wrong chosing either of those.

[SPACEMANRICK]

See below.

Yes. http://www.stereophile.com/mediaserv...yer/index.html

Thanks very much Kal to the link to your informative and interesting Stereophile article and also for everyones feedback.

I am very new to these digital FLAC formats and I don't think I have a digital optical or digital coaxial connector to me Cambridge 840E preamplifier http://news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messag...81/438837.html .So I assume I can only connect the squeezebox with a RCA connector to my Cambridge 840E preampliifer. So assuming this is correct and from the text of the Stereophile article

"Using the Touch's analog outputs (and, therefore, DACs) was another story. The sound was clearly inferior to what I heard via the processing and D/A in the Classé and Meridian processors, but good enough that I could distinguish mashed low-bit-rate streaming from the better stuff, and even an HD download from a 16/44.1 download. It was just that the quality levels of all recordings were shifted down a notch or two by the Touch's analog outputs. The Touch's analog outputs were still eminently listenable, if not fully revealing of the source materials, and comparable to listening via the analog outputs of the Oppo BDP-83." and "How you connect the Touch is up to you—its analog outputs are more than serviceable, even for HD, and its digital outputs into your choice of DAC or processor are better than CD ever was. The Touch's USB output was a surprise, and offered remarkable performance. And a rising tide of modifications offers the promise of further improvements"

Does this mean that with my analog RCA connection and the DAC's from the Squeezebox Touch the sound I will be limited by the quality of the RCA connector instead of a digital connection and also limited by the DAC of the Squeezebox? Is there a limit that the RCA analog cable or the USB data drive connector wiill be able to transmit data to my home amplifier and speakers or will I be able to benefit from the whole 24bit 96khz high definition FLAC format? I am curious how the 24 bit FLAC files will sound on the Squeezebox Tocuh compared to CD's through my current 6 year old Denon DCM-380 cd player.

[Kal Rubinson]

Does this mean that with my analog RCA connection and the DAC's from the Squeezebox Touch the sound I will be limited by the quality of the RCA connector instead of a digital connection and also limited by the DAC of the Squeezebox?

It means only that the DACs in the $9,000 Classe and $16,000 Meridian processors and in the $10,000 Ayre player are superior to those in the $300 SBT.

Is there a limit that the RCA analog cable or the USB data drive connector wiill be able to transmit data to my home amplifier and speakers or will I be able to benefit from the whole 24bit 96khz high definition FLAC format?

There is no difference in the data content with 24/96 material between using the analog outs and the DAC outputs. With the rare 24/192 sources, the SBT will downsample them to 24/96 but the digital output will not.

I am curious how the 24 bit FLAC files will sound on the Squeezebox Tocuh compared to CD's through my current 6 year old Denon DCM-380 cd player.

I would guess that the SBT would be better.

[SPACEMANRICK]

Wow that is crazy that a $300 Squeezebox can that radically change the quality of sound and the listening options for a home stereo system. It sounds like the only decison to make (after just blowing my savings on new amps and new speakers) is if I should buy one now or wait for my birthday 4 months from now......

Thanks for all your help again Kal :T

[iiaudio]

I'm not sure what I'd do without my Squeezebox. Enjoy!!

[mjb]

It sounds like the only decison to make is if I should buy one now or wait for my birthday 4 months from now......

lol, tough decision! 4 months is a long way away, they'll probably be a SB2 by then

[stuofsci02]

Wow that is crazy that a $300 Squeezebox can that radically change the quality of sound and the listening options for a home stereo system. It sounds like the only decison to make (after just blowing my savings on new amps and new speakers) is if I should buy one now or wait for my birthday 4 months from now......

Thanks for all your help again Kal :T

Spacemanrick...

The SB Touch definately makes listening to music much more convenient then I ever thought possible. Just for this it is worth the money. Also if you have an Iphone or Ipod touch there is an app called Ipeng that turns it into a killer remote for the SB.

I agree with Kal though.. While the SB Touch analog outputs are fine and IMO are probably on par with CD players in the $400-$500 range, it is definately worth adding on an external DAC. Since you are into Cambridge gear they offer the DACmagic, however, in my experience with the magic, it will only offer a marginal improvement. There are a tons of amazing DACs out there to try. The Chord QBD76 currently tops my list...

If you want to make a splash for really cheap, try pairing the SB Touch ($299) with a Grant Fidelity DAC-09 ($215). I bought the DAC-09 a few weeks ago on a whim because it was so cheap and I kept hearing such good things about it. While it does not compete with big dollar DACs it certainly offers huge performance for the price. I am using this with my SB Touch and it certainly takes it up a notch.

Since you are a fellow Canadian, I recommend Solutions A/V for the SB Touch, and here is a link for the DAC-09 in case you are interested.

http://shop.solutionsav.ca/products/Logitech-Squeezebox-Touch.html

http://shop.grantfidelity.com/Grant-Fidelity-Tube-DAC-09.html

[SPACEMANRICK]

Spacemanrick...

The SB Touch definately makes listening to music much more convenient then I ever thought possible. Just for this it is worth the money. Also if you have an Iphone or Ipod touch there is an app called Ipeng that turns it into a killer remote for the SB.

I agree with Kal though.. While the SB Touch analog outputs are fine and IMO are probably on par with CD players in the $400-$500 range, it is definately worth adding on an external DAC. Since you are into Cambridge gear they offer the DACmagic, however, in my experience with the magic, it will only offer a marginal improvement. There are a tons of amazing DACs out there to try. The Chord QBD76 currently tops my list...

If you want to make a splash for really cheap, try pairing the SB Touch ($299) with a Grant Fidelity DAC-09 ($215). I bought the DAC-09 a few weeks ago on a whim because it was so cheap and I kept hearing such good things about it. While it does not compete with big dollar DACs it certainly offers huge performance for the price. I am using this with my SB Touch and it certainly takes it up a notch.

Since you are a fellow Canadian, I recommend Solutions A/V for the SB Touch, and here is a link for the DAC-09 in case you are interested.

http://shop.solutionsav.ca/products/Logitech-Squeezebox-Touch.html

http://shop.grantfidelity.com/Grant-...be-DAC-09.html

Thanks for the heads up Chris on Solutions AV and their $299 Canadian pricing for the Squeezebox Touch. I heard good things about Solutions AV on another website and am just debating if I should be spending more money right now so soon after buying the new speakers and amps just last month.

The DAC will definitely have to wait for a few months before I can slip that one into my music room without protests from my wife :lol:

[Skyblue]

Thanks for the heads up Chris on Solutions AV and their $299 Canadian pricing for the Squeezebox Touch. I heard good things about Solutions AV on another website and am just debating if I should be spending more money right now so soon after buying the new speakers and amps just last month.

The DAC will definitely have to wait for a few months before I can slip that one into my music room without protests from my wife :lol:

Didnt you just get 802's? Then money in a good dac is well spend.

[stuofsci02]

Thanks for the heads up Chris on Solutions AV and their $299 Canadian pricing for the Squeezebox Touch. I heard good things about Solutions AV on another website and am just debating if I should be spending more money right now so soon after buying the new speakers and amps just last month.

The DAC will definitely have to wait for a few months before I can slip that one into my music room without protests from my wife :lol:

Yeah.. This hobby can really drain the bank account... But what is another $500 after spending all that money on 802Di and new Amps :twisted: ..

Seriously though, if you are saying that your source is worse then the analog outs on the SB touch, then there are huge improvements to be made..

Cheers,

Stuart

[SPACEMANRICK]

Yeah.. This hobby can really drain the bank account... But what is another $500 after spending all that money on 802Di and new Amps :twisted: ..

Seriously though, if you are saying that your source is worse then the analog outs on the SB touch, then there are huge improvements to be made..

Cheers,

Stuart

Sorry for the name mixup Stuart :g>

I agree that it sounds like the DAC and the Squeezebox are the way to go but I may have to do this in steps and go for the Squeezebox first and maybe get a DAC for Christmas. In all fairness to my wife I woke up one day and told her I was thinking of upgrading to 802DI speakers and Cambridge 840W and 840E amps at a total cost of close to $20,000 Canadian and she said go for it....I don't think too many wives would be so accommodating especially since my wife would be just as happy to listen to a $500 desktop stereo system.

I think the Grant Fidelity DAC sounds like a nice choice for sound and a good price but I am not sure what my wife will think about another 10" box in our music room. Are there any other DACs that are as reasonably priced and that sound good but are much smaller (2" to 4") that I can hide behind my Cambridge amp or preamp?

[SPACEMANRICK]

Damn it you guys have broken me down :B. I just ordered the Squeezebox Touch from Solutions AV. Hopefully it may even arrive this week sometime!

I am sure I will have more questions after it arrives!

[stuofsci02]

Sorry for the name mixup Stuart :g>

I agree that it sounds like the DAC and the Squeezebox are the way to go but I may have to do this in steps and go for the Squeezebox first and maybe get a DAC for Christmas. In all fairness to my wife I woke up one day and told her I was thinking of upgrading to 802DI speakers and Cambridge 840W and 840E amps at a total cost of close to $20,000 Canadian and she said go for it....I don't think too many wives would be so accommodating especially since my wife would be just as happy to listen to a $500 desktop stereo system.

I think the Grant Fidelity DAC sounds like a nice choice for sound and a good price but I am not sure what my wife will think about another 10" box in our music room. Are there any other DACs that are as reasonably priced and that sound good but are much smaller (2" to 4") that I can hide behind my Cambridge amp or preamp?

I agree... I was only being the little red devil on your shoulder. I know how it feels to spend big money on toys, and the pit in your stomach that follows for a few weeks.

My wife is the same.. She is happy with my $199 Tannoys that are temporarily in my upstairs system while I try my CM7s as rears in the basement. But she lets me get away with this silly hobby and doesn't ask for an equally expensive hobby in return 8) .

I think you will find most DACs are about the same size as the Grant or bigger. I just posted some pics in the B&W gallery thread and I have the grant on my TV stand beside my HTM3s.. It is not too big and looks pretty good.

Anyways... Don't let the HTGuide forum bully you into spending money... I know I would have more in my wallet if I didn't come here :B ...

Cheers,

Stuart

[stuofsci02]

Damn it you guys have broken me down :B. I just ordered the Squeezebox Touch from Solutions AV. Hopefully it may even arrive this week sometime!

I am sure I will have more questions after it arrives!

Hmmm.. I didn't read this far down yet... I guess the pressure was too much! Congrats..

[SPACEMANRICK]

It looks like most people are using DBpoweramp http://www.dbpoweramp.com/.

How does DBpoweramp compare to some of these other programs for ease of use and for ripping CD's to FLAC files http://mp3-encoder-software-review.t...om/index.html? For example the Switch Audio Converter seems to be rated very highly at this website?

[stuofsci02]

I bought DBPoweramp and really like it.. It has Accurip which I think is a must.. It is really easy to use..

[BWLover]

My biggest reason for starting this flac thread was to find out if it was any good. I do not like using compression for anything. And I was having a hard time believing that something compressed is exactly the same as the original that has 60% +/- more data then the compressed version. What was in that data that is now gone. Music wise.

Really the only reason I am using flac is to download the album, burn it, see if I like it, and then purchase the cd.

Also note that I do not use my computer as a source. I'm kind of old school I guess and my cd player (Rotel rcd-1072) is currently my only source

Now the next issue that comes up is burning the cd and it's affect on the music it has. Any comments?

[Audio_ElF]

FLAC is like a specialist version of zip. If you zip a word document you don't worry that some of your letters will be missing when you unzip it again. Same with FLAC (or any other lossless audio compression).

You can test this by compressing a WAV file to FLAC, then uncomoressing it again. The final WAV will be identical to the initial WAV file.

Eloise

[stuofsci02]

Yes.. FLAC is a lossless codec. If you download a FLAC and then buy the CD you will have two of the same things.. There is no compression loss...

[Skyblue]

FLAC is like a specialist version of zip. If you zip a word document you don't worry that some of your letters will be missing when you unzip it again. Same with FLAC (or any other lossless audio compression).

You can test this by compressing a WAV file to FLAC, then uncomoressing it again. The final WAV will be identical to the initial WAV file.

Eloise

And zip like flac, works like this:

You have a file consisting of a lot of 0's and 1's. For instance 001001001010111
Just millions of them.

Zip then works by looking through the stream of digits and look for repetitions. To "zip" the above sequence, you would get something like:

2 zeros - "00" - Left: "1001001010111"
1 one - "1" - Left: "001001010111"
go to pos 0, take 3 "001" - Left: "001010111"
go to pos 0, take 4 "0010" - Left: "10111"
go to pos 2, take 2 "10" - Left: "111"
3 one's "111" - Left: ""

Where pos 0 is the first character in the string. It should be clear that the original string of 0's and 1's can be recreated perfectly by

Now ordinary text, and music lends itself very well to such "zipping" as there are a lot of repetition in the music. Flac on the other hand is already zipped, so trying to zip it again, should yield no compression at all.

Finally, to go completely off topic, then you can consider the size of a zipped string of 0's and 1's a measure of its complexity or information content. Clearly a string consisting of 1 mio. zeroes is less complex than a mb of mozart music.

Anyway.. I'd say that if flac sounds worse than wav, it is because the source that was compressed to flac was worse. But Im going to conduct my own experiments one of these days. Maybe experience will change my mind. That has happened.

[Kal Rubinson]

And I was having a hard time believing that something compressed is exactly the same as the original that has 60% +/- more data then the compressed version.

Here is the nub of your misunderstanding. The amount of data is the same. It is only the format of the data that differs.

[BWLover]

Here is the nub of your misunderstanding. The amount of data is the same. It is only the format of the data that differs.

ok. thanks. could you explain further?

[mjb]

ok. thanks. could you explain further?

From above:

FLAC is like a specialist version of zip. If you zip a word document you don't worry that some of your letters will be missing when you unzip it again. Same with FLAC (or any other lossless audio compression).

[wettou]

Mac mini with HDMi into the SSP-800 :T