A good solution to music-from-PC is to optically connect to your amp. Obviously this is no help if you're missing either an optical-out on your PC or an optical-in on your amp [note to self for next upgrade]. But for those suitably endowed it leaves the DA conversion to the amp - horses for courses and all that.
00110011001100110011... It is always two 0's followed by two 1's. This can be compressed to 0101010101... etc.
Fair enough, but are you telloing me that all frequencies are included in the files and there is no filtering? No cut out of frequencies below 20Hz or above 20kHz? If so, I take it all back.What's wrong with the scale? It's based on the above premise of filtering and cut-out.Edit: I think my other point was: why bother making a file type, then needing to use something else to compress it. Why not just design it better to start with?
However, the PC storage methods (MP3, MP4, WMA, WAV etc etc etc) are the weak point in the system. You can hear the loss of certain frequencies, or even bands. Even using Optical you won't correct this, so you may as well use a 3.5 headphone plug into 2 phonos!
DAT samples at 48kHZ, infinite bitrate, no frequency range limitations.Vinyl samples at infinite Hz and infinite bitrate with no frequency limits. Hence my order of quality before.
Bubba: If the music file is lossless, truly lossless, and nowt but lossless, then OK- PC tunes can sound as good as top end hi-fi
Bubbs: how does .flac compare to .wav?
Enjoy your listening people!
Is there a high-end CD player that will read formats like .flac?
I just installed an M-Audio 24/96 sound card to improve latency with sequencing software (newb!). The improvement in sound quality and general 'oomph' I got as a result is astonishing from such an affordable peice of kit.
I'm going to replace my audigy 2
I don't understand how WAV can be worse than FLAC when 32bit WAV is what music production programs (which most music nowadays is made with) use as default?Anyway let us agree that 44kHz sampling is dead, bring on 192kHz!
i'm not sure, but i read an article in computer music that claims 192kHz is better because it doesn't just cover the human frequencies (20 - 20000Hz) and they give much more depth to tunes (allowing for more complete waveforms, less "bouncing" of unwanted frequencies that could crop up from high frequency reverb etc. The best sample rate to use is apparently 88200Hz until computers become more powerful so they can deal with the sampling rate.