![foobar dts decoder crash foobar dts decoder crash](https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/acurazine.com-vbulletin/757x634/foobar_2_703644bae36553c38a2c95d5dca85a84fa234023.jpg)
If a file becomes corrupted, the decoder will signal it. If the media player write tags (the emphasizes is on the word if), another media player probably won't read them.įLAC supports tagging including album art.įLAC incorporates a checksum (MD5) in the header. As there is no standard for tagging WAV, the results are poor. Somebody with that bloody expensive gear able to measure the jitter on the digital out when playing WAV or FLAC.īeside sound quality, there are a couple of other differences.īoth can be tagged. Will we again hear a difference between FLAC and WAV? Start playback when the song is fully loaded an converted If all this is true, the difference in sound quality is not a property of the file format but a hardware problem. One might argue that if sound quality fluctuates with system load, this indicates a design flaw.Īs a consequence, on a well-designed system you won’t hear any difference and on the ones with a crappy sound card, you do. This is pretty much like having a video card and the more system activity, the more your screen starts to blur! Increased system activity will decrease the sound quality.
#Foobar dts decoder crash Pc#
There are claims that any electrical activity going on inside a PC disturbs in some way or other the clock timing the audio and maps itself into sample rate jitter. This requires a bit more processing power than playing WAV. To play FLAC you need to expand it first.
![foobar dts decoder crash foobar dts decoder crash](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/pdQAAOSw4eJbKrTQ/s-l300.jpg)
Maybe the variations in timing (oh no, not jitter again) explains it. 16 bits / 44.1 just like the original source. When you play it, it will be expanded to e.g. I’m confident if someone would do this experiment with a FLAC and a WAV, the result will also be zero differences. An example known to me is a guy using this method to test differences between iTunes and Amarra playing the same track at its native sample rate.īut a lot of people claim to hear a difference. This type of testing is a bit rare as it does require some technical skills and some recording gear. It the player treats WAV and FLAC different, we will record different bits Ok, might it be the player doing “something”.Īn additional and intriguing experiment is to record the SPDIF out. These type of experiments teaches us that is cannot be the content of the file causing the audible difference. Many have done this and the result is always the same: zero’s only. You need an additional step, the null test. If you run out of space the whole file must be rewritten so allocating some space a priori is a good strategy. If you store tags in the header, you need some space. Often in these conversions some space is created in the header for tags. FLAC is not lossless, FLAC is BROKEN!!!!! I convert WAV to FLAC and back and the file size is different. If you look at both WAV-files in the file system you might see a difference in size.įor some a reason to post in a forum like: Is it possible that these formats do sound different?Īs both are lossless a simple typical computer style test is: There might be some expectation bias involved. You know what is playing and of course the purest of the purest, the uncompressed lossless format will win. Of course there are counter claims, no audible differences at all and when these two opposing views are expressed in a forum it often becomes lively. If people report an audible difference between WAV and FLAC, almost invariably WAV is reported to sound better.