CD Ripping software

If you are really hearing audible differences I'd say there was something wrong with your playback chain, not with the format.

Something wrong with my playback chain? Are you serious? :-)

I think Robin Whittle explains it well:

"Audio files contain a certain amount of information - "entropy" - so they cannot be compressed losslessly to any size smaller than that. So it is not realistic to expect an ever-increasing improvement in lossless compression algorithm performance. The performance can only approach more closely whatever the basic entropy of the file is. No-one quite knows what that entropy is of course . . . I think that would require understanding the datastream in a way which is exactly in tune with it's true nature. For instance a .jpg image of handwriting would appear to contain a lot of data, unless you could see and recognise the handwriting and record its characters in a suitably compressed format. The true nature of sound varies with its source, physical environment and recording method, and a lossless compression program cannot adapt itself entirely to the "true" nature of the sound in each piece of music. Therefore it is not surprising that different algorithms work best on different kinds of music."

Lossless? Not that I think so! :-)

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev

The text you quote doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. He's talking about how much we can compress a stream, and indeed the amount of FLAC compression possible depends on the type of data in audio files. He's not saying that FLAC does some kind of violence to the data that WAV does not do. FLAC compression is still a completely lossless process, as one can easily verify oneself by repeatedly compressing and decompressing the same file and comparing the PCM data.

FLAC decompression takes place at the application level. The same data gets sent to the soundcard driver whether originating from a WAV, AIFF, or FLAC file. (Jitter is not an issue at this level as long as the application can supply the data fast enough.)

Now some people will blame the difference on the processor load, but decoding of 24/96 FLAC files takes up only a few percent of total CPU load at real-time audio processing rates. And processor load is constantly fluctuating from second to second and minute to minute, so one would expect audio performance to be pretty arbitrary if playback was this delicate.

Loosless compression is harmless if done correctly.

Squeezedevices convert to compressed FLAC to trasmit from server to player even if source is .wav. THat makes for better performance and should have no effect on sound quality.

If you rip to .wav, make sure you get the metadata ("tags")right before the rip in that i have yet to find any practical way to edit .wav "tags".

The text you quote doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Sure, and a Radio Shack $49 CD transport is the best, but you need a Super Clock installed! :-)

Let me say this again; there is a good sound quality difference between "lossless" formats, and WAV is best, meaning it is closest to the original. Still there is no computer audio I am aware of that beats a well done CD transport.

For the record, I have used various PC and Mac systems ranging from Pentium 4 to Core i7, both desktops and laptops.

I hear what I hear, sorry! If this can help someone, I am happy. If not, that is fine too. Everyone is right, just avoid "lossless" if best possible is desired! :-)

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev

"Let me say this again; there is a good sound quality difference between "lossless" formats, and WAV is best, meaning it is closest to the original."

FLAC is as exactly as close to the original as WAV is. They both produce the same exact PCM data. What other criteria for "closeness" do you have?

"For the record, I have used various PC and Mac systems ranging from Pentium 4 to Core i7, both desktops and laptops."

But you don't seem to have any more insight into how these systems work than anyone else here.