Quote Originally Posted by Vincent Kars View Post
This is a very strong sentiment in the audiophile world.
If an audible difference between WAV and FLAC is reported, invariably WAV is preferred.
It is umcompressed so it uses less CPU so it is better.
(That you get about double the I/O is safely ignored)

Likewise a lot of PC tweaks, if it is less it is better.
So underclocking is a must.
What does it do?
The frequency lowers and the density of the harmonics increases.
Why would audio improve?
There is a very nice post by John Swenson about this subject: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pc...s/5/56899.html

Shooting in the dark indeed.

I must admit the concept of isolating the DAC (galvanic and a asyn protocol) appeals to me.
But as usual in engineering there is no free lunch.

Say we have a USB DAC using async protocol and galvanic isolated from the PC using opto-couplers. Sounds great.
If we phrase it slightly different: a USB DAC with an async USB receiver converting USB to Toslink.
Does it still sound great?
Depends on how well the receiver at the other end handles toslink, I suppose. Toslink has inherently higher jitter...which just gets us into another great computer audio debate -- when is jitter audible? -- but implementation is everything, they tell me, and toslink can be great.

The less is more ethos has always been interesting, because it is so inconsistent. If less is really more, would the typical audiphile system be a separate component with its repititive power supply, cables, internal wiring, resistors, capacitors, etc, etc. Or would the high end have embraced integration long ago and worked to minimize all of the above in simplified, integrated designs?

Not, evidently, if there is more money in selling boxes and wires...

Tim