Bit perfect can only happen if the file reaches your dac chip unaltered. Flac is a lossless alteration before being sent out digitally. All the bits were there, yes, congratulations on not being mp3, but a process inside a noisy device's most noisy part has to happen to play it back. I know you want it to be better, but ideally you could only get just as good. Processors are packed full of transistors, which sound less realistic than tubes. You have to let that spaz convert your flac file. You could just sit there hoping it sounds the same as wav's, if you like.
Bit perfect can only be achieved if the dac chip receives the file directly. Good luck with getting that to happen.
The dac chip never receives a file, it receives a bitstream that has been abstracted from being a flac or a wav something else. What your recloker does with that is another question. What your chip does with that bitstream that's another question. What your analog stage does after that another one after that. That is where most of the differences are.
WAVs will go through the processor because that's how a computer works. When I wrote that everything goes through the processor I meant it. The section of the disk containing the WAV doesn't get up by itself and walks into the RAM with a monocle a monopoly hat and a pipe.
I have no idea what you wrote, it makes no semantic sense. Technically, I don't think you understand what 9 billion tubes would be like. Nor the idiocy of using a tube as a binary logic gate in this context.
If you have a decent recloking strategy in place at your dac, you're mostly immune to the issues of usb. That's the idea. Any type of PLL, FIFO, what have you, will have a brutal jitter rejection rate.
You don't need to worry about that, they're not very useful for audio.
As long as you know, I'm happy.
The file cannot be sent to the dac directly, from a pc. The file is read to ram, if flac, gets processed into ram by the cpu, then played by the player software with it's output method selected, out the usb port to a cable. All those factors are chances for different types of degradation to the signal.
No, it reads a wav directly to ram. Only flac's need to go through the processor. Direct access.
I'm not talking about jitter. It would exist in both cases, anyhow.
Look mate, you're clearly talking with someone that has a least a functional understanding of these things right? Because for me it has been clear for a while that you don't. You're just plain wrong about basic things about how a computer operates and making up stuff as you go along, everyone can see it. Bit are no longer simple, some are more pronouced. Doubling down in such a situation just gives credence to my observation that most discussions about digital online are, ironically, not ok to have, to the notion from @audiobomber that talking to you is mostly a waste and, I'm hopping, to everyone else that listening to you is not a good idea.
Just a small note: a file is loaded on RAM (or not, your choice in most players) and then proceeds onward. To simplify, I am now playing locally, i.e. from an external hard-disk directly connected to the streaming device; I have selected "play from RAM" (because I'm under the illusion it sounds better
) and, thereby, the chosen file information is transferred ("loaded") onto RAM, from where it leaves, as necessary, to be processed. This happens regardless of whether the file's a flac, wav, dsf...It seems you are wary of the fact that flac is a codec (code-decode) and thereby would require an extra processing stage? That's not quite the way it works: it's an ordered stream of digital audio signals which are directly converted to analogue via the DAC chip. So, I wouldn't worry if I were you. By all means stick to wavs if you prefer; but you'll use up lots more space, lose out on higher resolution files (worth it sometimes), and AFAIK the format doesn't support the metadata we're used to with flacs. Regards
I didn't question you hear differences and didn't argue anything about one being better or worse. Than was all you, and that's ok.So, if someone can hear a difference flac makes, they're wasting your time, and don't know what they're talking about?
Direct memory access - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Did you come to this thread to tell people that mqa sounds better than Original Higher Res Master Files?
The file is not sent straight to ram as a flac, it must first get worked on by the cpu. Noise.Just a small note: a file is loaded on RAM (or not, your choice in most players) and then proceeds onward. To simplify, I am now playing locally, i.e. from an external hard-disk directly connected to the streaming device; I have selected "play from RAM" (because I'm under the illusion it sounds better
I would like the file to flow into my dac's input. Look at what comes first: If you add flac, it reads from disk to be worked on by cpu before getting into ram. Then, it gets played by your player, which all make a difference, and sent to the digital output, then across your data cable. Playing a wav file skips the cpu unpacking, I find the player sends cleaner quieter audio data out of my usb port.
You can keep telling me I can't really hear it if you like, but decoding a flac into ram outputs more noise than wav to ram outputs.
I usually use Audirvana Studio, it's using up to 4gb ram buffer. Kernel streaming, no other dsp's.
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |
