In my view, anything that attempts to kill off that pervasive disease that
is .mp3 must be good.

"The $1,999 (£1,079) player is aimed at people who encode music using
so-called lossless formats, such as Flac or Wav."

I have no idea what Flac is but .wav is not encoded (it is a bit for bit
digital copy) and therefore lossless. It is raw data (isn't it?).

"Audiophiles are investing a lot of money to rip their files at more than
simple 128kbps MP3."

Are they? I wouldn't have thought so. Surely an audiophile would want to
remain in the digital domain as far as possible.
If .mp3 is required 'for the gym', an encoder hardly requires 'investing a
lot of money'.

"Flac and Wav are the favoured formats of many digital audiophiles because
they retain all the information on a CD when converted or transferred into
digital or non-physical form."

The article corrects itself. Now .wav does 'retain all the information'
rather than being 'so-called lossless'. What is meant by 'converted or
transferred into digital'? There is no conversion - it remains digital.

At £1,079, it seems rather expensive for a DAC - that's all it is. Am I
missing something?

Ummm, I wonder how they can extract more information than there is present
on the CD. Ah, I am missing something!

Paul



"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

So the makers claim!, seems to decode wav and FLAC files to better than
CD
quality;!....


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5212396.stm
--
Tony Sayer