|
|
Post by stanleyb on Nov 21, 2014 6:52:47 GMT
I suppose it is a case of what works for each individual. My Windows7 laptop that is running in RAID-0 mode is far faster in operation than my W8.1 laptop that I use for business. Both of them are running quite stable.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Nov 21, 2014 7:17:07 GMT
RAID-0 is fast but risky. Not needed any more with SSDs becoming so inexpensive these days. I find that W8.1 with an SSD is a really good experience as Microsoft seem to have cracked the SSD/TRIM support to make them really fly. If you buy a Samsung 840 Evo, you can make them go even faster with the RAM cache support in their Magician software. Pretty much the best real-price SSD out there. I've started putting Samsung 840 Pro SSDs in our servers, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanleyb on Nov 21, 2014 14:41:14 GMT
As it happens, I am using a 512GB SSD EVO840 in the W8.1 laptop. The W7 laptop is using two Toshiba SSD in Raid-0. Daily backup is the order of the day, but this W7 laptop can show a good turn of speed.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Nov 21, 2014 20:20:28 GMT
Not many laptops have space for two drives. You have impeccable taste in SSDs, sir!
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Nov 26, 2014 9:00:54 GMT
Windows 10 to Support FLAC File FormatInfo release item here.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Nov 26, 2014 9:22:21 GMT
I assume that is a very good thing .....?
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Nov 26, 2014 11:58:17 GMT
It means that FLAC files will be recognised by the OS. It certainly helps that FLAC receives official support from Microsoft.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Nov 26, 2014 15:24:18 GMT
And FLAC still the best ?
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Nov 26, 2014 18:21:52 GMT
No - FLAC just gives you lossless compression to make the files smaller, but great for creating a red-book or hi-res collection occupying the minimal of space.
Don't get confused with mp3, which has lossy compression.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Nov 26, 2014 19:40:48 GMT
I noted FLAC as the format I would use once/if I get around to needing such things
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Nov 26, 2014 20:37:19 GMT
I'd have thought that memory is cheap enough nowadays to make the only advantage of using FLAC rather marginal?
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Nov 26, 2014 20:47:22 GMT
It's not just storage, Chris. The transmission of uncompressed WAV files takes twice the bandwidth (which could be critical in a Wi-Fi environment), whereas decompression of FLAC files takes minimal processing power.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Nov 26, 2014 21:32:29 GMT
OK - I didn't realise that. But it's fine with wires?
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Nov 26, 2014 22:22:02 GMT
100Mbps Ethernet cable won't even blink.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Nov 27, 2014 5:54:25 GMT
I know Stan prefers using FLAC over WAV When I compare on my system I also prefer WAV with the same track but most people tend not to notice a difference I recently tried this out with some Derek Trucks tracks and the WAV had a bit more punch and detail but have no idea why the difference
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Nov 27, 2014 7:14:08 GMT
I'm with you John. I have tried comparing them a few times now and every time it was close, but I thought it was better au naturale. That may just be because, deep down, my instinct tells me that it just should be better if you don't tinker with a file by making it into a flac one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Nov 27, 2014 7:27:37 GMT
You don't change a file by compressing it to FLAC.
A FLAC is easily decompressed back to the WAV it was before it was compressed.
There's no difference between the WAV you'd get from a direct rip and a WAV you'd get after decompressing a FLAC.
In the ripping process from a CD, the first step is ripping the tracks to a bunch of WAV files, and after ripping the tracks FLAC compression is applied.
FLACs are decompressed on the fly during playback (the data is PCM WAV).
If you can hear any difference in playback it could well be due to other system processes on the playback machine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Nov 27, 2014 7:31:14 GMT
I know Stan prefers using FLAC over WAV Stan has stated the exact opposite on a number of occasions! |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Nov 27, 2014 7:38:00 GMT
Well, I kind of see that as tinkering with a file. I'm surprised that other people don't .
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Nov 27, 2014 8:11:46 GMT
If you can hear any difference in playback it could well be due to other system processes on the playback machine. Yes, I agree that it must be in the processing required to decompress the FLAC as the resultant data stream is identical to the original WAV. |
|
