Re: Pros and cons between WMA Lossless vs FLAC

Phil Meyer;165067 Wrote: 
> I believe FLAC compresses to a smaller size than wma lossless (probably
> not a lot in it though).  That should translate to a bigger buffer in
> the Squeezebox.
> 
> FLAC is a fast decompressor - it should be less CPU intensive for
> playback.
> 
> I believe more people around here are using FLAC, and the Squeezebox
> has supported it natively a lot longer than WMA, so there's more chance
> of stability and support.
> 
> Phil

Thanks, that's the type of info I was looking for.

I appreciate Pat's reply too.


-- 
mswlogo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mswlogo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9090
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30978