Wow -so happy!

[bluegaspode]

And on iPeng

And on SqueezePad

[iquadius]

Using WAV is a bad idea, there isn't a reliable way of tagging with WAV. Use FLAC.

Why does everyone try to put people off using WAV ............. my music library is currently 3500+ albums 95%+ ripped as WAV and all tagged correctly with appropriate artwork ..... vast majority of people use windows based pc's which all come with windows media player and it does a superb job of ripping and creating artist/album folders as required ...... crack on with the WAV format ...... it just sounds 'right'

[aubuti]

Try moving those wav files to any software other than WMP and you'll find your metadata and album art disappear. That's because WMP does not write that info to the wav files, but stores it in WMP's own database.

Also, if you haven't changed your LMS defaults, then it is probably converting those WAV to FLAC before streaming it to your SBs anyway. Lossless is lossless, and WAV doesn't sound any different from FLAC (or AIFF, or ALAC).

[garym]

Why does everyone try to put people off using WAV ............. my music library is currently 3500+ albums 95%+ ripped as WAV and all tagged correctly with appropriate artwork ..... vast majority of people use windows based pc's which all come with windows media player and it does a superb job of ripping and creating artist/album folders as required ...... crack on with the WAV format ...... it just sounds 'right'

You can certainly use what works best for you. But no standard tagging for one thing. Not to mention the fully discredited idea that wav files sound better than FLAC files. And WMP is certainly not a secure ripper that can guarantee bit perfect rips. For windows, those would be either dbpoweramp or EAC. Good news is that another dbpa product, PerfectTunes (now in beta), can do after the fact matches with the accuraterip database. Not sure if it works with wav files.

[iquadius]

of course everyone should use what suits them best, its just I feel WAV gets a raw deal and is discounted by others before they have an oportunity to hear for themselves. If you apply the same logic re lossless is lossless and they all sound the same to the process of ripping i.e. blind listening as is suggested I fear you will also hear no difference at all no matter what program you use. I use WMP simply as a ripping/burning tool (no need for extra software cluttering your machine and every windows pc has it) and use 3rd party software for the tagging/artwork processing (though WMP does get most of the art right) so files are also fine with other software too .... I decided to use WAV only after I learnt that it was possible AND after many hours of listening to both file types on a very explicit system (belonging to a friend) we both simply had a preference and enjoyed listening to WAV more.

p.s. I am not totally anti FLAC ....... I do have some of those as well

happy listening

p.p.s .......... how do you modify your profile to include system details at the bottom of posts ........

[JJZolx]

Why does everyone try to put people off using WAV ............. my music library is currently 3500+ albums 95%+ ripped as WAV and all tagged correctly with appropriate artwork ..... vast majority of people use windows based pc's which all come with windows media player and it does a superb job of ripping and creating artist/album folders as required ...... crack on with the WAV format ...... it just sounds 'right'

Because with the way Squeezeboxes work, keeping WAV files is never necessary. If you feel WAV sounds better, then you can easily configure your server to take Flac (or pretty much any other lossless format), decode it at the server and stream it as WAV. Flac is probably best, since the resources required to decode it are extremely low.

[iquadius]

Because with the way Squeezeboxes work, keeping WAV files is never necessary. If you feel WAV sounds better, then you can easily configure your server to take Flac (or pretty much any other lossless format), decode it at the server and stream it as WAV. Flac is probably best, since the resources required to decode it are extremely low.

..... I knew it wasn't necessary, just preferable. To me.
sometimes when 'beginners' mention WAV they are bombarded by 'experts' or 'senior members' who say noooooooo never dont do it. All I wanted to say was yes, it IS possible - give it a go and see for yourself. If someone wishes to do something a particular way, then why not help them along that path. I am simply an advocater of WAV as a file format because I listened and had a preference ......

good night everyone.

[JJZolx]

sometimes when 'beginners' mention WAV they are bombarded by 'experts' or 'senior members' who say noooooooo never dont do it. All I wanted to say was yes, it IS possible - give it a go and see for yourself. If someone wishes to do something a particular way, then why not help them along that path. I am simply an advocater of WAV as a file format because I listened and had a preference ......

Possible and preferable are two different things. A lot of foolish things are possible.

There's zero reason why WAV would be preferable when you can decode other formats at the server and stream them as WAV. Add to that the lack of universal support for WAV tagging, and the simple fact that it requires at least 50% more storage space than Flac.

[garym]

p.p.s .......... how do you modify your profile to include system details at the bottom of posts ........

click on settings in the menu at top of page (below logitech squeezebox, above forum and what's new. In settings, there is a place to edit signature.

[aubuti]

I decided to use WAV only after I learnt that it was possible AND after many hours of listening to both file types on a very explicit system (belonging to a friend) we both simply had a preference and enjoyed listening to WAV more.

Did you and your friend compare WAV and FLAC double-blind? And after disabling replaygain? I have and couldn't detect any difference. You can say that my system isn't explicit enough, or my ears are too diminished, or I don't know what to listen for. And I can say that any FLAC transcodes to an identical WAV, and vice versa, which is easily demonstrable.

If you haven't done a double-blind comparison, you owe it to yourself. Software for doing so -- quite easily -- is available in the attics of this forum: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showth...esting-Support

EDIT: Sorry, I overlooked this part of the post in my response:

I use WMP simply as a ripping/burning tool (no need for extra software cluttering your machine and every windows pc has it) and use 3rd party software for the tagging/artwork processing (though WMP does get most of the art right) so files are also fine with other software too ....

If you are going to counsel new users about how good and portable WAV is, I think it would be a good idea to name the "3rd party software" that you use for tagging and artwork processing. To my knowledge there is only one package that tags WAV files according to the standard (an obscure and generally ignored standard, but something of a standard nonetheless). (And on a side note, a lot of users are happy to have relatively small footprint programs like EAC or dBpoweramp "cluttering" their machines for ripping because they do secure rips, unlike WMP.)