wow, it's been a long time since I've posted on here hehe, and this thread just caught my eye....some interesting arguments back and forth, and since it's already on the verge of a car wreck I figured I'd toss my two cents in too.
I see a couple different arguments going on that seem to have been criss-crossed, so I'll address my comments in the way I perceive the arguments.
1. FLAC vs Wavpack: to-may-to / to-mah-to. They both appear to have their strengths and their weaknesses. I have over 1,000 CDs and I have been too lazy to dig up the space to archive them, let alone spend the time doing so. I am quite confident that I'll probably rip to FLAC, and even then I'd be too lazy to convert to wavpack. Just me though, there are plenty of people with smaller collections and more time, and if you need the extra 7 gigs then more power to you!
2. Lossy vs Lossless: There are a couple intermixed arguments here, first that you can't audibly tell the difference between high-bitrate lossy and lossless, this then morphed into the restriction of being on a portable/mobile device (I'll toss car into the equation since it still fits). I have not done an abx test, but I'm confident that more the vast majority of people this would be true, that on any MP3 player etc, comparing the two with relatively standard headphones (no STAX etc) you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.
This is where my opinion starts to branch, a lot of people are talking about wavpack in regards to portable players, rockbox, straight computers etc, and likewise with playing FLAC on the player itself.
Personally, my intent once I rip my collection, is that the FLAC will be the archive of all the audio. From there, using a slimdevice to stream the audio (ralphp, the new transporter
http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_transporter.html would probably even be up to snuff for you
) In this situation, FLAC is more compatible, and I am no longer limiting myself to portable audio, but can integrate that audio into my home listening system, where differences between lossy and lossless I would imagine would be come more pronounced.
Now, I know, for those of you that don't think there would be an audible difference even in that scenario, the added benefit is that I can transcode freely without a loss in quality. If I initially rip to OGG or MP3 at a high bitrate, and someone creates an uber-algorithm for shrinking files, then I can't transcode without losing quality.
For me personally, it's about retaining that exact copy, but adding the benefit of portability (transcoding), integration into a network/home audio setup without having 5x 300 Disc CD Changers, and having all of the music in one place.
I'm sure some of you may disagree on some points, but that will be based on your own situations or requirements. No one is ever stupid or wrong for having different requirements or needs, they're just different.
