[quote user="Kingsleyflint"]I played ALC files on my iPod on my hifi and my son ... coud clearly hear how flat , washed out and unmusical the ALC file sounded compared to a CD[/quote]
But here, you are comparing an iPod analogue output stage to that of a CD player. The CD player's will be much better. Also, did you use a sound-pressure meter to ensure that the volume from the CD player and the iPod were matched? And did you do the test double-blind, where neither of you knew whether you were listening to CD or iPod?
>> APPLE LOSSLESS VS WAV. which is better?
Of course, that has to be .wav
.WAV is an uncompressed format, .i.e. contains all information (theoretically, save for read errors) that was burnt onto the media (CD, SACD, DHCD, DVD-Audio). ALE is a compressed format. Theoretically, there shouldn't be a difference at all in the wave and ale versions of the same track, but you may notice a thing or two if you listen really carefully. And yes, like kingsley said, trained ears will notice them sooner.
But, if you can't tell a difference, good for you.[/quote]
Total nonsense. Theoretically there is no difference, and actually, there is no difference. The music you ultimately hear is analogue. To get the music into an analogue format, a digital to analogue converter is used. In the case of Apple Lossless and WAV, *exactly the same* digital bit stream is sent to the DAC, so the DAC delivers *exactly the same* analogue waveform out under both circumstances.
Perhaps one of you would like to take me up on the challenge I set Dominic Dawes? Find it in this thread