Apologies for another computer audio question! I have finally got my hands on a 120gb iPod Classic as I will be living away from home for a while and want to take a good portion of my CD collection with me. I'm only interested in using the lossless formats, but has anybody noticed any difference in quality between WAV, AIFF and Apple Lossless? Is it even possible for there to be a difference between one lossless format and another? I would be very interested to get feedback on this from those who understand this field as I am only semi computer literate and have ignored much of the advancement in computer based audio in recent years. Cheers.
Comparison of lossless formats?
- Thread starter Tear Drop
- Start date
First, there is a Computer-based music forum if you scroll a bit - more appropriate to post there.
Second, there is no difference in quality - only (small) differences are in compression and compatibility. Stick with Apple Lossless if you want to use your ipod.
Second, there is no difference in quality - only (small) differences are in compression and compatibility. Stick with Apple Lossless if you want to use your ipod.
I wanted to post in this section because I am interested in the issue of audio fidelity first and foremost.
ALAC and FLAC compress the raw audio (WAV, AIFF) without any loss of quality at playback. As chainrock wrote there are some lengthy threads on this topic in the computer forum. If you have to go lossless with your iPod over 320kbps there is no question, use ALAC.
Audiophiles may come along and claim WAV sounds more analogue than AIFF, FLAC soundstages the best, and ALAC has the best bass...
Lossless is lossless is lossless is lossless is lossless is lossless is lossless YAWN, is Lossless is lossless..................................................
I've lost the will to live now!
Ash
I've lost the will to live now!
Ash
professorhat
Well-known member
Eddie Pound:Audiophiles may come along and claim WAV sounds more analogue than AIFF, FLAC soundstages the best, and ALAC has the best bass...
So because they have a different opinion to you, the thread should be locked? Not really in the spirit of a forum is it?
So because they have a different opinion to you, the thread should be locked? Not really in the spirit of a forum is it?
Eddie Pound:Audiophiles may come along and claim WAV sounds more analogue than AIFF, FLAC soundstages the best, and ALAC has the best bass...
As the OP I'm interested in people's experiences and knowledge. If you're not interested then please ignore the thread rather than asking for it to be locked. Thanks.
As the OP I'm interested in people's experiences and knowledge. If you're not interested then please ignore the thread rather than asking for it to be locked. Thanks.
idc
Well-known member
Eddie Pound:Audiophiles may come along and claim WAV sounds more analogue than AIFF, FLAC soundstages the best, and ALAC has the best bass...
That will be the type of audiophile who listens intently to the system and tries to find minute differences in sound that others will not hear, so incresing the audiophile's sense of importance and wellbeing. Other audiophiles are on the hunt for music that they love to listen to on a system that maximises their enjoyment of that music.
I am happy to accept that type 1 audiophiles can hear a difference, because I want everyone to be happy. I am a type 2 audiophile and I do not think that there is any discernable difference between lossless formats.
Thank goodness this post was not locked or I would never have thought of the above. It can be locked now..........................
That will be the type of audiophile who listens intently to the system and tries to find minute differences in sound that others will not hear, so incresing the audiophile's sense of importance and wellbeing. Other audiophiles are on the hunt for music that they love to listen to on a system that maximises their enjoyment of that music.
I am happy to accept that type 1 audiophiles can hear a difference, because I want everyone to be happy. I am a type 2 audiophile and I do not think that there is any discernable difference between lossless formats.
Thank goodness this post was not locked or I would never have thought of the above. It can be locked now..........................
Alec
Well-known member
garethwd:There are some very smugg people on here these days
These days...? LOL! Some seem to have serious mod complexes too, but then...pot/kettle
Personally i dont care. for practical reasons there are only 2 lossless formats id use so far, and i cant hear a difference, but then i havent really tried. im happy with the idea that lossless is lossless, but am certainly not qualified to state it as absolute fact.
Tho i suspect it is based on my little reading...
Thats all from me.
These days...? LOL! Some seem to have serious mod complexes too, but then...pot/kettle
Personally i dont care. for practical reasons there are only 2 lossless formats id use so far, and i cant hear a difference, but then i havent really tried. im happy with the idea that lossless is lossless, but am certainly not qualified to state it as absolute fact.
Tho i suspect it is based on my little reading...
Thats all from me.
chebby
Well-known member
I use iTunes for convenience and because I have found that AAC 256kbps downloads sound pretty good. (Internet stations like Radio Paradise also sound good - at 192kbps AAC - via iTunes also.)
So my CDs are ripped to iTunes in lossless by default because I cannot be bothered to have lots of different 'platforms' for music. It sounds great and is easy to use.
BBC iPlayer also uses AAC nowadays which has made a great improvement in sound. (The old BBC 'Play again' service was based on Real Player and I ended up not using it because of all the stuff Real Player liked to hide away on the system. Took ages to clean it all out! There is just something so dodgy about Real Player.)
So my CDs are ripped to iTunes in lossless by default because I cannot be bothered to have lots of different 'platforms' for music. It sounds great and is easy to use.
BBC iPlayer also uses AAC nowadays which has made a great improvement in sound. (The old BBC 'Play again' service was based on Real Player and I ended up not using it because of all the stuff Real Player liked to hide away on the system. Took ages to clean it all out! There is just something so dodgy about Real Player.)
If you rip a CD to Apple Lossless, then convert it to WAV, and compare the bits to a AccurateRip verified WAV from EAC you'll find that they are exactly the same.
I hope that in the computer audio world some of the non-differences discussions of yester-year will disappear.
I hope that in the computer audio world some of the non-differences discussions of yester-year will disappear.
Forums are for discusussions arnt they? oh dam! whilst i typing this my cdp bluescreened on me never mind
forums are for discussions but some discussions are pointless. that wasn't a dig at the OP btw. what we need is a myth buster section for computer audio, and then we wouldn't be so susceptible to having our pants pulled down and joel (for one) might understand the difference between data in the digital domain moving through a pc and being immune to the sort of interference an analogue signal would be compromised by.
gareth - cdp bluescreened
gareth - cdp bluescreened
But in fairness! Their not pointless if someone is asking a legit question that they dont know the anwser too, even if it is obvious to some.
garethwd:But in fairness! Their not pointless if someone is asking a legit question that they dont know the anwser too, even if it is obvious to some.
Exactly, thank you!! Just for the record this thread has clarified a few points for me, so has been useful. Thanks for the help (even if it wasn't intended by some...).
Exactly, thank you!! Just for the record this thread has clarified a few points for me, so has been useful. Thanks for the help (even if it wasn't intended by some...).
manicm
Well-known member
Eddie Pound:
If you rip a CD to Apple Lossless, then convert it to WAV, and compare the bits to a AccurateRip verified WAV from EAC you'll find that they are exactly the same.
I hope that in the computer audio world some of the non-differences discussions of yester-year will disappear.
I'm using iTunes on Windows and will download ALAC files - is it simply setting rip option to WAV and converting to get the full bit-perfect rip?
If you rip a CD to Apple Lossless, then convert it to WAV, and compare the bits to a AccurateRip verified WAV from EAC you'll find that they are exactly the same.
I hope that in the computer audio world some of the non-differences discussions of yester-year will disappear.
I'm using iTunes on Windows and will download ALAC files - is it simply setting rip option to WAV and converting to get the full bit-perfect rip?
Yes:
Rip to ALAC.
Convert to WAV in iTunes.
Use WAV Compare in EAC.
I found an article online before describing the process and showing screenshots of the results.
Rip to ALAC.
Convert to WAV in iTunes.
Use WAV Compare in EAC.
I found an article online before describing the process and showing screenshots of the results.
idc
Well-known member
Craig M.:
forums are for discussions but some discussions are pointless. that wasn't a dig at the OP btw. what we need is a myth buster section for computer audio, and then we wouldn't be so susceptible to having our pants pulled down....
Sorry Craig M, but that is dangerous back door sensorship. Now you know the answer, the discussion is indeed pointless, but only for you. A myth buster is a dictatorship where one goup, or maybe even just an influential individual has stated 'that is the fact, end of discusion'. I would rather continue to answer questions about different lossless formats than ban such. Anyway, there is always a risk that the majority have got something wrong. I believe that is not the case with the comparison of lossless formats, but that is not the point.
forums are for discussions but some discussions are pointless. that wasn't a dig at the OP btw. what we need is a myth buster section for computer audio, and then we wouldn't be so susceptible to having our pants pulled down....
Sorry Craig M, but that is dangerous back door sensorship. Now you know the answer, the discussion is indeed pointless, but only for you. A myth buster is a dictatorship where one goup, or maybe even just an influential individual has stated 'that is the fact, end of discusion'. I would rather continue to answer questions about different lossless formats than ban such. Anyway, there is always a risk that the majority have got something wrong. I believe that is not the case with the comparison of lossless formats, but that is not the point.
Alec
Well-known member
idc:Craig M.:
forums are for discussions but some discussions are pointless. that wasn't a dig at the OP btw. what we need is a myth buster section for computer audio, and then we wouldn't be so susceptible to having our pants pulled down....
Sorry Craig M, but that is dangerous back door sensorship. Now you know the answer, the discussion is indeed pointless, but only for you. A myth buster is a dictatorship where one goup, or maybe even just an influential individual has stated 'that is the fact, end of discusion'. I would rather continue to answer questions about different lossless formats than ban such. Anyway, there is always a risk that the majority have got something wrong. I believe that is not the case with the comparison of lossless formats, but that is not the point.
Right. Second attempt as the "Post" button doesnt always seem to do its job. Also very annoying that one can no longer copy and past when in the reply box/window. It makes life so much easier when you accidentally delete quote code or suchlike.
Anyway - dangerous? No. This is not Soviet Russia.
And no, myth busting in this context would simply mean making people aware of the science. Lossless - based on what we know so far, which is all science ever is - is lossless.
Now, i also wouldnt want anyone to feel they cant ask questions, but people could also use the search function. I dont think you would have reacted the way you did had it been a WHF staffer groaning at yet another cable thread (which i would happily ban), would you?
Sorry, bit swift and harsh. But fair.
forums are for discussions but some discussions are pointless. that wasn't a dig at the OP btw. what we need is a myth buster section for computer audio, and then we wouldn't be so susceptible to having our pants pulled down....
Sorry Craig M, but that is dangerous back door sensorship. Now you know the answer, the discussion is indeed pointless, but only for you. A myth buster is a dictatorship where one goup, or maybe even just an influential individual has stated 'that is the fact, end of discusion'. I would rather continue to answer questions about different lossless formats than ban such. Anyway, there is always a risk that the majority have got something wrong. I believe that is not the case with the comparison of lossless formats, but that is not the point.
Right. Second attempt as the "Post" button doesnt always seem to do its job. Also very annoying that one can no longer copy and past when in the reply box/window. It makes life so much easier when you accidentally delete quote code or suchlike.
Anyway - dangerous? No. This is not Soviet Russia.
And no, myth busting in this context would simply mean making people aware of the science. Lossless - based on what we know so far, which is all science ever is - is lossless.
Now, i also wouldnt want anyone to feel they cant ask questions, but people could also use the search function. I dont think you would have reacted the way you did had it been a WHF staffer groaning at yet another cable thread (which i would happily ban), would you?
Sorry, bit swift and harsh. But fair.
sorry, but i wasn't saying don't ask the question. i was trying to say that this is one of those questions where discussion is pointless, there is no "i prefer this, you prefer that" in relation to the sound as they all produce an identical wav.
as for mythbusting, what al said.
as for mythbusting, what al said.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
manicm:Eddie Pound:
If you rip a CD to Apple Lossless, then convert it to WAV, and compare the bits to a AccurateRip verified WAV from EAC you'll find that they are exactly the same.
I hope that in the computer audio world some of the non-differences discussions of yester-year will disappear.
I'm using iTunes on Windows and will download ALAC files - is it simply setting rip option to WAV and converting to get the full bit-perfect rip?
You could do that but it would be pretty pointless, the whole raison d'etre of lossless formats is that they're already delivering bit perfect audio, so there doesn't seem to be much use in converting from one bit perfect format to another, except for hardware compatability purposes.
If you rip a CD to Apple Lossless, then convert it to WAV, and compare the bits to a AccurateRip verified WAV from EAC you'll find that they are exactly the same.
I hope that in the computer audio world some of the non-differences discussions of yester-year will disappear.
I'm using iTunes on Windows and will download ALAC files - is it simply setting rip option to WAV and converting to get the full bit-perfect rip?
You could do that but it would be pretty pointless, the whole raison d'etre of lossless formats is that they're already delivering bit perfect audio, so there doesn't seem to be much use in converting from one bit perfect format to another, except for hardware compatability purposes.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Question Problem with turntable on samsung scm-6550- Started by darkmanearweinydd
- Replies: 3
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram