File conversions: wma lossless to Ipod

[admin_exported]

I have most of my CDs stored on mwa lossless format. I am thinking of buying an Ipod, but I am concernd that if I convert my fies to Ipod's lossless format, I will degrade the files? Is that true? As my files are large, I need an 'MP3' player with large memory to keep the quality.

 

[Anonymous]

Hello Jeringham,

My understanding is that Apple Lossloss Encoding is exactly as it says on the tin, Lossless. If you are transferring from one lossless format to another I cannot see how you would degrade the information.

I use Apple Lossless for my files and I have never had a problem. My understanding is that WMA, ALE or FLAC files are one and the same just different compatability.

I might be wrong, but I am sure I am correct in what I have said.

Jason

 

[Clare Newsome]

In theory, there should be no problem with iTunes converting from one Lossless format to another - it'll simply 'unpack' the information and re-encode it in Apple Lossless. However, all codecs vary, and you may end up with files that are slightly different just because of the method used.

Or of course you could just buy a player that supports WMA Lossless. Creative's Zen Vision:M is now available in a 60GB version, for example.

However, the iPod sounds better, and is far more flexible. Add the fact that Apple Lossless, in our tests, sounds the best of all the file formats, and I think you've nothing to worry about!

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Clare. I had been leaning towards the Iriver Clix, but the memory is too small. I'll look at the ipod again.

 

[Mr.H]

[quote user="Clare Newsome"]you may end up with files that are slightly different just because of the method used.[/quote]

This is not true. As jay1403 says, the three major lossless codecs: WMA Lossless, Apple Lossless and FLAC are all really, truly, lossless. If you take an uncompressed file from a CD and compress it with any of these three codecs, and then uncompress it again, you'll get *exactly*, *bit for bit* the same file that you started with. So Jerningham, you can convert those WMA Lossless files to Apple Lossless safe in the knowledge that it cannot possibly affect the sound quality of the files.

One of my major bugbears with What HiFi is that they claim that "lossless" files can sound different to original files or that various lossless codecs can sound different to one another - this is just a perfect example of the placebo effect - the bits that go into the DAC are exactly the same whether you use uncompressed PCM or a losslessly encoded (using any lossless codec) version of the same.

Where lossless codecs *do* differ from one another is in efficiency - both in terms of how much smaller they can make files, and how much processing power is required to encode and decode the streams. I am sure that wikipedia can provide much information to the interested reader.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Mr H, can I just ask whether you hold the opinion that the formats sound exactly same due to simply the tech-specs alone, or after hours of blind listening to a range of music files via a range of sources?

 

[Mr.H]

In this case, the "tech specs" speak for themselves. Any difference you believe you perceive in either placebo, or blind luck. It is simply impossible for the files to sound different; as I said above *exactly* the same bitstream will reach the DAC, regardless of which codec is used.

If you would like to propose a mechanism by which the codecs could sound different, I'm all ears. I'm sure that the AES or IEEE would also welcome a paper on the subject.

 

[Anonymous]

It's also worth noting that many of the downloads on commercial sites are at a bit rate of 128-192K which fo audiophiles are not good enough dur to the compression nature of MP3's and the like. MP3's are not true compressions and information is lost when tracks are compressed. Definitely a no-no for classical and other detailed music, a £500 seperates system would even show up the faults in files. FLAC files are however true compressed files where information is not deleted, think of a spring being compressed & expanded. When ripping music at present wav files are the only current way of retaining the recording's information. If you have doubts on digital file formats ask the sound guys in a television/ film post production house which file formats they prefer for broadcast... I'm sure they'll say .wav!!! I also would go as far as getting a standalone NAS (Network Attached Storage) drive to store and 'back up' all your music files as the extremely large .wav files or .wavpack files.