- Aug 17, 2007
- 695
- 15
- 18,895
FLAC and Apple lossless is there a difference in terms of sound quality
- Thread starter matengawhat
- Start date
Some say FLAC is better but i cant really hear the difference on my kit. Even if it was a tad better i would still use apple lossless just for the convenience of it. Try for your self and do a blind test and see if you can hear i difference.
- Aug 17, 2007
- 695
- 15
- 18,895
what would be the best to send to a squeezebox flac or lossless - if flac how easy is it to convert them to run in itunes?
Taylor74:
Lossless
is
lossless.
OK - the last thing I want to do is put the torch to the pool of kerosene that the OP has inadvertently poured (threads on this subject rarely end well), but in the interests of putting across the other side of this debate (which I do not necessarily subscribe to, but that it is important to acknowledge is out there), lossless is lossless, yes, and you ultimately get out what you put in, once a lossless file is unpacked.
However some people have observed a difference (which some other people will tell you is imagined) between uncompressed and lossless files and even between different types of lossless files or different FLAC compression rates.
It's worth understanding that a lossless file has to be 'unpacked' in real-time by whatever device is replaying it whereas an uncompressed file does not, and a lossless file with a lower compression ratio will tax the processor of the device replaying it less. Perhaps this accounts for the difference that people have heard? Or perhaps there really is no difference.
I say if you have the storage space go for uncompressed and if you don't then listen for yourself and see.
Lossless
is
lossless.
OK - the last thing I want to do is put the torch to the pool of kerosene that the OP has inadvertently poured (threads on this subject rarely end well), but in the interests of putting across the other side of this debate (which I do not necessarily subscribe to, but that it is important to acknowledge is out there), lossless is lossless, yes, and you ultimately get out what you put in, once a lossless file is unpacked.
However some people have observed a difference (which some other people will tell you is imagined) between uncompressed and lossless files and even between different types of lossless files or different FLAC compression rates.
It's worth understanding that a lossless file has to be 'unpacked' in real-time by whatever device is replaying it whereas an uncompressed file does not, and a lossless file with a lower compression ratio will tax the processor of the device replaying it less. Perhaps this accounts for the difference that people have heard? Or perhaps there really is no difference.
I say if you have the storage space go for uncompressed and if you don't then listen for yourself and see.
- Aug 17, 2007
- 695
- 15
- 18,895
wasn't asking to cause argument but sure there is lot of ppl that know more than me
i'm just trying to establish with my new nas drive whether to drag over my apple lossless or start again with flac
i'm just trying to establish with my new nas drive whether to drag over my apple lossless or start again with flac
When one "unzips" the lossless file it is identical to the uncompressed file.
This can be proven in a bit-for-bit comparision.
My processor is not taxed by unzipping a small file. This is the 21st century, remember!
I challenge any audiophile who claims to hear such differences to prove it in a blind test.
There are far more important things to worry about in an audio system.
This can be proven in a bit-for-bit comparision.
My processor is not taxed by unzipping a small file. This is the 21st century, remember!
I challenge any audiophile who claims to hear such differences to prove it in a blind test.
There are far more important things to worry about in an audio system.
matengawhat:
wasn't asking to cause argument but sure there is lot of ppl that know more than me
i'm just trying to establish with my new nas drive whether to drag over my apple lossless or start again with flac
The file format to use is determined by the software you like.
If you like iTunes the best use ALAC.
If you like Foobar or DOS choose FLAC.
wasn't asking to cause argument but sure there is lot of ppl that know more than me
i'm just trying to establish with my new nas drive whether to drag over my apple lossless or start again with flac
The file format to use is determined by the software you like.
If you like iTunes the best use ALAC.
If you like Foobar or DOS choose FLAC.
matengawhat:
wasn't asking to cause argument but sure there is lot of ppl that know more than me
i'm just trying to establish with my new nas drive whether to drag over my apple lossless or start again with flac
Of course - certainly wasn't meaning to imply you were - I just remember starting a very similar thread myself a while back and it all ended horribly.
If you have storage space I say go for AIFF (uncompressed) - bit for bit copy of the original CD, requires no unpacking upon replay, universally compatible pretty much. That way no matter how good the rest of your system becomes you never have to think about whether there are limitations in the source material.
wasn't asking to cause argument but sure there is lot of ppl that know more than me
i'm just trying to establish with my new nas drive whether to drag over my apple lossless or start again with flac
Of course - certainly wasn't meaning to imply you were - I just remember starting a very similar thread myself a while back and it all ended horribly.
If you have storage space I say go for AIFF (uncompressed) - bit for bit copy of the original CD, requires no unpacking upon replay, universally compatible pretty much. That way no matter how good the rest of your system becomes you never have to think about whether there are limitations in the source material.
Taylor74:
When one "unzips" the lossless file it is identical to the uncompressed file.
This can be proven in a bit-for-bit comparision.
My processor is not taxed by unzipping a small file. This is the 21st century, remember!
I challenge any audiophile who claims to hear such differences to prove it in a blind test.
There are far more important things to worry about in an audio system.
I'm sitting on the fence on this, but my sense of logic leads me to agree. I can tell no difference when I've tried the comparison myself.
When one "unzips" the lossless file it is identical to the uncompressed file.
This can be proven in a bit-for-bit comparision.
My processor is not taxed by unzipping a small file. This is the 21st century, remember!
I challenge any audiophile who claims to hear such differences to prove it in a blind test.
There are far more important things to worry about in an audio system.
I'm sitting on the fence on this, but my sense of logic leads me to agree. I can tell no difference when I've tried the comparison myself.
- Aug 17, 2007
- 695
- 15
- 18,895
does ipeng run through itunes as i like my iphone control - didn't think of that till just now so maybe i'm best sticking with what i know!
matengawhat:does ipeng run through itunes as i like my iphone control - didn't think of that till just now so maybe i'm best sticking with what i know!
Apple do something better: "Remote App".
It came out almost two years ago!
Apple do something better: "Remote App".
It came out almost two years ago!
Gerrardasnails
Well-known member
- Sep 6, 2007
- 295
- 1
- 18,890
matengawhat:
wasn't asking to cause argument but sure there is lot of ppl that know more than me
i'm just trying to establish with my new nas drive whether to drag over my apple lossless or start again with flac
if you don't need to use iTunes, and storage isn't an issue, convert your Apple Lossless files back to WAV. I was told by someone at WHF that WAV sounds better. Maybe this is dependant on having an excellent and revealing system - I can't distinguish between WAV and Flac and use both formats.
wasn't asking to cause argument but sure there is lot of ppl that know more than me
i'm just trying to establish with my new nas drive whether to drag over my apple lossless or start again with flac
if you don't need to use iTunes, and storage isn't an issue, convert your Apple Lossless files back to WAV. I was told by someone at WHF that WAV sounds better. Maybe this is dependant on having an excellent and revealing system - I can't distinguish between WAV and Flac and use both formats.
I wouldn't recommend WAV. It takes up more space for no sonic benefit, and has disadvantages in tagging.
"I was told by someone at WHF that WAV sounds better. Maybe this is dependant on having an excellent and revealing system"
This is audiophile guff.
"I was told by someone at WHF that WAV sounds better. Maybe this is dependant on having an excellent and revealing system"
This is audiophile guff.
Lossless may be lossless, but alas, it is but only one part of the equation of digital playback. And no, us who hear differences cannot be part of some lunatic fringe because this has become prevalent on many forums including Linn's - and here you would also find the 'bit-perfect' zealots/crusaders/jihadists.
Imperfections in the players be it iPods or Squeezeboxes could explain why some hear the differences.
As far as the iPod goes I rip in AIFF - equivalent to WAV but with tag/artwork support. And here Wadia and I are in agreement - Apple Lossless sounds ever just so slightly dull in comparison.
Linn think FLAC sounds best on their DS players, but some owners on their forums have preferred WAV or AIFF. And Linn admit that FLAC/AL place more strain on the players, while WAV places more strain on the network, and haven't explicitly denied that this could affect playback results.
So everyone is entitled to their opinions - but I won't stand for ridicule by the bit-perfect preachers on those of us who hear differences.
Imperfections in the players be it iPods or Squeezeboxes could explain why some hear the differences.
As far as the iPod goes I rip in AIFF - equivalent to WAV but with tag/artwork support. And here Wadia and I are in agreement - Apple Lossless sounds ever just so slightly dull in comparison.
Linn think FLAC sounds best on their DS players, but some owners on their forums have preferred WAV or AIFF. And Linn admit that FLAC/AL place more strain on the players, while WAV places more strain on the network, and haven't explicitly denied that this could affect playback results.
So everyone is entitled to their opinions - but I won't stand for ridicule by the bit-perfect preachers on those of us who hear differences.
manicm:Linn think FLAC sounds best on their DS players, but some owners on their forums have preferred WAV or AIFF. And Linn admit that FLAC/AL place more strain on the players, and haven't explicitly denied that this could affect playback results.
If that's the case they should put more powerful processors in their equipment, especially at those price tags, beyond a certain level of horsepower it shouldn't make any difference.
If that's the case they should put more powerful processors in their equipment, especially at those price tags, beyond a certain level of horsepower it shouldn't make any difference.
Perhaps you can help solve the mystery based on other people's comments / experiences in the forum? Subjective bias?
Your comment will help proliferate the discussion.
Years back, many concluded that the CD was perfect given digital samping theory. More recently, people mistakenly concluded that higher bit-rates for lossy codecs meant better quality (more data).
Obviously, if lossless was truly lossless, there would hardly be need for so many variants - WMA Lossless, Apple Lossless, Meridian Lossless, FLAC. Presumably, like lossy codecs, all lossless codecs are not created equal.
Coding algorithms use some form of prediction to enable them to compress the file size. Improvements over time lead to increased efficiency (smaller file size) and improved performance. How well they perform can impact the audio quality which seems to be the conclusions many are offering here.
I'd encourage you to conduct your own investigation based on the various findings of other forum contributors.
Your comment will help proliferate the discussion.
Years back, many concluded that the CD was perfect given digital samping theory. More recently, people mistakenly concluded that higher bit-rates for lossy codecs meant better quality (more data).
Obviously, if lossless was truly lossless, there would hardly be need for so many variants - WMA Lossless, Apple Lossless, Meridian Lossless, FLAC. Presumably, like lossy codecs, all lossless codecs are not created equal.
Coding algorithms use some form of prediction to enable them to compress the file size. Improvements over time lead to increased efficiency (smaller file size) and improved performance. How well they perform can impact the audio quality which seems to be the conclusions many are offering here.
I'd encourage you to conduct your own investigation based on the various findings of other forum contributors.
Sorry Sounddoc but you are talking guff. You can take a WAV, turn it into a lossless FLAC, WMA, Apple or cycle through all of them and when it gets converted into WAV it is back the same as it was.
Yes you are right that there are minor differences in file size, but the primary reason for the plethora of formats is patents, and loyalty payments.
In the end the quality will be down to the player or DAC. As someone said earlier the choice of lossless format should be made on what you are using to play the file, be it itunes, Windows Media Player, foobar or something hardware based.
Just don't get confused between the quality of the audio format and the device you are playing it on.
Edit: Oh and welcome to the forum 🙂
Yes you are right that there are minor differences in file size, but the primary reason for the plethora of formats is patents, and loyalty payments.
In the end the quality will be down to the player or DAC. As someone said earlier the choice of lossless format should be made on what you are using to play the file, be it itunes, Windows Media Player, foobar or something hardware based.
Just don't get confused between the quality of the audio format and the device you are playing it on.
Edit: Oh and welcome to the forum 🙂
Zarn_Smith:
Sorry Sounddoc but you are talking guff. You can take a WAV, turn it into a lossless FLAC, WMA, Apple or cycle through all of them and when it gets converted into WAV it is back the same as it was.
Yes you are right that there are minor differences in file size, but the primary reason for the plethora of formats is patents, and loyalty payments.
In the end the quality will be down to the player or DAC. As someone said earlier the choice of lossless format should be made on what you are using to play the file, be it itunes, Windows Media Player, foobar or something hardware based.
Just don't get confused between the quality of the audio format and the device you are playing it on.
Edit: Oh and welcome to the forum 🙂
I don't think iTunes does this - when I do a A (Wav)->B (Al)->A (Wav) conversion, the final Wav always sounds worse than the original. iTunes does not seem to 'unpack' the WAV from subsequent rips from what my ears tell me.
Sorry Sounddoc but you are talking guff. You can take a WAV, turn it into a lossless FLAC, WMA, Apple or cycle through all of them and when it gets converted into WAV it is back the same as it was.
Yes you are right that there are minor differences in file size, but the primary reason for the plethora of formats is patents, and loyalty payments.
In the end the quality will be down to the player or DAC. As someone said earlier the choice of lossless format should be made on what you are using to play the file, be it itunes, Windows Media Player, foobar or something hardware based.
Just don't get confused between the quality of the audio format and the device you are playing it on.
Edit: Oh and welcome to the forum 🙂
I don't think iTunes does this - when I do a A (Wav)->B (Al)->A (Wav) conversion, the final Wav always sounds worse than the original. iTunes does not seem to 'unpack' the WAV from subsequent rips from what my ears tell me.
Taylor74:
When one "unzips" the lossless file it is identical to the uncompressed file.
This can be proven in a bit-for-bit comparision.
My processor is not taxed by unzipping a small file. This is the 21st century, remember!
I challenge any audiophile who claims to hear such differences to prove it in a blind test.
There are far more important things to worry about in an audio system.
totally agree. what's more likely, that two identical things are different or that your brain invents the difference because that's what you want to hear.
When one "unzips" the lossless file it is identical to the uncompressed file.
This can be proven in a bit-for-bit comparision.
My processor is not taxed by unzipping a small file. This is the 21st century, remember!
I challenge any audiophile who claims to hear such differences to prove it in a blind test.
There are far more important things to worry about in an audio system.
totally agree. what's more likely, that two identical things are different or that your brain invents the difference because that's what you want to hear.
Similar threads
Question
DTS PlayFi and radio stations
- Deleted member 194101
- Hi-Fi
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram