Lossless Vs uncompressed - any difference in sound quality?

[Dan Turner]

As per my system below I have just moved over to a computer-based source for my hi-fi. I'm still waiting for the Mac to arrive, during which time I'm using my old HP laptop to suss out a few things, one of which is which type of file format to go for. I have ordered the Mac with a big enough HDD to rip everything as uncompressed AIFF files and still have reasonable expansion room for the future. Quality is paramount, hence I was looking at AIFFs. However some comments I've seen from other folks here suggest that there would be no difference between Apple Lossless files and uncompressed formats such as AIFF or WAV.

Based on my own (fairly limited) experiments comparing the same tracks using AL and AIFF, I can't tell any difference, but if there is a benefit to using uncompressed files, even just a theoretical one, then I will use AIFF rather than be left with a nagging doubt!

Thoughts? Obviously if there is absolutely no difference then I will rip to Apple Lossless files!

Also, as a slight aside, am I right in thinking that when streaming music to an Airport Express the computer unpacks/decodes whatever codec is used to store the music and streams it to the AE as PCM - e.g. the amount of data being streamed is the same regardless of whether the original file was a 128kbps MP3 or an AIFF?

 

[Gerrardasnails]

Dan Turner:
As per my system below I have just moved over to a computer-based source for my hi-fi. I'm still waiting for the Mac to arrive, during which time I'm using my old HP laptop to suss out a few things, one of which is which type of file format to go for. I have ordered the Mac with a big enough HDD to rip everything as uncompressed AIFF files and still have reasonable expansion room for the future. Quality is paramount, hence I was looking at AIFFs. However some comments I've seen from other folks here suggest that there would be no difference between Apple Lossless files and uncompressed formats such as AIFF or WAV.

Based on my own (fairly limited) experiments comparing the same tracks using AL and AIFF, I can't tell any difference, but if there is a benefit to using uncompressed files, even just a theoretical one, then I will use AIFF rather than be left with a nagging doubt!

Thoughts? Obviously if there is absolutely no difference then I will rip to Apple Lossless files!

Also, as a slight aside, am I right in thinking that when streaming music to an Airport Express the computer unpacks/decodes whatever codec is used to store the music and streams it to the AE as PCM - e.g. the amount of data being streamed is the same regardless of whether the original file was a 128kbps MP3 or an AIFF?

lossless is lossless. No difference between wav, flac, AIFF, or any of the lossless formats.

 

[JoelSim]

Gerrardasnails:Dan Turner:
As per my system below I have just moved over to a computer-based source for my hi-fi. I'm still waiting for the Mac to arrive, during which time I'm using my old HP laptop to suss out a few things, one of which is which type of file format to go for. I have ordered the Mac with a big enough HDD to rip everything as uncompressed AIFF files and still have reasonable expansion room for the future. Quality is paramount, hence I was looking at AIFFs. However some comments I've seen from other folks here suggest that there would be no difference between Apple Lossless files and uncompressed formats such as AIFF or WAV.

Based on my own (fairly limited) experiments comparing the same tracks using AL and AIFF, I can't tell any difference, but if there is a benefit to using uncompressed files, even just a theoretical one, then I will use AIFF rather than be left with a nagging doubt!

Thoughts? Obviously if there is absolutely no difference then I will rip to Apple Lossless files!

Also, as a slight aside, am I right in thinking that when streaming music to an Airport Express the computer unpacks/decodes whatever codec is used to store the music and streams it to the AE as PCM - e.g. the amount of data being streamed is the same regardless of whether the original file was a 128kbps MP3 or an AIFF?

lossless is lossless. No difference between wav, flac, AIFF, or any of the lossless formats.

If only Rafa was lossless...

 

[idc]

Dan Turner:

Also, as a slight aside, am I right in thinking that when streaming music to an Airport Express the computer unpacks/decodes whatever codec is used to store the music and streams it to the AE as PCM - e.g. the amount of data being streamed is the same regardless of whether the original file was a 128kbps MP3 or an AIFF?

My very simplistc view is that Airport Express (and DACs whether by wireless or down a digital cable} gets an electrical signal, data that is irrespective of the original music file codec. More data is sent with a lossless file than with a compressed file as there is more data to send. Hence the perfectly reasonable argument to use lossless files as you get more of the original music. Though after 320kbps I seriously struggle to tell the difference.

 

[The_Lhc]

Dan Turner: Also, as a slight aside, am I right in thinking that when streaming music to an Airport Express the computer unpacks/decodes whatever codec is used to store the music and streams it to the AE as PCM - e.g. the amount of data being streamed is the same regardless of whether the original file was a 128kbps MP3 or an AIFF?

The amount of data, the data rate, might be the same, but the contents of the data certainly won't be.

 

[manicm]

There is a growing consensus that files are only half the story - how different software and hardware process uncompressed files vs lossless files can have an effect. For example after voiciferously pushing the bit-perfect idiom, Linn would not now categorically deny that lossless vs uncompressed can sound different, on their equipment at least - I regularly read their official forums.

For the record AIFF is my favourite format - not efficient I know but at least natively supports album art unlike WAV - and to my ears sounds better than Apple Lossless, if not FLAC which I don't have much listening experience with.

Looking for scientific facts on this to me is just redundant, and ignore the arguments, let your ears and taste determine what's best for you.

To me there is no right or wrong argument here - it's just that the term 'bit-perfect' means very little to me.

(I think I've just poured paraffin on myself - some will light a match on me before I click 'Post' he he he 🙂)

 

[John Duncan]

Dan Turner:Also, as a slight aside, am I right in thinking that when streaming music to an Airport Express the computer unpacks/decodes whatever codec is used to store the music and streams it to the AE as PCM - e.g. the amount of data being streamed is the same regardless of whether the original file was a 128kbps MP3 or an AIFF?

I don't think that's the case, no - I think it decodes itself - but I'll need to check.

EDIT - no, I think it's sent as apple lossless (so is upsampled if it's lower bitrate than that)

 

[Dan Turner]

JohnDuncan:Dan Turner:Also, as a slight aside, am I right in thinking that when streaming music to an Airport Express the computer unpacks/decodes whatever codec is used to store the music and streams it to the AE as PCM - e.g. the amount of data being streamed is the same regardless of whether the original file was a 128kbps MP3 or an AIFF?I don't think that's the case, no - I think it decodes itself - but I'll need to check.EDIT - no, I think it's sent as apple lossless (so is upsampled if it's lower bitrate than that)

Interesting - so if my main listening was done over the AE, then there is no point in storing everything as AIFFs as they'd be converted to Apple Lossless anyway?!

 

[Anonymous]

Dan Turner:
Interesting - so if my main listening was done over the AE, then there is no point in storing everything as AIFFs as they'd be converted to Apple Lossless anyway?!

I agree there is no point in storing everything in AIFF, but for a slightly different reason... The streaming to the Airport Express is using Remote Audio Output Protocol (RAOP) which is an Apple specialisation of the more general Real-time Transport Protocol (RPT) -- a standard to stream audio and video over the Internet. RPT supports multiple audio formats and I am not certain which one Apple has chosen -- but I don't think it is compressed, and it's certainly not lossy.

Irrespective, your host computer will decode the audio from whatever format you have chosen to store it in locally and re-code it into the appropriate format before it can send it to the AE. This stage involves encryption as well, and key verification which means iTunes can ensure it is speaking to an AirPort Express and vice versa (although this code has been cracked, which means 3rd party software can stream to the AE too nowadays).

So the takeaway from this is that you should keep the audio in whatever format is the most convenient for you, and for as long as you use lossless algorithms (flac, aiff, apple lossless, ...) the format should make absolutely no difference unless the player is doing something weird. If you stick to well-known and proven software, that shouldn't be an issue.

Good thing most HiFi enthusiasts haven't got their head around encryption algorithms, otherwise we would probably have a discussion about the merits of those as well. ;-)

 

[pete321]

I guess there shoudn't be a difference, but with movies I tend to find I prefer DTS-HD lossless soundtracks over TrueHD. As you're unlikely to get too many discs with both on them, then it's obviously difficult to compare like for like. I've certainly noticed a difference with WMA Lossless stereo CD rips when using dBPowerAmp or EAC compared to Windows Media Player, the 2 former being better. Don't know why, I know there shouldn't be, perhaps it's to do with the accuracy of the rip?

 

[Anonymous]

pete321:
I've certainly noticed a difference with WMA Lossless stereo CD rips when using dBPowerAmp or EAC compared to Windows Media Player, the 2 former being better. Don't know why, I know there shouldn't be, perhaps it's to do with the accuracy of the rip?

Something I wanted to test for a while but never got around to - rip the same CD through a couple of different software and computers (my MacBook Pro, a cheap laptop, a cheap desktop) and run a bit-by-bit comparison of the results. I've read reports claiming that iTunes and EAC produces identical results down to the bit on reasonable fresh/unscratched CDs, but results vary on a little otherwise - would like to test this myself.

Of course one also has to separate the rip from the format from the player. Do you use the same player and the same formats when you compare your EAC vs Windows Media Player rips? Otherewise the answer could be that one of your software is doing something weird (volume normalization/compression, equalizer, reverb effects, etc). If identical downstram from the rip itself, the conclusion has to be differences in the raw PCM data from the CD rip. You could verify this with something like WinDiff or EAC (I think EAC has got a bit-by-bit rip comparison thing built in?) on the raw PCM data.

 

[PJPro]

Just as an aside, EAC only rips to .wav. However, EAC allows the user to call out to command line executables to perform the compression eg flac.exe. Apologies if this well understood by all.

 

[Alec]

PJPro:Just as an aside, EAC only rips to .wav. However, EAC allows the user to call out to command line executables to perform the compression eg flac.exe. Apologies if this well understood by all.

For anyone a bit confused or intimidated by PJ's description (i know i am, and ive used eac), the effect is much the same. Once you have told EAC you want flac files or whatever, it will rip to wav then pretty much immediately convert to your chosen format, to the point where you may not even notice the file being wav then changing to flac.

im not having a dig pj, its just you know the jargon whereas i dont, and there'll be others too.

 

[Dan Turner]

Cheers for all the useful info. Having had the chance to do some more extensive listening and bearing the comments in mind, I think I'm going to go with Apple Lossless - If there is a difference between this and uncompressed AIFFs, then I can't hear it!

MacBook Pro should arrive this week..... :0)

 

[PJPro]

al7478:
PJPro:Just as an aside, EAC only rips to .wav. However, EAC allows the user to call out to command line executables to perform the compression eg flac.exe. Apologies if this well understood by all.

For anyone a bit confused or intimidated by PJ's description (i know i am, and ive used eac), the effect is much the same. Once you have told EAC you want flac files or whatever, it will rip to wav then pretty much immediately convert to your chosen format, to the point where you may not even notice the file being wav then changing to flac.

im not having a dig pj, its just you know the jargon whereas i dont, and there'll be others too.

Oh. OK.

I think my point was that EAC seems to be pretty much linked to ripping to .flac whereas in actual fact it can to rip just about any format. There was a time that I used it to produce MP3 using the LAME encoder.

 

[The_Lhc]

pete321:I guess there shoudn't be a difference, but with movies I tend to find I prefer DTS-HD lossless soundtracks over TrueHD.

That's simply because DTSHDMA has a much higher bitrate than Dolby TrueHD.