Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Amarra
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Amarra - Page 6

post #76 of 117
12/2/12 at 1:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post

It's both. A file format need not be compressed to be lossless.
Well, lossless is an audio format that uses an algorithm to compress audio data...without loss, etc.

Chewy seems to be playing semantics.

Lossless merely implies that all of the information from the original file is available in the new file. AIFF is lossless.

From Wiki:
"Standard AIFF is a leading format (along with SDII and WAV) used by professional-level audio and video applications, and unlike the better-known lossy MP3 format, it is non-compressed (which aids rapid streaming of multiple audio files from disk to the application), and lossless. Like any non-compressed, lossless format, it uses much more disk space than MP3—about 10MB for one minute of stereo audio at a sample rate of 44.1 kHz and a sample size of 16 bits."

Edited by Jaywalk3r - 12/2/12 at 1:30pm
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #77 of 117
12/2/12 at 1:35pm

Gotta thank ya'll

I am really enjoying XLD.   It just works.

Reply
post #78 of 117
12/2/12 at 1:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post


Lossless merely implies that all of the information from the original file is available in the new file. AIFF is lossless.
From Wiki:
"Standard AIFF is a leading format (along with SDII and WAV) used by professional-level audio and video applications, and unlike the better-known lossy MP3 format, it is non-compressed (which aids rapid streaming of multiple audio files from disk to the application), and lossless. Like any non-compressed, lossless format, it uses much more disk space than MP3—about 10MB for one minute of stereo audio at a sample rate of 44.1 kHz and a sample size of 16 bits."

Perhaps there is more than 1 interpretation of lossless.

I am familiar with hearing the term lossless data compression.

Just as well as lossless audio being exact original audio reconstructed from

compressed audio.

 

Again, I agree that AIFF is technically lossless in the normal context (without loss). Haha.

Reply
post #79 of 117
12/2/12 at 1:37pm

A lossless audio file is a file that has been compressed without any loss in data. That's what the lossless part is referring to, the compression. The term was invented to describe this sort of compression.


 

It doesn't really make sense to call an uncompressed file lossless. What hasn't it lost any data from? It is the original data.   

 

And yes, I am just playing semantics here.

Reply
post #80 of 117
12/2/12 at 1:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamnothim View Post

Gotta thank ya'll

I am really enjoying XLD.   It just works.

Glad you're enjoying it!

Reply
post #81 of 117
12/2/12 at 1:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

A lossless audio file is a file that has been compressed without any loss in data. That's what the lossless part is referring to, the compression. The term was invented to describe this sort of compression.

It doesn't really make sense to call an uncompressed file lossless. What hasn't it lost any data from? It is the original data.

That's what lossless compression means. Lossless refers to all of the information remaining. Music is not stored on redbook CDs as AIFF files. AIFF files contain all of the information from the song as it appears on the CD, but it is a completely different format. AIFF is therefore appropriately referred to as lossless.
Reply
post #82 of 117
12/2/12 at 2:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post


That's what lossless compression means. Lossless refers to all of the information remaining. Music is not stored on redbook CDs as AIFF files. AIFF files contain all of the information from the song as it appears on the CD, but it is a completely different format. AIFF is therefore appropriately referred to as lossless.

That's not what the term was made to describe. Lossless was always meant to be a reference to lossless compression. To use it in another way may not be completely incorrect on a grammatical level, but it certainly goes against the terms intended usage. 


AIFF isn't a completely different format, it does contain the exact same PCM data that the audio is contained within. It's just in a different wrapper. And it's not necessarily going to come from a CD either.

 

 

Reply
post #83 of 117
12/2/12 at 3:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

That's not what the term was made to describe. Lossless was always meant to be a reference to lossless compression. To use it in another way may not be completely incorrect on a grammatical level, but it certainly goes against the terms intended usage. 

You're confusing lossless with lossless compression.
Reply
post #84 of 117
12/2/12 at 3:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post


You're confusing lossless with lossless compression.

They mean the same thing. Just look up the word lossless... it's a technical term referencing compression.

Reply
post #85 of 117
12/2/12 at 4:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post

You're confusing lossless with lossless compression.
They mean the same thing.

No, they don't. The implication works in only one direction. AIFF is lossless file type; it contains 100% of the information within the song on the original CD (or any other source for the original file), i.e., no information was lost in the conversion. Converting an AIFF file to ALAC involves lossless compression. No information is lost, i.e., lossless, and the resulting file is smaller, i.e., the file is compressed in comparison to the original.
Edited by Jaywalk3r - 12/2/12 at 4:31pm
Reply
post #86 of 117
12/2/12 at 5:07pm
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post


No, they don't. The implication works in only one direction. AIFF is lossless file type; it contains 100% of the information within the song on the original CD (or any other source for the original file), i.e., no information was lost in the conversion. Converting an AIFF file to ALAC involves lossless compression. No information is lost, i.e., lossless, and the resulting file is smaller, i.e., the file is compressed in comparison to the original.

You're not converting the actual audio data here. It's the same, bit for bit, as the original. Aside from the new wrapper, it is the original.

Reply
post #87 of 117
12/2/12 at 5:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post

No, they don't. The implication works in only one direction. AIFF is lossless file type; it contains 100% of the information within the song on the original CD (or any other source for the original file), i.e., no information was lost in the conversion. Converting an AIFF file to ALAC involves lossless compression. No information is lost, i.e., lossless, and the resulting file is smaller, i.e., the file is compressed in comparison to the original.
You're not converting the actual audio data here. It's the same, bit for bit, as the original. Aside from the new wrapper, it is the original.

The AIFF file contains 100% of the data from the original song (the song is not kept on a redbook CD in the form of a file, despite how your OS may present it), hence AIFF is lossless.
Reply
post #88 of 117
12/2/12 at 5:39pm

I am on my last four days of a Pure Music demo, since Amarra doesn't have a demo I was looking for advice.  I read thru all the posts and I still haven"t sensed any consensus on whether Amarra is worth a try and which version of Amarra to try.  I work with a MBAir and have already tried Bitperfect which doesn't handshake with my AQ Dragonfly.  Pure Music works with the Dragonfly and it sounds like an upgrade from iTunes, but at $129 barely justified.

 

Any thoughts on this?

Reply
post #89 of 117
12/2/12 at 5:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUMAY408 View Post

I am on my last four days of a Pure Music demo, since Amarra doesn't have a demo I was looking for advice.  I read thru all the posts and I still haven"t sensed any consensus on whether Amarra is worth a try and which version of Amarra to try.  I work with a MBAir and have already tried Bitperfect which doesn't handshake with my AQ Dragonfly.  Pure Music works with the Dragonfly and it sounds like an upgrade from iTunes, but at $129 barely justified.

 

Any thoughts on this?

It seems to me you've already made up your mind.

Reply
post #90 of 117
12/2/12 at 5:48pm

Amarra Demo:

 

http://app.streamsend.com/public/9h99/xcy/subscribe

 

I've been with Amarra for some time and like it.

The guys on the thread pointed me to XLD for import and conversion, then setting up MiDi for 96kHz output and running iTunes.

XLD would take your FLAC and convert it to ALAC for iTunes playback.  No sonic difference.  IMO

 

This method is free and sounds damn good.  Clean

 

 I found Amarra has a bit more warmth and that's my taste.

I did not like PureMusic at all.  IMO

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Amarra