After FLAC...what is the next preferred Lossless Format
Jan 24, 2009 at 8:35 PM Post #16 of 62
WAVPACK Question:

I use Easy CD Extractor to RIP / Convert. With this, they have four (4) options related to WAVPACK to choose:

.wav (standard)
.wav (dual channel L/R)
.wav (ACM Codecs)
.wv (WAVPACK)

Which option would I choose to RIP in WAVPACK? Can anyone explain the difference?
 
Jan 24, 2009 at 8:43 PM Post #17 of 62
Quote:

Originally Posted by oak3x /img/forum/go_quote.gif
WAVPACK Question:

I use Easy CD Extractor to RIP / Convert. With this, they have four (4) options related to WAVPACK to choose:

.wav (standard)
.wav (dual channel L/R)
.wav (ACM Codecs)
.wv (WAVPACK)

Which option would I choose to RIP in WAVPACK? Can anyone explain the difference?



.wv is wavpack...so the last option..
 
Jan 24, 2009 at 8:46 PM Post #18 of 62
Quote:

Originally Posted by oak3x /img/forum/go_quote.gif
WAVPACK Question:

I use Easy CD Extractor to RIP / Convert. With this, they have four (4) options related to WAVPACK to choose:

.wav (standard)
.wav (dual channel L/R)
.wav (ACM Codecs)
.wv (WAVPACK)

Which option would I choose to RIP in WAVPACK? Can anyone explain the difference?



You would be better served to use EAC (Exact Audio Copy) or dbPowerAmp for your CD ripping needs if you're looking for bit perfect extraction. (However, .wv is the right choice if you choose not to)
 
Jan 24, 2009 at 9:39 PM Post #20 of 62
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomikans /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I would think lossless is lossless and it doesn't matter what kind of codec you use in terms of SQ. It just depends on which device you're playing on which codec to use.


Yes. That pretty much sums it all up.
 
Jan 25, 2009 at 7:08 PM Post #21 of 62
Quote:

Originally Posted by Taikero /img/forum/go_quote.gif
This is about the order I'd use, other than I'd probably put WMA Lossless in 4th because it's supported by a fair number of devices.


As far as I know WMA Lossless is only supported by the Zune, and the Zune is only sold in the US, so WMA Lossless isn't that big. There is a difference between WMA, WMA pro and WMA Lossless. There are a lots WMA players, but those only play "normal" WMA.

The visible difference between WavPack and other lossless codecs showing different spectograms is probably caused by the input filter of the audio tool. I see this also sometimes when I open an AIFF and save it as WAV. Try the Foobar2000 filecomperator and you wil see that the audio data is identical.
 
Jan 26, 2009 at 12:44 AM Post #22 of 62
Why does every freaking lossless thread always turn into this type of discussion? If you are doing it right, there will be no difference. Compare bits in foobar if you're unsure. Otherwise there's another software/decoder problem.

OP:

#2. Apple lossless
 
Jan 26, 2009 at 2:04 AM Post #23 of 62
All the things that people are suggesting are good but you have to be careful with some of the codecs. Apple Lossless is not really lossless. If you look at any of the tests online, it is really just a very high-quality mp3/mp4. FLAC is the only one that I know that will give you a bit-perfect replay of the CD.

I would look around and see what player you like, but keep in the back of your mind that you can always get something that you can Rockbox. I love having my Ipod mini with the 32gb flash card and rockbox. The sound quality of the mini leaves some to be desired but if you get a nice 5.5 gen Ipod and a LOD the sound is supposed to be awesome. I am not sure how WMA lossless is but I absolutely love FLAC. If it is a matter of space you can always uncompress to .wav and then recompress at a higher compression. I use EAC and gladly take a little extra time to get a higher compression rate.

If you are not anal about being lossless or you don't have the cans to expose a lower-quality rip, I would just go with a HQ VBR mp3, which can play on literally every DAP you find, and is good on space. Otherwise, FLAC is your best option for lossless, and one of your only options for true lossless.
 
Jan 26, 2009 at 2:05 AM Post #24 of 62
If Apple Lossless isn't lossless then why does Foobar bit compare show 0 bits different with the .wav its encoded from?
 
Jan 26, 2009 at 2:19 AM Post #25 of 62
Quote:

Originally Posted by smrtby123 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
All the things that people are suggesting are good but you have to be careful with some of the codecs. Apple Lossless is not really lossless. If you look at any of the tests online, it is really just a very high-quality mp3/mp4. FLAC is the only one that I know that will give you a bit-perfect replay of the CD.


Is that so? If done correctly, a lossless file will be completely the same as its original wav file. As for the Apple Lossless not being lossless... So just how lossless is Apple Lossless? (A short test) - Mac Forums

There are others online, you can dig them up if you need more proof.
 
Jan 26, 2009 at 2:26 AM Post #26 of 62
The question of using a lossless file, WAV or AIFF is a basic question and one that is very difficult to get ones head around. I think a forum like this should exist to help people in need of understanding this issue. And I don't think most responses are informed enough. So even though someone will say, "lossless is indeed lossless", it doesn't explain that much. Whoever posts a question like this should be skeptical of all our answers until they have enough proof for themselves. So even though threads like this pop up quite a bit, we must keep posting responses that are easily understandable, non-patronizing, and as helpful as possible. So now it is my turn to take a shot at it. Since I was in the same position a few weeks ago, there were a couple of things that convinced me one way or the other. So let me start off by saying, yes, Apple Lossless is equal to WAV and AIFF. Apple Lossless sounds like just a marketing term but it is a lossless file. I will try to explain it from a beginners perspective, which I am myself. All the information on a CD can be compressed into a file. I know what you're thinking; compression equals compromised sound quality. But hear me out. Once that compressed file is ready to be played, it becomes uncompressed during playback. The original AIFF or WAV file is retained. Here is an example:

WAV or AIFF file-
8888888444455577777333333

The same file using Apple Lossless-
885442551773334 or 88(5)44(2)55(1)77(3)33(4)

Notice how the Apple Lossless file is smaller than the WAV or AIFF file. How Apple Lossless saves space on the file can be seen by the number following the first two numbers in the sequence. For instance, after the first two 8's, the following number is (5). That (5) represents five more 8's that follow the first two 8's. There are seven 8's in the original WAV or AIFF file and there are a total of seven 8's in the Apple file. Apple Lossless only stores that information on your hard drive using this algorithm. When that file is ready to be used, Apple Lossless unzips this compressed file and and all seven 8's are used in playback. The same goes for all the rest of the numbers in the sequence. Apple Lossless unzips back into the original AIFF or WAV file. Of course, you could be thinking that there could be errors in the algorithms that Apple Lossless uses. Or just by the nature of this change that sound quality could be lessened, however small. Well, what I said is from a beginners perspective. The proof will be in the actual measurements comparing these files. Hence, the next part of my reply. For an expert opinion and a fascinating article, click on the link by John Atkinson from Stereophile magazine. I hope this helps:

http://stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/

I had recently emailed John Atkinson about the issue of the lossless algorithm and whether or not it has an effect
on sound quality-

Me:
One of the other things I was wondering about reading your article is I was thinking that a CD ripped into AIFF or WAV is only one generation removed from the source. Whereas Apple Lossless or ALAC or any other lossless file is two generations removed from the source. This does not have any effect on sound quality? Could there be errors in the lossless algorithms?

John Atkinson:
No errors. But there is a processing overhead playing back a lossless-compressed file compared with an AIFF or WAV and some have cojectured that this does affect the sound. Personally, I don't believe so. But if you have enough hard-drive space, then rip as uncompressed format.
 
Jan 26, 2009 at 2:59 AM Post #27 of 62
Quote:

Originally Posted by smrtby123 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Apple Lossless is not really lossless. If you look at any of the tests online, it is really just a very high-quality mp3/mp4.


I believe someone lied to you and you believed him/her.

Anyways, ALAC, FLAC, wavepack and other lossless codecs are indeed lossless; however, because of differences in algorithm, some formats require more CPU power, which can then affect power consumption, temperature rise in the player, etc and in some cases, the player just cannot keep up with the labor intensive decoding in some cases clearly affecting the audio playback quality (i.e., skipping) or perhaps some players have built-in mechanisms to deal with these limitations that just reduces the quality of audio playback.
 
Jan 26, 2009 at 3:34 AM Post #28 of 62
It's probably people that just hate Apple and therefore campaign in any ridiculous way possible to defame them.
 
Jan 26, 2009 at 7:28 AM Post #29 of 62
In any case, it's better to stick with the lossless codec that your portable player best supports.

If you don't have one of those, run some tests on 3-5 tracks from your favorite CD and find out which codec works best.

Also, don't use programs other than EAC or dbPowerAmp if you can help it. These programs have consistently been noted for providing the best results when demanding bit-perfect ripping (because they have been programmed to do this very well).


For what it's worth, it's pretty dumb to believe that a company claiming their codec is lossless wouldn't be telling the truth. All of these popular codecs have been third-party tested hundreds of times to prove that they are indeed what they claim, so to claim that they don't do what they say they do because "I saw X!" means you're just doing it wrong, whatever "it" is.
 
Jan 26, 2009 at 1:49 PM Post #30 of 62
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomikans /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I would think lossless is lossless and it doesn't matter what kind of codec you use in terms of SQ. It just depends on which device you're playing on which codec to use.


There are differences. Some don't do random seeks well or recover if there's a hiccup in streaming. Last I knew Shorten didn't handle tags.

TAK is pretty popular on Hydrogen forum as it compresses well and fast. But that's only for Windows. As long as it's closed source it won't show up on Rockbox, or probably any portable.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top