[bmichels]

I have been told by several people that they hear that the AIFF (un-compressed) versions are better than the ALAC (or FLAC) versions. So I tried to listen to several identical tracks in AIFF and ALAC, and... I have hard time to hear the difference ! ( ARIES -> HUGO -> BHSE -> SR009 )

--> do you really hear a difference ? on what aspect of the Sound signature I should concentrate to hear the difference ?

--> What Format do you use yourself most (compresses or uncompressed) ?

thanks a lot for your advices

 

[Music Alchemist]

The data is identical. You can convert between lossless formats endlessly and the data will still be identical.

FLAC and ALAC are compressed lossless while AIFF and WAV are uncompressed lossless. Think of compressed lossless like a ZIP archive. When in storage, it's compressed, but before/during playback, the data is uncompressed and the bitstream is identical.

If someone tells you that they hear a difference, then they have no idea what they are doing. One scenario could be that they downloaded, for example, AIFF files of an album from one source and FLAC files from another source. They could simply be listening to two different masters of a recording. Another possibility is a botched conversion. When you rely on others to convert the files, any number of things could have been done to them.

To do a proper comparison, you need to start with one file format, convert it to another yourself (using a program like dBpoweramp), then compare them. You're not likely to hear a difference between high bit rate lossy and lossless, much less different lossless formats.

All that being said, I use WAV simply because I can. There's no practical reason to do so. It takes up more space and has less compatibility with players and devices. Many don't realize that it does support metadata (tags and artwork), since it didn't in the past, but it does now. I just use it because I like the idea of using uncompressed files (even though there's no audible benefit) and the word "wave" sounds cool, like sound waves.

 

[bmichels]

well, I know that FLAC is lossless, but some argue that with UN-compressed files, the player's processor do not have to uncompress. And therefore uses less processing power...

 

[Music Alchemist]

well, I know that FLAC is lossless, but some argue that with UN-compressed files, the player's processor do not have to uncompress. And therefore uses less processing power...

I didn't mean to imply you didn't know; I just like to be thorough.

It may be true that there is less processing involved, but it should be negligible, and there's no reliable evidence to support the claim that it is audible. Many players uncompress the data before playback even starts. You can also program some to store the data in RAM before playback. Either way, the bitstream is identical.

To test the claims of those you have talked to who say uncompressed sounds different, you can direct them to this post and request that they follow the instructions there and share the results. (They would need to get at least 9/10 or 15/20 correct for the results to be statistically significant.)

Oh, and before that, they would need to convert the files themselves (not use files from different sources) with a high quality program like dBpoweramp (as well as making sure to remove any tags related to ReplayGain and DSP) in order to isolate the variables.

At any rate, what you hear is what's important. If you don't hear a difference, that settles the matter, I'd say.

A fun experiment you can do is to convert an uncompressed file to various bit rates to see where your threshold of audibility is. Take a WAV or AIFF file and convert it to various lossy (like AAC or MP3) files at 10, 20, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 360, etc. kbps. Then rapidly switch between the files in a music player. I'd bet you'd stop hearing a difference between the original file and lossy somewhere between 100 and 300 kbps, at least most of the time.

 

[bmichels]

thanks for all those infos. I have to admit that I already did test the same file between 16/44 redbook and 24/96 or 24/192 and... most of the time could not hear the difference ! so... my threshold of audibility is may be quite low ?

 

[Music Alchemist]

thanks for all those infos. I have to admit that I already did test the same file between 16/44 redbook and 24/96 or 24/192 and... most of the time could not hear the difference ! so... my threshold of audibility is may be quite low ?

That is a different issue. You're talking about hi-res audio.

Check out the links below to learn about how hi-res audio has no audible benefit over the Red Book PCM standard of 16-bit / 44.1 kHz.

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded.415361/

Some digital music stores try to trick consumers by selling different masters of recordings in hi-res and claiming that it's the hi-res file resolution that makes them sound different. But they only sound different when you are listening to different masters of a recording. If a certain master is only available as a hi-res download, you have no choice but to pay the premium if you want to purchase that master. It's a common practice for the music industry to not disclose what you're actually getting, and they can be very misleading.

To do proper comparisons, you need to convert the files yourself. (I use dBpoweramp, but there are many other programs you can use.)

For hi-res vs Red Book, start with the largest file and convert it to 16/44.

For uncompressed vs compressed lossless, the order you do it in doesn't matter, but make sure that all the files are 16/44.