[Jon L]

Just spent a few hours comparing Apple Lossless vs. wav vs. CD playing in CDR drive on the same silent PC using Lynx Two B card.

First off, wav files in itunes measure well over 2x the file size of Apple Lossless

Apple Lossless (compared to wav) tended to have slightly rounder/bloated midrange imaging and ever-so-slightly less detailed texture. Apple Lossless actually sounded a bit more forgiving than .wav, but there is no denying .wav files sound more neutral.

In fact, it's a tough decision between .wav files vs. same track playing on CD in CDR drive (through buffer?). These really are virtually identical, but there's actually slightly less mechanical quality to the .wav files that may put it over the top.

This is highly discouraging to me since I already have a lot of CD's ripped in Apple Lossless. Once I heard the superiority of .wav files, I don't think I have any other choice than re-ripping my CD's in .wav files.

BTW, I couldn't really tell that .wav sounded better over good headphone amps/good headphones. It's only when I hooked up my silent PC to my main rig that I could tell. Even then, I had to replace the Lynx breakout cable with a short DIY DB25 adapter and use a nice interconnect in order to get better transparency to tell the difference.

BTW, I'm looking for volunteers to either come over in person (So. Cal) or use Windows XP remote access to check out my EAC/Foobar settings. I can play CD's in CDR drive through Foobar, but it doesn't want to play ripped .wav files(via EAC).

 

[IstariAsuka]

*checks date*

Well, it's not April 1st...

 

[lan]

How do you make Apple Lossless files? YOu use EAC to make a WAV and then run it through itunes?

 

[aeriyn]

I don't understand how wav (lossless uncompressed) and alac (lossless compressed) could sound different, unless they were handled differently... i.e. one was ripped in EAC and one was ran straight through itunes.

 

[lan]

One thing, I'd skip doing the comparisions using CDRs on a CDROM. Do it on a harddrive.

 

[remilard]

This might be a good time to use that foobar abx comparator

 

[Woem]

You, sir, are an idiot.

Lossless means what goes in comes out. Exactly. To the bit. The only effect different formats of lossless could have would be some arcane interference pattern.

It's like .ZIP for music.

Your ears deceive you. Shut up and re-evaluate your alleged ear for music. It's not half as good as you think it is.

 

[skitlets]

If I were you woem, I'd probably edit out those words. I don't doubt he hears something, but not because .wavs are better than alac, but rather because he's playing one file off his hard drive and the other off the cd rom. And, there's a way to tastefully and respectfully express your opinion. I suggest you practice avoiding flaming.

 

[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woem You, sir, are an idiot. Lossless means what goes in comes out. Exactly. To the bit. The only effect different formats of lossless could have would be some arcane interference pattern. It's like .ZIP for music. Your ears deceive you. Shut up and re-evaluate your alleged ear for music. It's not half as good as you think it is.

Lets see if I got this right. You use your first post on this site to call another member an idiot, tell him to shut up and that his ears are not as good as he thinks all because he expressed an opinion you don't agree with. And you call him an idiot. Good job.

 

[Woem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrion Lets see if I got this right. You use your first post on this site to call another member an idiot, tell him to shut up and that his ears are not as good as he thinks all because he expressed an opinion you don't agree with. And you call him an idiot. Good job.

Precisely. There is no difference between a .WAV file, a .FLAC file, a .ALAC file, or whatever lossless media file you choose to play. Zero difference. It's scientifically impossible for there to be a difference in the output from the file reader, provided bug-free playback, which is simple to test. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that fact should stick with MP3 and computer speakers, because then you'll get audio quality suited to your level of technical competence.

My knowledge of lossless audio is no opinion, it is fact. He's hearing things that aren't there. In some circles that'd make him schizophrenic or delusional. I merely called into question his ability to distinguish these alleged artifacts.

Like I said, the only plausible explanation for his subjective differentiation is that the difference in the decompression routines is causing interference in the sound card. As this difference is negligible, compared to other varied processing tasks likely occuring simultaneously, I am completely discounting it. Claiming to hear this difference would make significantly less sense than saying that his music sounds sexier when he's browsing pornography. At least then there's some psychological reason for the change. Alternately, it would be exactly identical to saying that a file sounds better in foobar2000 than in Winamp when their diskwriter plugins return bit-identical output.

You, on the other hand, I will call technically incompetent, as you clearly do not understand the technology behind lossless compression. Do me a favour and do some research. Google is your friend, ignorance is not.

 

[aeriyn]

Oi, this is rich.

Where's a mod when you need one?

 

[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woem Precisely. There is no difference between a .WAV file, a .FLAC file, a .ALAC file, or whatever lossless media file you choose to play. Zero difference. It's scientifically impossible for there to be a difference in the output from the file reader, provided bug-free playback, which is simple to test. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that fact should stick with MP3 and computer speakers, because then you'll get audio quality suited to your level of technical competence. My knowledge of lossless audio is no opinion, it is fact. He's hearing things that aren't there. In some circles that'd make him schizophrenic or delusional. I merely called into question his ability to distinguish these alleged artifacts. Like I said, the only plausible explanation for his subjective differentiation is that the difference in the decompression routines is causing interference in the sound card. As this difference is negligible, compared to other varied processing tasks likely occuring simultaneously, I am completely discounting it. Claiming to hear this difference would make significantly less sense than saying that his music sounds sexier when he's browsing pornography. At least then there's some psychological reason for the change. Alternately, it would be exactly identical to saying that a file sounds better in foobar2000 than in WinAMP when their diskwriter plugins return bit-identical output. You, on the other hand, I will call technically incompetent, as you clearly do not understand the technology behind lossless compression. Do me a favour and do some research. Google is your friend, ignorance is not.

I didn't address whether I agreed with the initial post or not. I was commenting on your post. The "Good job" at the end was sarcasm. I thought it was your post that was the problem, not your disagreement with Jon L's opinion. Pay attention, you called him an idiot for expressing an opinion.

By the way, I use apple lossless files with a dac and an airport express.

 

[Woem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrion Pay attention, you called him an idiot for expressing an opinion.

Yes I did. I did exactly this because there is no way he could have possibly heard a difference. Placebo has him. He's hearing things that are not there. So, he's either clueless, ignorant, delusional, some combination thereof, or something else altogether. If there was error anywhere in the system, it would sound unlike any of the subjective qualities ascribed to the "differences" given. It'd be like claiming to have seen a purple zebra.

 

[Budley007]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woem You, sir, are an idiot. Lossless means what goes in comes out. Exactly. To the bit. The only effect different formats of lossless could have would be some arcane interference pattern. It's like .ZIP for music. Your ears deceive you. Shut up and re-evaluate your alleged ear for music. It's not half as good as you think it is.

Ummmm, do you expect anyone to take you seriously after this? My advice FWIW, is to create another account, then sprinkle it with a healthy dose of social tact. Rinse, repeat as necessary.

 

[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woem Yes I did. I did exactly this because there is no way he could have possibly heard a difference. Placebo has him. He's hearing things that are not there. So, he's either clueless, ignorant, delusional, some combination thereof, or something else altogether. If there was error anywhere in the system, it would sound unlike any of the subjective qualities ascribed to the "differences" given. It'd be like claiming to have seen a purple zebra.

I vote for these few posts by Woem to be a sticky as an example of how not to use your first 3 posts on head-fi. If only I had the power of a mod.