[HCSUNSHINE90]

i always had my files on my ipod as ALAC but recently decided to try WAV. the WAV sounds better, notably the treble region and more open sounding overall. a second question while i'm here: if both WAV and ALAC are lossless and should take up about the same amount of space, why does WAV take up about twice as much space on my ipod as the ALAC format? i say "twice as much" because i am estimating by the folowing formula- i had an ipod nano 16 GB and i fit about 600 songs in ALAC format on it. i just got an ipod touch 64 GB (which should have about fourX capacity of the 16GB nano) and it can "only" hold about 1,200 songs in WAV format. so, just to review, 600 songs ALAC X four should be 2,400 songs. though, like i said, the 64 GB touch only holds 1,200 songs WAV which is half of 2,400. any thoughts appreciated.

 

[RRod]

  i always had my files on my ipod as ALAC but recently decided to try WAV. the WAV sounds better, notably the treble region and more open sounding overall. a second question while i'm here: if both WAV and ALAC are both lossless, why does WAV take up about twice as much space on my ipod as the ALAC format? i say "twice as much" because i am estimating by the folowing formula- i had an ipod nano 16 GB and i fit about 600 songs in ALAC format on it. i just got an ipod touch 64 GB (which should have about fourX capacity of the 16GB nano) and it can "only" hold about 1,200 songs in WAV format. so, just to review, 600 songs ALAC X four should be 2,400 songs. though, like i said, the 64 GB touch only holds 1,200 songs WAV which is half that. any thoughts appreciated.

 
WAV is an uncompressed format. ALAC is a lossless compression format, and thus will take less space (think BMP versus PNG). If you actually hear differences between WAV and ALAC, something is up because they should deliver the same data to the DAC of the iPod.

 

[goodvibes]

It's more than data. The player uses more resources to decode ALAC in real time. I always use wav on my best kit which is far better than anything portable. I actually like FLAC on my Studio V because it adds a touch of fill. 

 

[RRod]

  It's more than data. The player uses more resources to decode ALAC in real time. I always use wav on my best kit which is far better than anything portable. I actually like FLAC on my Studio V because it adds a touch of fill. 

 
Why would using more resources change the sound if the bits going to the DAC remain the same?

 

[goodvibes]

Probably noise and added buffers is somehow presenting those bits in a way that is subtly less good but the reason concerns me less than the result. It's the million dollar question but it needs to be asked after audition and not as a defense of position. No one can't explain the mechanism of gravity but I'm sure it exists. Different bit perfect servers sound different as well.
 
If you've ever played around with things like cubase, wavelab or better player programs, even with Weiss interfaces, top DACs and the associated kit was good enough, you'd hear changes from simply adjusting the bit perfect buffer size. In any case, this is one of the endlessly rotating arguments that I refuse to engage in length, like HiDef is a waste or high bit rate MP3 being as good as anything else or cables all sound the same debates. Listen for yourself and use what works for you. I'll enjoy my HiDef PCM wav.

 Thinking everything sounds the same is cheaper and easier but unfortunately for me, that's not even close to what I perceive and I do not directly equate cost with quality though some of the best kit happens to be expensive. 

 

[RRod]

  Probably noise and added buffers is somehow presenting those bits in a way that is subtly less good but the reason concerns me less than the result. It's the million dollar question but it needs to be asked after audition and not as a defense of position. No one can't explain the mechanism of gravity but I'm sure it exists. Different bit perfect servers sound different as well.
 
If you've ever played around with things like cubase, wavelab or better player programs, even with Weiss interfaces, top DACs and the associated kit was good enough, you'd hear changes from simply adjusting the bit perfect buffer size. In any case, this is one of the endlessly rotating arguments that I refuse to engage in length, like HiDef is a waste or high bit rate MP3 being as good as anything else or cables all sound the same debates. Listen for yourself and use what works for you. I'll enjoy my HiDef PCM wav.

 Thinking everything sounds the same is cheaper and easier but unfortunately for me, that's not even close to what I perceive and I do not directly equate cost with quality though some of the best kit happens to be expensive. 

 
That's all good and fine but the OP wants to have more music on his portable player, and unless Apple is making iPods that are really, really bad at decompressing ALAC, he should get equivalent results from it and WAV. Seeing as how my iPod Classic decompresses x264 peachily, I'll go out on a limb and say it can do ALAC ok.

 

[goodvibes]

Never debated that it's OK and said I preferred FLAC on one of my players. I just didn't question his hearing in the process as you seem keen on doing. His bias is an inclination to think they sound the same yet he hears a difference. Why force your opinion on him? He has a choice to make and I'm sure he'll choose what's right for him. 

 

[RRod]

  Never debated that it's OK and said I preferred FLAC on one of my players. I just didn't question his hearing in the process as you seem keen on doing. His bias is an inclination to think they sound the same yet he hears a difference. Why force your opinion on him? He has a choice to make and I'm sure he'll choose what's right for him. 

 
Well "hearing a difference" gets into the whole DBT/bias discussion which is beyond scope here. I've PMed with OP and he seems happy.

 

[faichiu]

  i always had my files on my ipod as ALAC but recently decided to try WAV. the WAV sounds better, notably the treble region and more open sounding overall. a second question while i'm here: if both WAV and ALAC are lossless and should take up about the same amount of space, why does WAV take up about twice as much space on my ipod as the ALAC format? i say "twice as much" because i am estimating by the folowing formula- i had an ipod nano 16 GB and i fit about 600 songs in ALAC format on it. i just got an ipod touch 64 GB (which should have about fourX capacity of the 16GB nano) and it can "only" hold about 1,200 songs in WAV format. so, just to review, 600 songs ALAC X four should be 2,400 songs. though, like i said, the 64 GB touch only holds 1,200 songs WAV which is half of 2,400. any thoughts appreciated.

I personally found many Portable players decode WAV better than other lossless files like flac, ape.  I am not sure why but same song will sound the same with foobar when I play it with computer or laptop in any lossless format.  So weird.

 

[HCSUNSHINE90]

i was INITIALLY semi-bummed that the WAV files took up more space than the ALAC files, but have since come to live w/ it. it's actually not a problem and i am happy. i am happy knowing that i am getting the best sound possible out of this ipod. now, if i thought the ALAC files sounded as good as the WAV files of course i would use the ALAC files and have more songs available on my new ipod touch. I am choosing quality over quantity.

 

[goodvibes]

   
Well "hearing a difference" gets into the whole DBT/bias discussion which is beyond scope here. I've PMed with OP and he seems happy.

with wav.

 

[RRod]

 
with wav.

 
I didn't say otherwise; only so much convincing one can do outside of actual controlled testing.

 

[goodvibes]

 

[ProtegeManiac]

  i always had my files on my ipod as ALAC but recently decided to try WAV. the WAV sounds better, notably the treble region and more open sounding overall. a second question while i'm here: if both WAV and ALAC are lossless and should take up about the same amount of space, why does WAV take up about twice as much space on my ipod as the ALAC format? i say "twice as much" because i am estimating by the folowing formula- i had an ipod nano 16 GB and i fit about 600 songs in ALAC format on it. i just got an ipod touch 64 GB (which should have about fourX capacity of the 16GB nano) and it can "only" hold about 1,200 songs in WAV format. so, just to review, 600 songs ALAC X four should be 2,400 songs. though, like i said, the 64 GB touch only holds 1,200 songs WAV which is half of 2,400. any thoughts appreciated.

 

Check the settings on the ALAC conversion process. If it lowers the gain (something many peole do with FLACs and MP3 due to the loudness wars, which contrary to what most of the population hears, actually compresses dynamics), then effectively you are listening to WAV at a louder level, even if you didn't touch the volume setting on the player. These observations are common when people compare DACs and amps - it may be easy to guess or suspect that the amps aren't at the same level, but not everyone has a voltage meter (plus a dB meter) to check if both DACs are outputting  the same signal strength, and some DACs cheat with slightly higher than 2volts in order to gain an advantage in subjective reviews. The Superpro707 DAC for example actually outputs around 6volts when using USB.