[Rubber_Soul]

Is Apple Lossless just as good as Wav or is it inferior?

 

[Bizzel]

Since it's a lossless codec (i.e. no data is thrown away) it will sound identical to a wav file with no loss in quality. It's just like zipping a document.

 

[aluren]

well wav is at 1411kbps and apple lossless is usually a little less, around 700-1100kbps...

 

[dougwx12]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluren /img/forum/go_quote.gif well wav is at 1411kbps and apple lossless is usually a little less, around 700-1100kbps...

Doesn't mean anything. That extra data is likely all zeroes (unused), and is the first thing to get compressed out.

If apple lossless doesn't decode to the *identical* PCM that the WAV would generate, then it's a bug in the software decoder (or encoder). But that's really a huge aberration, and if you find an example, I'm sure Apple would love to get a bug report.

In other words, your DAC will see the exact same bitstream with either one.

 

[jjcha]

John Atkinson confirmed that Apple Lossless is bit perfect to the original WAV (and not only that, the Airport Express is also bit perfect).

http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/505apple/

Best,

-Jason

 

[gundam91]

I've been thinking about this topic lately as I've continue to find the FLAC files to sound lean when compared to .WAV files. There's an article on the April/May 2007 issue of The Absolute Sound (TAS) on the Esoteric digital front ends. It mentioned all the known factors from reading the disc to coverting the information to analog signal, and stated that there are still unknown factors waiting to be discovered. They even mentioned that the difference in the lengths of the pit on the CDs could alter the sound.

I am speculating that some of the same logic may apply here as players convert lossless files to .WAV on the fly. Maybe not the same factors/issues identified in that article, but some external factors affecting the process.

I think comparing lossless format to ZIP may not apple to apple, as ZIP does not have the element of timing associate to it. You ZIP a file, you unzip a file, then you play the file in its original format. Playing lossless file is like combining the last two steps into one, so time/jitter has to be a factor.

But what do I know!

I don't even have a degree in engineering. So all this could just be bunch of B.S. generatied by my tiny brain.

 

[dougwx12]

Well, ultimately it's up to what you hear. And there are completely non-technical factors that can roll into that. I hesitate to call it an "emperor's new clothes" effect, because that has more of a negative connotation than I'd like. You hear what you hear.

Technically, there are very few reasons for any differences:

- The aforementioned defects in the software. If you take a WAV file and encode it lossless, then decode it lossless, and don't end up with an identical file, that's a software defect, which would mean a modified bitstream. Should be extremely rare in something mature like FLAC or ALAC; I've never found one.

- Lossless compression does involve an engineering tradeoff between storage I/O bandwidth (disk or flash) and memory/CPU usage. WAV will need more of the storage bus, and lossless decoding will need more CPU and RAM. While I'm sure that there are some embedded devices where this would matter, any general purpose computer (mac or PC) built in the last decade would barely notice the difference. Ditto for every Ipod ever made. Furthermore, if this caused an audible difference, I'd expect it to be a skip, not modified sound. But who knows; every device is implemented differently.

- Certain players will have different sound/eq settings on a per format basis, which might bite the unwary.

I'm not advocating that I think differences are likely. I can't hear any, and I know the technical stuff. There's no difference at the bit level for all practical purposes.

 

[gundam91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dougwx12 /img/forum/go_quote.gif - Certain players will have different sound/eq settings on a per format basis, which might bite the unwary. I'm not advocating that I think differences are likely. I can't hear any, and I know the technical stuff. There's no difference at the bit level for all practical purposes.

I am not advocating that there's bit difference between the files. I believe that the files is the same. I am just saying that maybe "time" or "jitter" may be a factor because of the fact that it's decoding "on the fly". Maybe it's a hardware issue as I am comparing them through the X5, not through the computer. So your last point may be the answer to my observation.

I had intially thought maybe it's a placebo effect thing, so I brought the player and plugged it into a friend's main system consisted of Audio Aero CD player, ARC Ref 2 Mk II, LAMM 1.2 monoblocks, Avalon Eidolon speakers. I didn't tell them what they were hearing just ask them to check out my new toy. Both of them made the same observation about the differences.

 

[ywd]

I'm pretty sure wav files are the most battery-efficient way to listen to music on an ipod, but take up up to twice the space of ALAC files. They should sound identical, however.

 

[FenderP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ywd /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm pretty sure wav files are the most battery-efficient way to listen to music on an ipod, but take up up to twice the space of ALAC files. They should sound identical, however.

Uncompressed WAV or AIFF files on any player is the worst you can do for battery life. Efficient - I think not. Efficient at draining the battery quicker - absolutely!

 

[Digitalbath3737]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenderP /img/forum/go_quote.gif Uncompressed WAV or AIFF files on any player is the worst you can do for battery life. Efficient - I think not. Efficient at draining the battery quicker - absolutely!

x2

 

[Andrew Pielet]

Apple lossless files are about 3/10ths smaller than AIFF'S. Reason enough for me to convert to Apple Lossless.

They make it easy enough in iTunes, with a command Advanced> Convert selection to

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rubber_Soul /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is Apple Lossless just as good as Wav or is it inferior?

Apple Lossless is on par with WAVE (AIFF, or other PCM containers) when it comes to sound quality, since they contain the exact same audio data.
But Apple Lossless have an advantage over WAVE when it comes to features.
* It can hold tags, artwork, lyrics, etc...
* It occupy less storage space, since it compress to an average of +-65% of WAVE file size.

 

[Sherwood]

The chief uses of battery power on a player are driving the output stage, powering the screen, and filling the read buffer from the hard drive. Decoding takes almost no power. The smaller the file, the more battery life.