[Bojamijams]

Quote:

Originally Posted by larry /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have high suspect in this too. It is because that time at the shop there I do not have iTunes or EAC on my netbook.

I'd also go with WMP being a crappy ripper and NOT bit-perfect which is why your WAV files didn't sound as good as his ALAC.

 

[mark2410]

lossless by definition is lossless, both ought to be identical

 

[insyte]

They should sound the same

 

[Ashkii21]

Both file formats are lossless, they should sound the same. And maybe you just miss heard the guy at the store (or he just wanted to make a sale), ALAC is better than wave, size wise. If you do not have a lot of storage space for the files (since ALAC will compress the files, smaller file size than wave but same info) you can fit more ALAC files on a hard drive than wave files. Also EAC should be used to get the wave/flac files from a cd.

 

[larry]

Thanks everyone for chipping in all the information about this issue I have. After reading the information you people given me, I have come to a solution to test out whether Apple Lossless is closer to CD quality then WAVE. I will be using my netbook as the source instead of using the shop owner netbook as Apple Lossless and my as WAVE. For the ripping part I will be using iTunes to rip my CD into Apple Lossless and WAVE. I do not use EAC for the ripping is because EAC BY RIGHT do not support Apple Lossless encoding. For the playback part I will be using iTunes also. I do not use Foobar2000 is because Foobar2000 BY RIGHT do not support Apple Lossless playback. I will try to get everything as "default" as possible without using any plug-in or addon feature for ripping and playback to have a very pure test on this two audio file format. The equipment as my netbook USB port will remain unchange through out the test. Fair enough?

 

[krmathis]

Happy testing!