[badmonkey]

Because FLAC is so fast it can be done at the same time when ripping. But yeah whatever. Doesn't matter.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asr /img/forum/go_quote.gif I for one am tired of seeing there be any question that lossless-compressed files aren't the same as uncompressed files, and the people questioning this obviously don't know any of the science behind computers so they should not be making any claims to the contrary. This has nothing to do with audio - lossless compression has been in use on the computer in the ZIP container format for over 15 years! If there were any errors with the ZIP algorithm, they would've been discovered by now! The following-generation lossless compression formats like RAR and GZIP are merely different lossless compression algorithms that achieve a better compression ratio. All of the original data is still there, you would get an error on the contained file(s) if it wasn't. Lossless compression is absolutely lossless and there should be NO question about it, and anyone dubious enough to question it needs merely to learn why. Lossless compression may be a new thing for audio specifically but it's been around practically since the computer was invented. The people who doubt this - do you download freeware? Shareware? Online games? Utility programs? More often than not, the installers for these programs are distributed in the EXE format which is also a lossless compressed format. EXEs are decompressed dynamically from the EXE container in the system RAM. Just because this process is invisible doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There is absolutely ZERO difference between a lossless-compressed file and the original uncompressed file as far as the container is concerned.

Very well put!
I am amazed of the amount of people who question if lossless data (music in this case) are indeed store lossless.

 

[xxbaker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif Because it would take time to convert all my WAV files to lossless. Space isn't an issue for me, so why would I waste my time?

it takes a negligible amount of time to convert when ripping cds. if you're referring to an already existing library you can just select all files and tell your computer to convert them, then let it crunch overnight. i doubt it would take longer than that since i bulk converted about 10 gb of music in about a half hour. so if you have 100 gb then it would take about 5 hours. also it saves a huge amount of space. alac compresses about 50% on average, same with flac so you'd free up close to 50gb

 

[E.B.M.Head]

The compression ratio depends on the type of music. Complex stuff like Death Metal or Power Electronics often can only be squeezed by 30% or less, while non complex music like classical symphonies often reach a compression ratio of 60 - 70%.
Another reason to use ALAC, FLAC or WavPack is that they can store the tags like MP3 can with ID3 Tags, while WAV has no tagging standard.

 

[TopPop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxbaker /img/forum/go_quote.gif it takes a negligible amount of time to convert when ripping cds. if you're referring to an already existing library you can just select all files and tell your computer to convert them, then let it crunch overnight. i doubt it would take longer than that since i bulk converted about 10 gb of music in about a half hour. so if you have 100 gb then it would take about 5 hours. also it saves a huge amount of space. alac compresses about 50% on average, same with flac so you'd free up close to 50gb

I have my music files on a 500 GB external HDD that I use exclusively for laptop backup and music storage.

So... space is not an issue... I'd rather just leave my files in their uncompressed format, and not spend time doing something that just doesn't make any sense for me.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Very well put! I am amazed of the amount of people who question if lossless data (music in this case) are indeed store lossless.

People hear what they want to hear and believe what they must.

Tim

 

[Chri5peed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by E.B.M.Head /img/forum/go_quote.gif The compression ratio depends on the type of music. Complex stuff like Death Metal or Power Electronics often can only be squeezed by 30% or less, while non complex music like classical symphonies often reach a compression ratio of 60 - 70%. Another reason to use ALAC, FLAC or WavPack is that they can store the tags like MP3 can with ID3 Tags, while WAV has no tagging standard.

To all intents & purposes, lossless is essentially variable bitrate...in that 5 minutes is about 30MB, but it may well be a lot bigger or smaller.

I have numerous songs[at the end of albums], which start with a regular 3 or 4 minute song followed by maybe 20 minutes of silence.
They're 24 minute tracks, but have more in common size-wise with a 4 minute song than a 24 minute one.

 

[davidhunternyc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif this doesn't seem to relate to CPU efficiency. it appears to state pretty clearly that wav is better than apple lossless.

In my thread on the 2nd page, there is a link to John Atkinson's test on this matter. His article is very clear and concise. It will not lay to rest your doubts but it addresses them clearly.

 

[davidhunternyc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif this doesn't seem to relate to CPU efficiency. it appears to state pretty clearly that wav is better than apple lossless.

I know this is crazy for me to say it but Wadia is wrong. The original master source is a PCM file. A CD is a .cda file. The closest that a WAV file can get to is a CD's .cda file. To get the PCM file, you would have to go back to the master recording in the studio. Wadia's quotation on page 7 just reeks of marketing promotion.

 

[vcoheda]

i don't care that much, b/c i use CDs. but this is the first time, i believe, i have seen a major audio company and one known for making very good products clearly endorse the superiority of wav over other lossless formats and that to me seems significant, esp since the endorsement comes in connection with a product and company (apple) that has developed a lossless format.

 

[davidhunternyc]

I love listening to CD's too by the way. Also, there was no judgement on my part of Wadia. It is just amazing that such a brilliant and reputable company would come out and make a statement like they did. Maybe Wadia knows something about lossless that we don't, but like I said before, there has been independent testing comparing all of these file formats. Lossless was not deemed inferior in any way.

 

[roethlar]

Don't forget about the massive conspiracy that foobar2000 is supporting with their bit compare plugin! That will actually compare, bit by bit, the playback of two files and tell you if they are identical. When comparing three copies of the same song, all ripped from the same CD, one in .wav, one in .flac, and one in apple lossless, foobar had the AUDACITY to tell me they were the same!!!1!1

Lies!

Clearly, and most sensibly, the best outcome is attained only when ripping a CD at 1x speed from a (minimum) $2000 CD drive, balanced on spikes, over an ultra 320 SCSI chain (with nothing else attached to it!!) and encoding to two SEPARATE .wav files, one for EACH CHANNEL, then playing it back with two SEPARATE players, preferably on different computers so as to not muddy the stereo separation, with specially made software that will keep both channels in sync. It's best to have individual hard drives for each song / channel.

Anything else is crap and should only be played for rutting mules.

 

[badmonkey]

Yeah you can't rely on Foobar, it has that ABX thingy. Clearly not to be trusted.