Apple Lossless vs WAV files
Jul 8, 2008 at 5:08 AM Post #16 of 43
David Hunter, my dear friend, thank you for finally doing what nobody has ever been able to do before: explain lossless compression in a way that I can understand it.
biggrin.gif


Kudos.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 5:15 AM Post #17 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif
David Hunter, my dear friend, thank you for finally doing what nobody has ever been able to do before: explain lossless compression in a way that I can understand it.
biggrin.gif


Kudos.


Ahh, thank you so much. That was a very nice comment. Recently I posted a very similar question and even though the responses were earnest, it was still difficult for me to understand. Hopefully, this makes it a little easier when people come on to this forum for the first time and ask this question again.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 5:16 AM Post #18 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by cconnaker /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The possible issue comes into play when you have to decode a compressed track on the fly while playing it back.


not much computing power is used in this process so that really does not explain too much?
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 5:18 AM Post #19 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by cconnaker /img/forum/go_quote.gif
There is a growing number of people in the industry moving away from lossless compression to uncompressed wav or aiff. There is no doubt the files themselves can be converted back and forth and remain exact copies according to all the measures commonly used. The possible issue comes into play when you have to decode a compressed track on the fly while playing it back. I've spoke with more than a few designers and manufacturers who have offered up this information without me even asking. So, I am pretty sure I didn't steer the conversation :) I would love to provide sources who I speak with about this but I am not at liberty to say at the moment :frowning2:

Just thought I'd offer a differing opinion to those already expressed.


Oh, your comment is like offering candy to a baby and then taking it back. Please, you have to elaborate a bit more on who your sources are and why this is true.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 5:29 AM Post #21 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif
apple lossless is still a compressed file. wav is not. that's a difference. is it material. who knows.


c'mon man it is easy enough to run the cd, wav file and flac from the same pc to dac and find out

on my mac mini there is no difference between an aiff file and alac besides the size of the file.

while saying alac is compressed file is misleading, it is compressed in its stored state but uncompressed during playback
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 5:50 AM Post #22 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif
apple lossless is still a compressed file. wav is not. that's a difference. is it material. who knows.


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.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 6:08 AM Post #24 of 43
Well I can't claim to know their reason for making that statement, but as mentioned in this thread already, it takes processing cycles to decompress a compressed file. It is more efficient and less CPU-intensive to work directly from an uncompressed format.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 6:18 AM Post #25 of 43
Quote:

The highest available quality is achieved by importing music into iTunes as WAV files. WAV files are full resolution files equal to the original master source. Another good option for storing music in iTunes is Apple Lossless. Apple Lossless will allow you to preserve much of the performance of your music while not using as much space on your computer and iPod.


this doesn't seem to relate to CPU efficiency. it appears to state pretty clearly that wav is better than apple lossless.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 6:27 AM Post #26 of 43
First, I doubt the validity of that statement as Wadia's since it doesn't turn up any Google results other than on this thread and an equivalent forum thread on a German forum.

Second, that is either deceptive or unknowingly-mistaken marketing if it were valid. Or it was written by someone who clearly needs writing tips to accurately convey information. If I had been the one to write that part, I would've written this instead:

"The highest available quality for storing music in iTunes is Apple Lossless. Apple Lossless will allow you to preserve the performance of your music while not using as much space on your computer and iPod as uncompressed WAV files."
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 6:32 AM Post #29 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by Asr /img/forum/go_quote.gif
First, I doubt the validity of that statement as Wadia's since it doesn't turn up any Google results other than on this thread and an equivalent forum thread on a German forum.

Second, that is either deceptive or unknowingly-mistaken marketing if it were valid.


Evidently, it's from the manual for the iTransport:

"The highest available quality is achieved by importing music into iTunes as WAV files. WAV fles are full resolustion files equal to the original master source. Another good option for storing music in iTunes is Apple Lossless. Apple Lossless will allow you to preserve much of the performance of your music while not using as much space on your computer and iPod."
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 6:34 AM Post #30 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by badmonkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Why anyone would actually store naked WAV is beyond me.


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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top