[tunes]

IS IT TRUE THAT "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."

It appears I was under the false assumption the Apple Lossess was a bit for bit copy.

To test this, I looked at a track I had copied to iTunes via Apple Lossless and it had a size of 24,500 kb; I then recopied it as a WAV file and the file size was 44,500 kb! I didn't look at the bit rate of this track prior, but looking at other tracks in my iTunes they generally range between 800-900 kbps, with some a little lower and some a little higher, but this is a good average. Every track copied as WAV are 1411 kbps.

Going by these numbers would seem to confirm Wadia's statements. Anyone care to agree or disagree or comment in general, before I re-rip everything as WAV?

 

[tpc41]

both file types are bit perfect, but ALAC has been compressed to save space, but it is then uncompressed before it is played and still provides lossless playback. there is no difference in sound quality between them.

 

[Oya?]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpc41 /img/forum/go_quote.gif both file types are bit perfect, but ALAC has been compressed to save space, but it is then uncompressed before it is played and still provides lossless playback. there is no difference in sound quality between them.

X2.

For normal listening there's no reason to use WAV in place of ALAC in iTunes.

 

[BigEat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpc41 /img/forum/go_quote.gif both file types are bit perfect, but ALAC has been compressed to save space, but it is then uncompressed before it is played and still provides lossless playback. there is no difference in sound quality between them.

Well said.

 

[Cheule]

Oya, I agree.

However I would go even further to say that for most normal listening Apple Lossless is probably better since it takes up less space, and is easier to stream to media centers! (or if your media center doesn't support ALAC, then use FLAC). The CPU required to play Apple Lossless is very low, so I really can't see how wav would be more desirable as a music storage format.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpc41 /img/forum/go_quote.gif both file types are bit perfect, but ALAC has been compressed to save space, but it is then uncompressed before it is played and still provides lossless playback. there is no difference in sound quality between them.

x4

Apple Lossless are as the name say Lossless. Meaning that it will keep a bit-identical copy of the source file' audio data. Which is decoded during playback.

 

[QQQ]

krmathis, maybe when i said threads like this arriving every week i was understating

 

[Oya?]

Quote:

Originally Posted by QQQ /img/forum/go_quote.gif krmathis, maybe when i said threads like this arriving every week i was understating

Verily.

Lossless encoding same as WAV? - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
Noticeable sonic differences between WAV, AIFF, and ALAC -- why? - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
Any Sound Difference Between Wav and Flac? - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
FLAC is brighter than WAV - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
WAV VS. LOSSLESS - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
WAV Vs. Other Lossless Formats!!! - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
Why does wav sound better than FLAC? - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
WAV, FLAC or APE ? - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
FLAC --> WAV/AIFF --> Apple Lossless - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
Apple Lossless Ok ? - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
Lossless encoding same as WAV? - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
Flac to Apple lossless, Difference - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
WAV VS. LOSSLESS - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
How good is WMA lossless? - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
Best Lossless to Encode With? - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
Apple lossless v. Flac - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio
Best Lossless codec? - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by QQQ /img/forum/go_quote.gif krmathis, maybe when i said threads like this arriving every week i was understating

That might be!
They seem to pop up almost daily this week... **shakes head**

 

[QQQ]

We need some kind of sticky or faq...

 

[davidhunternyc]

The question of using a lossless file, WAV or AIFF is a basic question and one that is very difficult to get ones head around. I think a forum like this should exist to help people in need of understanding this issue. And I don't think most responses are informed enough. So even though someone will say, "lossless is indeed lossless", it doesn't explain that much. Whoever posts a question like this should be skeptical of all our answers until they have enough proof for themselves. So even though threads like this pop up quite a bit, we must keep posting responses that are easily understandable, non-patronizing, and as helpful as possible. So now it is my turn to take a shot at it. Since I was in the same position a few weeks ago, there were a couple of things that convinced me one way or the other. So let me start off by saying, yes, Apple Lossless is equal to WAV and AIFF. Apple Lossless sounds like just a marketing term but it is a lossless file. I will try to explain it from a beginners perspective, which I am myself. All the information on a CD can be compressed into a file. I know what you're thinking; compression equals compromised sound quality. But hear me out. Once that compressed file is ready to be played, it becomes uncompressed during playback. The original AIFF or WAV file is retained. Here is an example:

WAV or AIFF file-
8888888444455577777333333

The same file using Apple Lossless-
885442551773334 or 88(5)44(2)55(1)77(3)33(4)

Notice how the Apple Lossless file is smaller than the WAV or AIFF file. How Apple Lossless saves space on the file can be seen by the number following the first two numbers in the sequence. For instance, after the first two 8's, the following number is (5). That (5) represents five more 8's that follow the first two 8's. There are seven 8's in the original WAV or AIFF file and there are a total of seven 8's in the Apple file. Apple Lossless only stores that information on your hard drive using this algorithm. When that file is ready to be used, Apple Lossless unzips this compressed file and and all seven 8's are used in playback. The same goes for all the rest of the numbers in the sequence. Apple Lossless unzips back into the original AIFF or WAV file. Of course, you could be thinking that there could be errors in the algorithms that Apple Lossless uses. Or just by the nature of this change that sound quality could be lessened, however small. Well, what I said is from a beginners perspective. The proof will be in the actual measurements comparing these files. Hence, the next part of my reply. For an expert opinion and a fascinating article, click on the link by John Atkinson from Stereophile magazine. I hope this helps:

Stereophile: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

I had recently emailed John Atkinson about the issue of the lossless algorithm and whether or not it has an effect
on sound quality-

Me:
One of the other things I was wondering about reading your article is I was thinking that a CD ripped into AIFF or WAV is only one generation removed from the source. Whereas Apple Lossless or ALAC or any other lossless file is two generations removed from the source. This does not have any effect on sound quality? Could there be errors in the lossless algorithms?

John Atkinson:
No errors. But there is a processing overhead playing back a lossless-compressed file compared with an AIFF or WAV and some have cojectured that this does affect the sound. Personally, I don't believe so. But if you have enough hard-drive space, then rip as uncompressed format. -- JA

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by QQQ /img/forum/go_quote.gif We need some kind of sticky or faq...

Well, I thought the names of the codecs should be self-explaining. But guess not...

ALAC - Apple Lossless Audio Codec
FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec

 

[davidhunternyc]

Bump

 

[Rico67]

ALAC is just like a zip file.
You can obtain the original file if you convert alac to aiff or wav, and size'll be identical at the file on the original audio cd.
So, ithink it's proof than ALAC is Lossless.

 

[cconnaker]

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

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