Apple lossless
Jul 6, 2009 at 12:57 AM Post #31 of 48
Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Huh?
evil_smiley.gif

All lossless audio codecs are true lossless, and certainly not limited to FLAC. Apple Lossless, WavPack, LA, Shorten, ... are all true lossless.

...and the "uncompressed files" part I do not understand. FLAC are indeed compressed.



You are correct FLAC can be compressed if you like. This compression still maintains a high quality standard of music and an unnoticeable hit to quality.
The reason people say uncompressed is because the vast majority of FLAC users will encode with no compression plus most Lossless codecs are un compressed anyways.
 
Jul 6, 2009 at 1:33 AM Post #32 of 48
Quote:

Originally Posted by FALC0NR14 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You are correct FLAC can be compressed if you like. This compression still maintains a high quality standard of music and an unnoticeable hit to quality.
The reason people say uncompressed is because the vast majority of FLAC users will encode with no compression plus most Lossless codecs are un compressed anyways.



I am confused by your use of the word "compression". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I am not aware that FLAC is able to make an uncompressed file. It always compresses the audio so that the file is smaller than what the original wave file was. That's compression (lossless compression).

FLAC does not do lossy compression where audio data is lost. It only does lossless compression where no audio data is lost and decoding gives you back the equivalent of the original wave file.

Information on FLAC is available at the SourceForge development site and the HydrogenAudio Wiki.
 
Jul 6, 2009 at 7:42 AM Post #33 of 48
Quote:

Originally Posted by FALC0NR14 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You are correct FLAC can be compressed if you like. This compression still maintains a high quality standard of music and an unnoticeable hit to quality.
The reason people say uncompressed is because the vast majority of FLAC users will encode with no compression plus most Lossless codecs are un compressed anyways.



I try again! What?
FLAC (and other lossless codecs) compress the audio data. That is how it achieve smaller files than the source file.

Which part of that do you not understand?
popcorn.gif
 
Jul 8, 2009 at 12:30 PM Post #34 of 48
I agree with some above posters that I am not sure I can tell lossless apart from 256+ mp3. Telling 128 mp3 and lossless apart is easy but above that seems pretty hard for me. I would love to train my ears better so I can do this, anyone know where I could do this?
 
Jul 8, 2009 at 1:40 PM Post #35 of 48
RIPPING with APPLE LOSSLESS, WAV, and AIFF. Explained.

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 any kind of change from the original file, 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:

http://stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/

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 conjectured 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.
 
Jul 8, 2009 at 2:10 PM Post #36 of 48
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vel /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I agree with some above posters that I am not sure I can tell lossless apart from 256+ mp3. Telling 128 mp3 and lossless apart is easy but above that seems pretty hard for me. I would love to train my ears better so I can do this, anyone know where I could do this?


google for mp3 or aac and "killer samples" for a start.

the encoders of today are much much more transparent at 128kbps than they were 8-10 years ago, so it may be harder with fresh encodes.
 
Jul 8, 2009 at 2:17 PM Post #37 of 48
Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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 conjectured 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.



I find it amusing that stereophile will resort to using measurements to argue the case against high bitrate music.

As for the processing overhead: negligible. You're liable to be bothered by the added hard drive noise from listening to uncompressed tracks. The cpu requirements to decode flac or alac are so low as to be laughable, especially with modern multi-core machines (and soon enough, embedded devices).


edit: damn, I hate opening a window to quote and forgetting to paste the posts back together again!
 
Jul 9, 2009 at 12:12 AM Post #38 of 48
Quote:

Originally Posted by ph0rk /img/forum/go_quote.gif
google for mp3 or aac and "killer samples" for a start.

the encoders of today are much much more transparent at 128kbps than they were 8-10 years ago, so it may be harder with fresh encodes.



Thanks, will do. Yeah, when I look at the few 128kbps songs I have back from the days of kazaa it's painful, whereas 128kbps rips now aren't all THAT bad (although still fairly easily told apart from lossless).

BTW loving your headphones
biggrin.gif
 
Jul 9, 2009 at 8:33 AM Post #39 of 48
Quote:

Originally Posted by ph0rk /img/forum/go_quote.gif
google for mp3 or aac and "killer samples" for a start.

the encoders of today are much much more transparent at 128kbps than they were 8-10 years ago, so it may be harder with fresh encodes.



Or try these problem samples, from HA.org.

Quote:



 
Jul 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM Post #40 of 48
Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Or try these problem samples, from HA.org.


Cheers for that, would you recommend I encode them into lower bit rates with a modern encoder (ie iTunes)? At which point should I definitely tell a difference? Is it just a matter of listening as carefully as possible for difference for awhile until my ability to discern improves?
 
Jul 9, 2009 at 1:28 PM Post #41 of 48
Most of the killer samples, particularly for 256 kbps or higher bitrates are encoder-specific, and a killer sample that is identifiable when encoded by lame 3.92 might not be identifiable when encoded by lame 3.97, and very likely not when encoded by the apple coreaudio AAC encoder.

Do you have the provenance for those samples, krmathis?
 
Jul 9, 2009 at 1:53 PM Post #42 of 48
Quote:

Originally Posted by ph0rk /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Do you have the provenance for those samples, krmathis?


No, I do not. But if I remember correctly they are samples who show flaws in the latest LAME version.
More in here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=35
 
May 11, 2010 at 6:36 PM Post #43 of 48
Hi, about how many songs can I have in an apple 32gb ipod touch whiling downloading songs with apple lossless?
apple site says it can store around 7000 songs with 128 aac format. How many songs can i get using apple lossless?
 
May 11, 2010 at 7:44 PM Post #44 of 48
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slickooz /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Hi, about how many songs can I have in an apple 32gb ipod touch whiling downloading songs with apple lossless?
apple site says it can store around 7000 songs with 128 aac format. How many songs can i get using apple lossless?




 
Leaving aside the (IMHO) stupidity of putting lossless tracks on a DAP, my rough calculation is about 3 CDs worth of music per GB
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top